fivethirthyeight--2020-09-01--Today’s Elections In Massachusetts Are Another Big Test For The Progressive Movement

In 45 states , the advent of September means it ’ s time to focus on the general election .
But there are still a few primaries left to be resolved — most notably in Massachusetts , where progressives and the Democratic Party establishment are waging their final war of 2020 .
And because the Bay State — and all nine of its congressional districts — are solidly blue , today ’ s elections will essentially decide its next members of Congress .
Like many Democratic primaries this year , the Massachusetts U.S. Senate race pits an incumbent who has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insurgent arguing it ’ s time for a new generation of leadership .
But that ’ s about where the comparison ends .
The young upstart is Rep. Joe Kennedy III , scion of perhaps the most establishment family in politics .
( Among his great-uncles were President John F. Kennedy and Sen. Ted Kennedy , who died in 2009 . )
And incumbent Sen. Ed Markey , despite his 44-year tenure in Congress , is a steadfast progressive who co-wrote the Green New Deal with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez .
As such , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the contest for himself : Ocasio-Cortez , Sen. Elizabeth Warren , Our Revolution and the Sunrise Movement have all endorsed him .
Meanwhile , Kennedy ’ s endorsers include establishment heavyweights such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi .
But in reality , the two candidates largely share the same progressive policy views and have voted similarly in Congress .
So without a clear ideological contrast , Kennedy has arguably struggled to articulate why he feels that Markey doesn ’ t deserve another term .
Long-standing grumblings that Markey doesn ’ t spend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stick to the incumbent , leaving Kennedy open to attacks that he is running only because of his family ’ s privilege , which Markey has contrasted with his own working-class upbringing .
However , despite the vitriol that has come to characterize the campaign , most Bay Staters see the race as a choice between two good Democrats .
According to a Suffolk University poll from last week , 71 percent of likely Democratic primary voters had a favorable opinion of Markey , and 63 percent had a favorable opinion of Kennedy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ head-to-head polls of the race show Markey with an average lead of 10 percentage points .
That ’ s a pretty big shift from earlier this year , when Kennedy was leading in most polls .
A lot of that early lead was probably name recognition , though , as Markey was not terribly well known for an incumbent — and Kennedy had already aired millions of dollars ’ worth of TV ads before Markey first went on the air in late July .
But Markey ’ s recent spending blitz appears to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among younger and more college-educated voters .
However , Kennedy has still outspent Markey $ 10.2 million to $ 7.1 million since Oct. 1 , 2019 ( about a week after he entered the race ) , although the two candidates have received roughly the same amount of help ( around $ 4 million ) from outside groups .
But no matter what happens today , history will be made .
It will be the first time either a sitting U.S. senator or a Kennedy has lost a contested primary in Massachusetts .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic primary in Western Massachusetts ’ s 1st Congressional District started out as another establishment-versus-insurgent fight between Rep. Richard Neal , a 16-term incumbent who chairs the Ways and Means Committee , and Holyoke Mayor Alex Morse , a 31-year-old progressive .
But the race took a dramatic turn when Morse , who is gay , was accused of sexual misconduct — even more scandalous given the allegations appeared to be part of a political hit job .
On Aug. 7 , the College Democrats of Massachusetts alleged that Morse had inappropriate sexual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , before that , as an adjunct instructor at UMass Amherst .
Morse denied ever having a “ non-consensual sexual encounter ” or violating UMass policies , but admitted that he ’ d had consensual relationships with students at area universities and apologized for making some students feel uncomfortable .
But things took a turn on Aug. 12 when left-leaning outlet The Intercept reported that leaders of the College Democrats had conspired to create a sex scandal and sink Morse ’ s campaign to win favor with Neal .
For his part , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the College Democrats ’ president claimed they had acted in good faith .
The revelations , however , cast serious doubts on the allegations against Morse .
Further reporting from The Intercept also suggests that the state Democratic Party may have been involved in the effort to spread the allegations , and that the party ’ s executive director told leaders of the College Democrats to delete communication records .
Overall , the race appears to be quite close .
In the aftermath of The Intercept ’ s initial story , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in fundraising , and a mid-August internal poll from Morse ’ s campaign found Neal ahead by only 5 points , 46 percent to 41 percent .
Still , a late-August survey from RABA Research/Jewish Insider found Neal up 49 percent to 40 percent , and the longtime incumbent holds a huge edge in fundraising .
As of Aug. 12 , Neal had already spent more than four times as much as Morse ( $ 4.3 million versus $ 1.0 million ) and had nine times as much in the bank for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 2.8 million to nearly $ 297,000 ) .
Outside groups have also spent almost $ 1.9 million supporting Neal or attacking Morse , more than the $ 1.5 million boosting Morse or slamming Neal .
Neal also got an unusual endorsement from Republican Gov .
Charlie Baker .
In most states , such cross-party support might well hurt Neal , but an August survey of the Democratic primary electorate from UMass Lowell found that 89 percent ( ! )
approved of Baker ’ s performance as governor .
Another wide-open race can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 4th Congressional District , which stretches from wealthy Boston suburbs to working-class cities along the Rhode Island border .
Seven Democrats are running here , five of whom have raised more than $ 1 million .
Alan Khazei , the co-founder of City Year , probably entered the campaign as the best-known candidate thanks to two past U.S. Senate runs ( he lost but captured a lot of grassroots energy ) .
And he remains the race ’ s top fundraiser ( $ 1.8 million ) .
But early polls more consistently showed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ daughter-in-law of former Democratic National Committee Chair Steve Grossman , with the most support .
Fellow Newton City Councilor Jake Auchincloss , a Marine veteran endorsed by The Boston Globe , has also emerged as a front-runner : He has spent more than any candidate ( $ 1.4 million ) , and a super PAC partially funded by his parents has chipped in another $ 532,620 .
But he has also had to apologize for some offensive comments he has made over the years .
A super PAC affiliated with Emily ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attack Auchincloss and Khazei , although the women ’ s group has not chosen a favorite among the four women in the race .
In addition , former Wall Street regulator Ihssane Leckey has also parlayed her personal fortune ( she has loaned $ 1 million to her own campaign ) to become a factor in the race : According to her campaign ’ s internal polling , she gained 8 points in the race from June to August .
But now the momentum might be with former Brookline Select Board member Jesse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates Dave Cavell and Chris Zannetos both dropped out and endorsed Mermell — Cavell doing so with the explicit goal of consolidating the progressive vote against Auchincloss .
The most recent poll of the race , from RABA Research/Jewish Insider , showed Auchincloss and Mermell as the two leading candidates .
Rounding out the field , epidemiologist Natalia Linos significantly trails the others in fundraising but was part of a six-way virtual tie for first place in a mid-August Data for Progress poll .
Only a win by attorney Ben Sigel , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both polls and fundraising , would be a true upset .
The last primary we ’ re watching is the 8th Congressional District , where Democratic Rep. Stephen Lynch faces a progressive challenge from physician Robbie Goldstein .
Lynch has long had a reputation for being a moderate , especially because of his more conservative stance on abortion rights .
And with the ongoing coronavirus pandemic , Goldstein ’ s background as an infectious-disease expert could attract support , too .
Understandably , Goldstein has focused on health care , backing a single-payer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lynch , who actually voted against the Affordable Care Act in 2010 .
However , the reason Lynch voted against the ACA is because he said the legislation didn ’ t go far enough to rein in insurance companies .
So far , though , Goldstein has outraised Lynch in the past two filing periods , bringing in about $ 340,000 to Lynch ’ s $ 52,000 in that time .
Although Lynch has a much larger war chest because of previous fundraising — he had about $ 1.5 million cash on hand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as of Aug. 12 — he may not be using that much of it .
Politico reported last week that Lynch had made only very small television and digital ad buys , and Goldstein has spent more on advertising than Lynch so far this year .
A poll released in early August by Goldstein ’ s campaign found Lynch ahead by only 7 points , 39 percent to 32 percent , so the challenger might have a shot at an upset .
Nonetheless , one of Lynch ’ s online ads says he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from , ” and given his background as an ironworker-turned-lawyer and Irish Catholic , if he wins handily today that might help explain why .
Lynch ’ s profile fits the traditional culture of the area he represents , and in his nearly two decades in the House , he ’ s seen off every primary challenge with ease .
The 8th District takes in South Boston , a historically working-class and Irish American community .
Although the area has been changing in recent years , 29 percent of the district ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than any other district in the country .
There ’ s certainly plenty of electoral excitement in Massachusetts today , and as we ’ ve discussed , some surprises could be in store .
We ’ ll be following the ins and outs of each contest tonight on Twitter , so please follow along !

In 45 states, the advent of September means it’s time to focus on the general election. But there are still a few primaries left to be resolved — most notably in Massachusetts, where progressives and the Democratic Party establishment are waging their final war of 2020. And because the Bay State — and all nine of its congressional districts — are solidly blue, today’s elections will essentially decide its next members of Congress.
Like many Democratic primaries this year, the Massachusetts U.S. Senate race pits an incumbent who has served in Congress for decades against an insurgent arguing it’s time for a new generation of leadership. But that’s about where the comparison ends. The young upstart is Rep. Joe Kennedy III, scion of perhaps the most establishment family in politics. (Among his great-uncles were President John F. Kennedy and Sen. Ted Kennedy, who died in 2009.) And incumbent Sen. Ed Markey, despite his 44-year tenure in Congress, is a steadfast progressive who co-wrote the Green New Deal with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
As such, Markey has successfully claimed the left lane of the contest for himself: Ocasio-Cortez, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Our Revolution and the Sunrise Movement have all endorsed him. Meanwhile, Kennedy’s endorsers include establishment heavyweights such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. But in reality, the two candidates largely share the same progressive policy views and have voted similarly in Congress.
So without a clear ideological contrast, Kennedy has arguably struggled to articulate why he feels that Markey doesn’t deserve another term. Long-standing grumblings that Markey doesn’t spend enough time in Massachusetts have failed to stick to the incumbent, leaving Kennedy open to attacks that he is running only because of his family’s privilege, which Markey has contrasted with his own working-class upbringing.
However, despite the vitriol that has come to characterize the campaign, most Bay Staters see the race as a choice between two good Democrats. According to a Suffolk University poll from last week, 71 percent of likely Democratic primary voters had a favorable opinion of Markey, and 63 percent had a favorable opinion of Kennedy. That said, the last four head-to-head polls of the race show Markey with an average lead of 10 percentage points. That’s a pretty big shift from earlier this year, when Kennedy was leading in most polls.
Markey has taken the lead Polls of the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts conducted so far in 2020 Dates Pollster Markey Kennedy Margin 8/25-27 Emerson College 56% 44% +12 8/24-25 Data for Progress 50 43 +7 8/23-25 Suffolk University 51 41 +10 8/13-21 UMass Lowell 52 40 +12 8/12-16 SurveyUSA 44 42 +2 7/31-8/7 UMass Amherst 51 36 +15 7/29-30 JMC Analytics 44 41 +3 5/5-6 Emerson College 42 58 +16 4/27-5/1 UMass Lowell 42 44 +2 2/26-28 Suffolk University 36 42 +6 2/18-24 UMass Amherst 43 40 +3 2/12-19 UMass Lowell 34 35 +1 Includes respondents who leaned toward one candidate or the other. Source: Polls
A lot of that early lead was probably name recognition, though, as Markey was not terribly well known for an incumbent — and Kennedy had already aired millions of dollars’ worth of TV ads before Markey first went on the air in late July. But Markey’s recent spending blitz appears to have shored up his support, especially among younger and more college-educated voters. However, Kennedy has still outspent Markey $10.2 million to $7.1 million since Oct. 1, 2019 (about a week after he entered the race), although the two candidates have received roughly the same amount of help (around $4 million) from outside groups.
But no matter what happens today, history will be made. It will be the first time either a sitting U.S. senator or a Kennedy has lost a contested primary in Massachusetts.
Turning to the House races, the Democratic primary in Western Massachusetts’s 1st Congressional District started out as another establishment-versus-insurgent fight between Rep. Richard Neal, a 16-term incumbent who chairs the Ways and Means Committee, and Holyoke Mayor Alex Morse, a 31-year-old progressive. But the race took a dramatic turn when Morse, who is gay, was accused of sexual misconduct — even more scandalous given the allegations appeared to be part of a political hit job.
On Aug. 7, the College Democrats of Massachusetts alleged that Morse had inappropriate sexual relations with students as a candidate and, before that, as an adjunct instructor at UMass Amherst. Morse denied ever having a “non-consensual sexual encounter” or violating UMass policies, but admitted that he’d had consensual relationships with students at area universities and apologized for making some students feel uncomfortable. But things took a turn on Aug. 12 when left-leaning outlet The Intercept reported that leaders of the College Democrats had conspired to create a sex scandal and sink Morse’s campaign to win favor with Neal. For his part, Neal’s campaign denied any involvement, and the College Democrats’ president claimed they had acted in good faith. The revelations, however, cast serious doubts on the allegations against Morse. Further reporting from The Intercept also suggests that the state Democratic Party may have been involved in the effort to spread the allegations, and that the party’s executive director told leaders of the College Democrats to delete communication records.
Overall, the race appears to be quite close. In the aftermath of The Intercept’s initial story, Morse’s campaign enjoyed a surge in fundraising, and a mid-August internal poll from Morse’s campaign found Neal ahead by only 5 points, 46 percent to 41 percent. Still, a late-August survey from RABA Research/Jewish Insider found Neal up 49 percent to 40 percent, and the longtime incumbent holds a huge edge in fundraising. As of Aug. 12, Neal had already spent more than four times as much as Morse ($4.3 million versus $1.0 million) and had nine times as much in the bank for the final weeks of the primary (nearly $2.8 million to nearly $297,000). Outside groups have also spent almost $1.9 million supporting Neal or attacking Morse, more than the $1.5 million boosting Morse or slamming Neal. Neal also got an unusual endorsement from Republican Gov. Charlie Baker. In most states, such cross-party support might well hurt Neal, but an August survey of the Democratic primary electorate from UMass Lowell found that 89 percent (!) approved of Baker’s performance as governor.
Another wide-open race can be found in Kennedy’s old 4th Congressional District, which stretches from wealthy Boston suburbs to working-class cities along the Rhode Island border. Seven Democrats are running here, five of whom have raised more than $1 million.
Alan Khazei, the co-founder of City Year, probably entered the campaign as the best-known candidate thanks to two past U.S. Senate runs (he lost but captured a lot of grassroots energy). And he remains the race’s top fundraiser ($1.8 million). But early polls more consistently showed Newton City Councilor Becky Grossman, the daughter-in-law of former Democratic National Committee Chair Steve Grossman, with the most support. Fellow Newton City Councilor Jake Auchincloss, a Marine veteran endorsed by The Boston Globe, has also emerged as a front-runner: He has spent more than any candidate ($1.4 million), and a super PAC partially funded by his parents has chipped in another $532,620. But he has also had to apologize for some offensive comments he has made over the years. A super PAC affiliated with Emily’s List has also spent $652,846 to attack Auchincloss and Khazei, although the women’s group has not chosen a favorite among the four women in the race.
In addition, former Wall Street regulator Ihssane Leckey has also parlayed her personal fortune (she has loaned $1 million to her own campaign) to become a factor in the race: According to her campaign’s internal polling, she gained 8 points in the race from June to August. But now the momentum might be with former Brookline Select Board member Jesse Mermell. In August, 4th District candidates Dave Cavell and Chris Zannetos both dropped out and endorsed Mermell — Cavell doing so with the explicit goal of consolidating the progressive vote against Auchincloss. The most recent poll of the race, from RABA Research/Jewish Insider, showed Auchincloss and Mermell as the two leading candidates.
Rounding out the field, epidemiologist Natalia Linos significantly trails the others in fundraising but was part of a six-way virtual tie for first place in a mid-August Data for Progress poll. Only a win by attorney Ben Sigel, who is last among the remaining candidates in both polls and fundraising, would be a true upset.
The last primary we’re watching is the 8th Congressional District, where Democratic Rep. Stephen Lynch faces a progressive challenge from physician Robbie Goldstein. Lynch has long had a reputation for being a moderate, especially because of his more conservative stance on abortion rights. And with the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, Goldstein’s background as an infectious-disease expert could attract support, too. Understandably, Goldstein has focused on health care, backing a single-payer system and trying to contrast himself with Lynch, who actually voted against the Affordable Care Act in 2010. However, the reason Lynch voted against the ACA is because he said the legislation didn’t go far enough to rein in insurance companies.
So far, though, Goldstein has outraised Lynch in the past two filing periods, bringing in about $340,000 to Lynch’s $52,000 in that time. Although Lynch has a much larger war chest because of previous fundraising — he had about $1.5 million cash on hand compared with Goldstein’s $225,000 as of Aug. 12 — he may not be using that much of it. Politico reported last week that Lynch had made only very small television and digital ad buys, and Goldstein has spent more on advertising than Lynch so far this year. A poll released in early August by Goldstein’s campaign found Lynch ahead by only 7 points, 39 percent to 32 percent, so the challenger might have a shot at an upset.
Nonetheless, one of Lynch’s online ads says he “has never forgotten where he came from,” and given his background as an ironworker-turned-lawyer and Irish Catholic, if he wins handily today that might help explain why. Lynch’s profile fits the traditional culture of the area he represents, and in his nearly two decades in the House, he’s seen off every primary challenge with ease. The 8th District takes in South Boston, a historically working-class and Irish American community. Although the area has been changing in recent years, 29 percent of the district’s population still claims Irish ancestry, more than any other district in the country.
There’s certainly plenty of electoral excitement in Massachusetts today, and as we’ve discussed, some surprises could be in store. We’ll be following the ins and outs of each contest tonight on Twitter, so please follow along!


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-01--Why The Strike Matters

Why The Strike Matters

We begin by continuing to reflect on the NBA strike that began last Wednesday and ended with games resuming over the weekend .
The strike is a hard thing to judge for several reasons .
First , athletes don ’ t have the power to fix systemic racism — nor is it their responsibility to do so — so the protest itself can ’ t accomplish its end goal , even if it has achieved concrete gains like forcing the Wisconsin Legislature back into session or turning arenas into polling centers .
Second , we tend to underrate the value @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change .
While the few polls that have been done since the strike show general support for it and for athletes ’ ability to protest , it ’ s hard to quantify exactly how seeing NBA icons like LeBron James and Giannis Antetokounmpo stand up for racial justice will affect the young fans watching at home .
But sports is one of the few spheres of American life where Black people truly have leverage to force those with power and influence to act .
We ’ re firmly in an era of athlete @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yields tangible benefits , it cemented that fact .
Next , we look at college football , as games have already started and what ’ s left of the Power Five will kick off next week .
The season will be a patchwork and might roll from September to March , if the Big Ten begins playing around Thanksgiving and the Pac-12 starts sometime after Christmas .
That means this might be the one year we don ’ t really have a college football champion — or at the very least , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the old voting system of eyeballing the teams that dominate their regional areas makes sense .
The dogged insistence on normalcy by schools , teams , fans and media stakeholders will all likely conspire to crown a champion in a more conventional fashion .
But we really do need to embrace the weirdness and remember that the virus doesn ’ t care how much we want to go back to normal .
College stadiums have huge potential to be super-spreader events , even at a quarter or half-full .
We ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way of life if we aren ’ t willing to let go of a little bit of normalcy this year .
Finally , in the Rabbit Hole , Neil answers Sara ’ s call to look at great players who ended up on weird teams after the baseball trade deadline .
From Rickey Henderson ending up on the Anaheim Angels to Ken Griffey Jr. briefly finding himself in a White Sox uniform to Tim Raines playing one week with the Orioles , Neil covers a wild collection of familiar faces showing up in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looking at this week : • What happened in the NBA last week .
• What the COVID-19 risk looks like for college football crowds .

We begin by continuing to reflect on the NBA strike that began last Wednesday and ended with games resuming over the weekend. The strike is a hard thing to judge for several reasons. First, athletes don’t have the power to fix systemic racism — nor is it their responsibility to do so — so the protest itself can’t accomplish its end goal, even if it has achieved concrete gains like forcing the Wisconsin Legislature back into session or turning arenas into polling centers. Second, we tend to underrate the value of symbolism as a force for cultural change. While the few polls that have been done since the strike show general support for it and for athletes’ ability to protest, it’s hard to quantify exactly how seeing NBA icons like LeBron James and Giannis Antetokounmpo stand up for racial justice will affect the young fans watching at home. But sports is one of the few spheres of American life where Black people truly have leverage to force those with power and influence to act. We’re firmly in an era of athlete activism, and whether the strike itself yields tangible benefits, it cemented that fact.
Next, we look at college football, as games have already started and what’s left of the Power Five will kick off next week. The season will be a patchwork and might roll from September to March, if the Big Ten begins playing around Thanksgiving and the Pac-12 starts sometime after Christmas. That means this might be the one year we don’t really have a college football champion — or at the very least, this is the one year that going back to the old voting system of eyeballing the teams that dominate their regional areas makes sense. The dogged insistence on normalcy by schools, teams, fans and media stakeholders will all likely conspire to crown a champion in a more conventional fashion. But we really do need to embrace the weirdness and remember that the virus doesn’t care how much we want to go back to normal. College stadiums have huge potential to be super-spreader events, even at a quarter or half-full. We’ll never get college football back as a way of life if we aren’t willing to let go of a little bit of normalcy this year.
Finally, in the Rabbit Hole, Neil answers Sara’s call to look at great players who ended up on weird teams after the baseball trade deadline. From Rickey Henderson ending up on the Anaheim Angels to Ken Griffey Jr. briefly finding himself in a White Sox uniform to Tim Raines playing one week with the Orioles, Neil covers a wild collection of familiar faces showing up in strange places.
What we’re looking at this week:


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-01--The GOP Convention Violated Plenty Of Norms, But Did It Undermine Democratic Values?

It ’ s been a very unusual convention season .
Both major parties had to improvise on the traditional convention playbook because of the novel coronavirus pandemic , holding nearly all-virtual gatherings instead .
But the Republican National Convention cast aside other traditions too — featuring some of the norm-breaking ( and possible law-breaking ! )
that we ’ ve come to expect from the Trump administration and blurring the lines that separate governance from party politics , and party politics from personal advancement .
As we ’ ve noted here before , there ’ s a difference between norms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and even important sometimes .
But not always : Both conventions featured new forms of roll-call voting , for example , losing some norms but not in a problematic way .
Other norms , though , help enforce democratic values .
And that kind of norm-breaking is the one we should really worry about .
So what values — if any — are at stake in the norm violations at the 2020 RNC ?
Most of the norms-based criticisms of the RNC revolved around the use of government resources and governing powers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second night , the convention kicked off with President Trump pardoning Jon Ponder .
The same night , the convention aired a pre-taped naturalization ceremony filmed at the White House .
And on Thursday , Trump delivered his acceptance speech from the White House ’ s South Lawn .
All this drew sharp criticism , including questions about whether the Trump administration had violated the Hatch Act , which bans federal officials from mixing their government work with political activities .
Indeed , since last week , the Hatch Act has been having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ values embodied in this 1939 piece of legislation ?
On Wednesday morning , White House chief of staff Mark Meadows was quoted saying that only “ Beltway insiders ” cared about such things .
And civil service regulation might not seem like the most exciting or relevant topic .
But the Hatch Act came after many years of political struggles , and other , unsuccessful legislative attempts to address the relationship between politics and governance .
These kinds of rules are in place to protect the governing process from improper political influence and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The civil service reform movement in the 1880s sought to create an effective federal government , staffed by civil servants who were trained for their work and free from fear of losing their jobs over politics .
The idea of protecting elections dates back to at least the 1830s .
The Hatch Act itself came about as the result of concern about the FDR administration using the Works Progress Administration for political gain and becoming overly involved in the 1938 primaries in an effort to defeat conservative Democrats .
In other words @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the time and has been controversial since , was aimed at curbing the role of politics in governance and keeping the president from having too much influence over elections .
The Hatch Act and other rules like it aren ’ t just about obscure regulations or Washington norms — they safeguard the values of election integrity and good governance .
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo ’ s speech from Jerusalem also prompted Hatch Act questions .
It ’ s possible the speech didn ’ t technically violate the law .
And it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secretaries to speak at conventions about domestic issues .
But regardless of who paid for what , the appearance of a secretary of state at a convention links partisan politics to foreign policy statecraft and diplomacy .
And there ’ s a reason why foreign policy is different .
As Scott Anderson explained on the Lawfare podcast , the principles behind State Department policies banning partisan activities by overseas diplomats are that they represent the entire nation – not just one political party .
Suggesting that one party is better than the other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undermining our national position and credibility when the other party takes power .
It defies the concept that both parties are equally invested in the security and safety of the nation , ultimately denying the legitimate role of opposition — the idea that the party out of power is still a legitimate part of the nation , and a crucial democratic value .
At the Democratic National Convention this year , Joe Biden and Kamala Harris both had family members speak about them .
But at the RNC , in addition to Ivanka @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , three of Trump ’ s children had evening speaking slots .
His sons , Eric and Donald Jr. , spoke about politics , castigating “ cancel culture ” and the Biden campaign .
Contrasted with Melania Trump ’ s speech as first lady , the Trump children — and his sons , in particular — stepped out of the ceremonial role as “ first family ” and into a more partisan , political one .
As some commentators noted , the speeches sounded like they were gearing up to run for office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in American politics .
There are the Bushes , the Romneys and of course , the Kennedys — as well as many others .
And political conventions are supposed to showcase speakers who might run for office later .
But combining these two things flies in the face of core democratic values like equality and access and instead turns the political party into a personal vehicle for the president and his family .
The deeper democratic value violation in the RNC ’ s use of these presidential powers — both real and ceremonial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political scientists call personalistic leadership .
It ’ s not just that Trump merged governance and party politics .
It ’ s that , in this merging , the impression is given that Trump himself — rather than the Constitution or the office — is the source of privileges like granting pardons and citizenship .
This gets directly at one of the principles the nation ’ s founders worried about when creating the office of the presidency : that it would place too much power in the hands of a single individual , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of laws and not of men.
” Finally , and relatedly , Trump accepted the nomination in a closing speech on the South Lawn of the White House , followed up with “ Trump 2020 ” fireworks over the Washington Monument .
Some commentators have questioned not only the propriety of this but also suggested these events were illegal .
( A gathering of 1,500 people , most of them unmasked , also violated local laws , though federal property is exempt from those laws . )
Political parties have become more focused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates rarely stepping up to challenge incumbent presidents for the nomination .
And it ’ s standard for the conventions to focus heavily on the sitting president in that way , highlighting that this is the person already in the office while also competing to stay there .
But Thursday ’ s use of the White House , accompanied by Trump ’ s declaration of “ we ’ re here and they ’ re not ” in his renomination acceptance speech , undercuts the reality that all presidents occupy that space temporarily .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ president is a key democratic value .
The presidency and its symbols do not belong to one president or his supporters , but to all of the American people .

It’s been a very unusual convention season. Both major parties had to improvise on the traditional convention playbook because of the novel coronavirus pandemic, holding nearly all-virtual gatherings instead. But the Republican National Convention cast aside other traditions too — featuring some of the norm-breaking (and possible law-breaking!) that we’ve come to expect from the Trump administration and blurring the lines that separate governance from party politics, and party politics from personal advancement.
As we’ve noted here before, there’s a difference between norms and democratic values. Norms are nice, and even important sometimes. But not always: Both conventions featured new forms of roll-call voting, for example, losing some norms but not in a problematic way. Other norms, though, help enforce democratic values. And that kind of norm-breaking is the one we should really worry about.
So what values — if any — are at stake in the norm violations at the 2020 RNC?
Election integrity and good governance
Most of the norms-based criticisms of the RNC revolved around the use of government resources and governing powers for a political event. On the second night, the convention kicked off with President Trump pardoning Jon Ponder. The same night, the convention aired a pre-taped naturalization ceremony filmed at the White House. And on Thursday, Trump delivered his acceptance speech from the White House’s South Lawn. All this drew sharp criticism, including questions about whether the Trump administration had violated the Hatch Act, which bans federal officials from mixing their government work with political activities.
Indeed, since last week, the Hatch Act has been having a moment. But are there democratic values embodied in this 1939 piece of legislation? On Wednesday morning, White House chief of staff Mark Meadows was quoted saying that only “Beltway insiders” cared about such things. And civil service regulation might not seem like the most exciting or relevant topic. But the Hatch Act came after many years of political struggles, and other, unsuccessful legislative attempts to address the relationship between politics and governance. These kinds of rules are in place to protect the governing process from improper political influence and elections from the sway of powerful actors. The civil service reform movement in the 1880s sought to create an effective federal government, staffed by civil servants who were trained for their work and free from fear of losing their jobs over politics. The idea of protecting elections dates back to at least the 1830s. The Hatch Act itself came about as the result of concern about the FDR administration using the Works Progress Administration for political gain and becoming overly involved in the 1938 primaries in an effort to defeat conservative Democrats. In other words, the act, which was controversial at the time and has been controversial since, was aimed at curbing the role of politics in governance and keeping the president from having too much influence over elections. The Hatch Act and other rules like it aren’t just about obscure regulations or Washington norms — they safeguard the values of election integrity and good governance.
Nonpartisan foreign policy
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s speech from Jerusalem also prompted Hatch Act questions. It’s possible the speech didn’t technically violate the law. And it’s not unheard of for Cabinet secretaries to speak at conventions about domestic issues. But regardless of who paid for what, the appearance of a secretary of state at a convention links partisan politics to foreign policy statecraft and diplomacy. And there’s a reason why foreign policy is different.
As Scott Anderson explained on the Lawfare podcast, the principles behind State Department policies banning partisan activities by overseas diplomats are that they represent the entire nation – not just one political party. Suggesting that one party is better than the other to our allies runs the risk of undermining our national position and credibility when the other party takes power. It defies the concept that both parties are equally invested in the security and safety of the nation, ultimately denying the legitimate role of opposition — the idea that the party out of power is still a legitimate part of the nation, and a crucial democratic value.
Equality and access
At the Democratic National Convention this year, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris both had family members speak about them. But at the RNC, in addition to Ivanka Trump’s introduction of her father, three of Trump’s children had evening speaking slots. His sons, Eric and Donald Jr., spoke about politics, castigating “cancel culture” and the Biden campaign. Contrasted with Melania Trump’s speech as first lady, the Trump children — and his sons, in particular — stepped out of the ceremonial role as “first family” and into a more partisan, political one. As some commentators noted, the speeches sounded like they were gearing up to run for office.
Family political dynasties are hardly unusual in American politics. There are the Bushes, the Romneys and of course, the Kennedys — as well as many others. And political conventions are supposed to showcase speakers who might run for office later. But combining these two things flies in the face of core democratic values like equality and access and instead turns the political party into a personal vehicle for the president and his family.
Personalistic leadership
The deeper democratic value violation in the RNC’s use of these presidential powers — both real and ceremonial — in a convention context is what political scientists call personalistic leadership. It’s not just that Trump merged governance and party politics. It’s that, in this merging, the impression is given that Trump himself — rather than the Constitution or the office — is the source of privileges like granting pardons and citizenship. This gets directly at one of the principles the nation’s founders worried about when creating the office of the presidency: that it would place too much power in the hands of a single individual, endangering the idea of a “government of laws and not of men.”
Finally, and relatedly, Trump accepted the nomination in a closing speech on the South Lawn of the White House, followed up with “Trump 2020” fireworks over the Washington Monument. Some commentators have questioned not only the propriety of this but also suggested these events were illegal. (A gathering of 1,500 people, most of them unmasked, also violated local laws, though federal property is exempt from those laws.)
Political parties have become more focused on the presidency over time, with candidates rarely stepping up to challenge incumbent presidents for the nomination. And it’s standard for the conventions to focus heavily on the sitting president in that way, highlighting that this is the person already in the office while also competing to stay there. But Thursday’s use of the White House, accompanied by Trump’s declaration of “we’re here and they’re not” in his renomination acceptance speech, undercuts the reality that all presidents occupy that space temporarily. The separation of the presidency from the president is a key democratic value. The presidency and its symbols do not belong to one president or his supporters, but to all of the American people.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-01--Donovan Mitchell And Jamal Murray Are Taking Different Paths To Domination

The most compelling on-court story in the NBA right now is whatever the heck is happening between Donovan Mitchell and Jamal Murray , each of whom apparently can not be stopped .
In the first-round series between the Utah Jazz and Denver Nuggets , the star guards have stolen the show .
With their combined performances , Mitchell and Murray now account for the first- ( 101 in Game 4 ) , third- ( 94 in Game 6 ) and fourth-most points ( 93 in Game 1 ) scored by opposing players in the same playoff game .
Mitchell is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , shooting 54.8 percent from the field and 55.4 percent from beyond the 3-point arc .
He scored 57 points in Utah ’ s Game 1 loss , the third-most points anyone has ever put up in a playoff game .
He had merely 50 points combined in Utah ’ s blowout wins in Games 2 and 3 but then went for 51 in Game 4 as he outdueled Murray , who dropped 50 .
Mitchell did all he could to help the Jazz close out the series , scoring 74 points on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but it wasn ’ t enough — largely because his counterpart went absolutely nuclear .
Murray scored 142 points on just 74 shot attempts across Games 4 through 6 , a point total for three consecutive postseason games exceeded only by Michael Jordan ( 1988 ) and Jerry West ( 1965 ) .
In the process , Murray became both the first player since Allen Iverson ( 2001 ) to score 40 or more in three consecutive postseason games and the first player since His Airness ( 1990 ) to score 40 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more rebounds and dishing out five or more assists in three straight playoff contests .
With their two 50-point games apiece , Murray and Mitchell have now each gone for half a hundred more times in this postseason than the entire NBA combined did between 2007 and 2016 .
Add this all up , and you have two players whose production through the first six games of the series has been nearly identical .
But while the two stars have produced similar raw totals , the players have attacked the opposing defenses quite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engulfed in flames during fourth quarters ( and the one overtime period ) in the series , but they have gone about their late-game explosions in disparate fashions .
Murray has connected on a totally bonkers 16 of 19 shots from beyond the arc in the fourth quarter and overtime , accounting for 48 of his 78 points in those periods ( a share of approximately 62 percent ) .
Mitchell , on the other hand , has simply gotten himself to the free-throw line late in games — and converted .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foul shots in the final period , for about 28 percent of his 78 total fourth-quarter-and-overtime points .
Overall , Mitchell has done most of his work with the ball in his hands .
Second Spectrum tracking data shows that he has possessed the ball 43.2 percent of the time the Jazz have been on offense while he was in the game , a rate that exceeds even that of Murray and Denver ( 38.8 percent ) .
According to Second Spectrum , Mitchell ’ s 257 pick and rolls are the second-most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so far , behind only Luka Dončić ’ s 328 .
Those ball screens have also been wildly profitable : Among the 20 players who have worked off at least 100 on-ball screens during the playoffs , Mitchell ’ s have yielded the second-most points per possession .
Mitchell has been able to freely make his way into the lane , where he has shown off a delightful array of interior finishes .
His 126 drives are second-most in the playoffs so far , again behind only Dončić .
And like his pick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wildly profitable : Among the 24 players who have driven from the perimeter to the paint at least 50 times during the postseason , Mitchell ’ s drives have yielded the sixth-most points per possession .
What Utah has done better than almost anything else in this series , though , is put Mitchell into favorable matchups in isolation .
Whether with a ball screen and then a switch , cross-matching in transition or other means , Mitchell has repeatedly been able to draw the likes of Jerami Grant ( the Nuggets ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the series ) , Michael Porter Jr. , Monte Morris or Nikola Jokić into open space and break them down with ease .
While Murray has also done excellent work in isolation and on pick and rolls , he has engaged in those actions less often than Mitchell .
By contrast , even though he is nominally a point guard and Mitchell plays the two , Murray has actually done more work away from the ball .
His 72 dribble handoffs are the most in the playoffs so far , per Second Spectrum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rank third .
Murray has been more likely than Mitchell to create a shot either for himself or a teammate one pass away on handoffs and off-ball screens , while they ’ ve been equally likely to do so in isolation and on ball-screens .
It ’ s no surprise that Murray has been the most frequent recipient of dribble handoffs during the playoffs .
The only two players who received more handoffs during the regular season ( Bradley Beal and Devin Booker ) are both watching the postseason from home .
Unsurprisingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were also incredibly profitable : Among 67 players who received 250 handoffs or more , Murray generated the seventh-most points per possession for his team .
In the playoffs , he ’ s actually taken things to a new level .
The 72 handoffs with Murray as the recipient have yielded 87 points through the first six games of the series .
That ’ s the most in the league .
The next two closest marks are from Mitchell and his teammate Mike Conley , whose 78 combined handoffs have generated 88 points @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opponents , surely know that the Murray handoff is coming , especially late in games .
And yet they still can ’ t manage to stop it .
That ’ s just the type of roll Murray is on at the moment .
When your offensive scheme is working this well , there ’ s no real reason to change tactics .
So in tonight ’ s Game 7 , we should expect more of the same from both Mitchell and Murray : Donovan , breaking down an overmatched Nugget in space ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take a handoff or curl around a screen , splashing jumpers in the grill of a hapless Jazzman .
With a trip to the second round on the line , each player will need to be at his best .
Considering the way things have gone so far , we shouldn ’ t expect anything less .
CORRECTION ( Sept. 1 , 2020 , 3:06 p.m. ) : An earlier version of this article misstated the number of 50-point games from Jamal Murray this postseason .
He has scored 50 points twice in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Mitchell has also scored 50 points twice .

The most compelling on-court story in the NBA right now is whatever the heck is happening between Donovan Mitchell and Jamal Murray, each of whom apparently cannot be stopped. In the first-round series between the Utah Jazz and Denver Nuggets, the star guards have stolen the show. With their combined performances, Mitchell and Murray now account for the first- (101 in Game 4), third- (94 in Game 6) and fourth-most points (93 in Game 1) scored by opposing players in the same playoff game.
Mitchell is averaging a playoff-leading 38.7 points per game, shooting 54.8 percent from the field and 55.4 percent from beyond the 3-point arc. He scored 57 points in Utah’s Game 1 loss, the third-most points anyone has ever put up in a playoff game. He had merely 50 points combined in Utah’s blowout wins in Games 2 and 3 but then went for 51 in Game 4 as he outdueled Murray, who dropped 50. Mitchell did all he could to help the Jazz close out the series, scoring 74 points on 48 shots in Games 5 and 6, but it wasn’t enough — largely because his counterpart went absolutely nuclear.
Murray scored 142 points on just 74 shot attempts across Games 4 through 6, a point total for three consecutive postseason games exceeded only by Michael Jordan (1988) and Jerry West (1965). In the process, Murray became both the first player since Allen Iverson (2001) to score 40 or more in three consecutive postseason games and the first player since His Airness (1990) to score 40 or more while also grabbing five or more rebounds and dishing out five or more assists in three straight playoff contests. With their two 50-point games apiece, Murray and Mitchell have now each gone for half a hundred more times in this postseason than the entire NBA combined did between 2007 and 2016.
Add this all up, and you have two players whose production through the first six games of the series has been nearly identical. But while the two stars have produced similar raw totals, the players have attacked the opposing defenses quite differently.
Both players have been absolutely engulfed in flames during fourth quarters (and the one overtime period) in the series, but they have gone about their late-game explosions in disparate fashions. Murray has connected on a totally bonkers 16 of 19 shots from beyond the arc in the fourth quarter and overtime, accounting for 48 of his 78 points in those periods (a share of approximately 62 percent). Mitchell, on the other hand, has simply gotten himself to the free-throw line late in games — and converted. He has connected on 22 of his 24 foul shots in the final period, for about 28 percent of his 78 total fourth-quarter-and-overtime points.
Overall, Mitchell has done most of his work with the ball in his hands. Second Spectrum tracking data shows that he has possessed the ball 43.2 percent of the time the Jazz have been on offense while he was in the game, a rate that exceeds even that of Murray and Denver (38.8 percent).
According to Second Spectrum, Mitchell’s 257 pick and rolls are the second-most any player has run in the playoffs so far, behind only Luka Dončić’s 328. Those ball screens have also been wildly profitable: Among the 20 players who have worked off at least 100 on-ball screens during the playoffs, Mitchell’s have yielded the second-most points per possession.
Mitchell has been able to freely make his way into the lane, where he has shown off a delightful array of interior finishes. His 126 drives are second-most in the playoffs so far, again behind only Dončić. And like his pick and rolls, his drives have been wildly profitable: Among the 24 players who have driven from the perimeter to the paint at least 50 times during the postseason, Mitchell’s drives have yielded the sixth-most points per possession.
What Utah has done better than almost anything else in this series, though, is put Mitchell into favorable matchups in isolation. Whether with a ball screen and then a switch, cross-matching in transition or other means, Mitchell has repeatedly been able to draw the likes of Jerami Grant (the Nuggets’ preferred defender on Mitchell for most of the series), Michael Porter Jr., Monte Morris or Nikola Jokić into open space and break them down with ease.
While Murray has also done excellent work in isolation and on pick and rolls, he has engaged in those actions less often than Mitchell. By contrast, even though he is nominally a point guard and Mitchell plays the two, Murray has actually done more work away from the ball. His 72 dribble handoffs are the most in the playoffs so far, per Second Spectrum, while his 94 off-ball screens taken rank third. Murray has been more likely than Mitchell to create a shot either for himself or a teammate one pass away on handoffs and off-ball screens, while they’ve been equally likely to do so in isolation and on ball-screens.
Mitchell and Murray are scoring in different ways Actions from Donovan Mitchell and Jamal Murray in the 2020 NBA Playoffs, by number and share leading directly to a shot, turnover or foul Mitchell Murray Action Number % direct Number % direct Isolations 53 88.7% 21 90.5% Pick and rolls 257 76.7 184 75.5 Dribble handoffs 39 41.0 72 73.6 Off-ball screens 41 36.6 94 56.4 Direct actions end with the ball-handler shooting, getting fouled, turning the ball over or making a pass that produces a shot attempt within one dribble of the catch. Source: Second Spectrum
It’s no surprise that Murray has been the most frequent recipient of dribble handoffs during the playoffs. The only two players who received more handoffs during the regular season (Bradley Beal and Devin Booker) are both watching the postseason from home. Unsurprisingly, Murray’s regular-season dribble handoffs were also incredibly profitable: Among 67 players who received 250 handoffs or more, Murray generated the seventh-most points per possession for his team.
In the playoffs, he’s actually taken things to a new level. The 72 handoffs with Murray as the recipient have yielded 87 points through the first six games of the series. That’s the most in the league. The next two closest marks are from Mitchell and his teammate Mike Conley, whose 78 combined handoffs have generated 88 points.
The Jazz, like other Nuggets opponents, surely know that the Murray handoff is coming, especially late in games. And yet they still can’t manage to stop it. That’s just the type of roll Murray is on at the moment.
When your offensive scheme is working this well, there’s no real reason to change tactics. So in tonight’s Game 7, we should expect more of the same from both Mitchell and Murray: Donovan, breaking down an overmatched Nugget in space; Jamal, speeding around the corner to take a handoff or curl around a screen, splashing jumpers in the grill of a hapless Jazzman. With a trip to the second round on the line, each player will need to be at his best. Considering the way things have gone so far, we shouldn’t expect anything less.
Check out our latest NBA predictions.
CORRECTION (Sept. 1, 2020, 3:06 p.m.): An earlier version of this article misstated the number of 50-point games from Jamal Murray this postseason. He has scored 50 points twice in the playoffs, not three times, and Mitchell has also scored 50 points twice.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-01--John Thompson’s Unapologetic Blackness Changed College Basketball

When news broke of the death of John Thompson Jr. , the longtime Georgetown men ’ s basketball coach , the college basketball world eulogized a titan of a bygone , halcyon era of the sport .
It remembered the iconic towel draped over his shoulder , how his Hoyas shut down Manley Field House , how — with an all-Black starting five — he became the first Black coach to win an NCAA championship .
But as with every discussion of Thompson ’ s legacy , the hardwood is only a part of how “ Big John ” cast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Thompson ’ s Hoyas , tenacious on defense , came to embody the rough and gritty Big East Conference of the 1980s , and Thompson was at the center of it all .
He won 596 games and coached four Hall of Famers in Patrick Ewing , Alonzo Mourning , Dikembe Mutombo and Allen Iverson .
It ’ s not an exaggeration to say that Thompson created Georgetown basketball — and Big East basketball — as we know it .
When Big John arrived at Georgetown in 1972 , after brief stints @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basketball in Washington , D.C. , the school had enjoyed little success as an independent , reaching just one NCAA tournament .
It was one of the last Catholic schools in the country not to recruit Black athletes .
But Thompson changed all that .
His teams were unapologetically Black , and they made their mark on the national scene — bringing the new Big East with them .
After the Big East was formed in 1979 , Georgetown made three national title games in six seasons .
They prevailed against Houston ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were within 5 points of winning all three , if it weren ’ t for historic shooting from eighth-seeded Villanova in 1985 and a shot from some guy named Michael Jordan in 1982 .
The Big East also flourished in those years and throughout the 1980s ; three teams , including Villanova , made the Final Four in 1985 , and three more ( Syracuse and Providence in 1987 and Seton Hall in 1989 ) would make it the rest of the decade .
The Big East ’ s meteoric rise and subsequent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Thompson ’ s Georgetown teams putting it on the map .
The Georgetown clubs of the 1980s were fiery and intimidating , known primarily for three big men : Ewing ( 1981-85 ) , Mourning ( 1988-92 ) and Mutombo ( 1988-91 ) .
The Ewing-Thompson combo went a combined 121-23 in four years ; the broader world took notice , as Georgetown ’ s applications increased by 45 percent from 1983 to 1986 .
Mourning and Mutombo comprised a fearsome defensive duo ; they blocked so many shots that fans created @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the opposing attempts they sent into the stands .
Georgetown ’ s time on the national stage wouldn ’ t last forever .
After a loss to up-and-coming Duke in the 1989 Elite Eight , the Hoyas would reach the Sweet Sixteen only twice more under Thompson .
No matter .
Thompson ’ s biggest legacy was off the court , both in his creation of a college basketball brand that was explicitly Black and in his drive for social change .
Culturally , Georgetown basketball was embraced by Black Americans .
Whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s teams — they were almost all Black — the Georgetown starter jackets , or the Kente cloth that the Iverson-led Hoyas of the ’ 90s donned , Georgetown basketball embodied a brand that Black Americans felt they owned , just as white Americans disapproved of it .
And in a majority-Black city with a Black mayor , the Thompson-led Hoyas , as The Undefeated ’ s Chris Palmer put it , “ appealed greatly to local Black fans , particularly young Black men who felt labeled , disrespected and disregarded.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ men extended to Iverson himself ; Thompson was one of the few coaches to offer the future No .
1 overall NBA draft pick a scholarship after he served a jail sentence .
“ He created that environment , and that worked for us , ” former guard Gene Smith said about Thompson in a recent interview with The Georgetown Voice .
“ But also for Black America , it was like , ‘ Okay , we ’ re not taking any shit .
We ’ re not apologizing.
’ ” The success @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more schools to hire Black coaches .
During the 1978-79 season , there were just seven Black head coaches , including Thompson , coaching at the Division I level outside of historically Black colleges or universities .
But by 1991 , after Georgetown achieved its powerhouse status , that number had jumped to 34 .
It ’ s also telling that , among the 10 winningest Black coaches in Division I men ’ s basketball history , Thompson ( who still ranks second behind only Tubby Smith ) started coaching at that level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the top 10 , eight started their careers at least a decade after Thompson had begun building influence at Georgetown : In the coach ’ s mind , that progress was long overdue .
When he made it to his first Final Four back in 1982 , a reporter asked Thompson if he felt pride in being the first Black coach to reach that stage in the tournament .
“ I resent the hell out of that question , ” he said .
“ It implies that I ’ m the first Black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough to do this .
It ’ s an insult to my race .
There have been plenty of others who could ’ ve gotten here if they ’ d been given the opportunity they deserved.
” Thompson took a tremendous interest in his players ’ lives outside of basketball and wasn ’ t afraid to speak out against injustices they faced .
He sat out multiple games to protest the NCAA ’ s decision to apply Prop 48 , a controversial measure that denied eligibility to athletes who didn ’ t meet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that he believed unfairly targeted Black athletes .
When a local drug kingpin got too close to his players , Thompson warned him to stay away .
When his players faced racist abuse on the road , Thompson forcefully defended them and castigated opposing fans and administrators .
Ultimately , 97 percent of his four-year players graduated from Georgetown .
Even years after his retirement , Thompson maintained a towering presence at the university he helped put on the map .
He remained close to the program as his son , John @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2004 to 2017 , and he was a fixture at Georgetown home games — and postgame press conferences .
( Now Ewing , Thompson ’ s prized pupil , leads the program . )
And just as he never minced words on social justice and responsibility in his coaching years , he didn ’ t in retirement , either .
In 2014 , following a grand jury ’ s decision not to indict the police officer who put Eric Garner in a chokehold , killing him , Georgetown players donned shirts that said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Garner ’ s final words .
After the game , the elder Thompson intercepted a reporter ’ s question about the shirts directed at his son .
“ It ’ s a fucking school , man , ” he said .
“ That ’ s your responsibility , to deal with things like that.
” In the current moment surrounding sports and social justice , Thompson ’ s message of responsibility rings especially clear .

When news broke of the death of John Thompson Jr., the longtime Georgetown men’s basketball coach, the college basketball world eulogized a titan of a bygone, halcyon era of the sport. It remembered the iconic towel draped over his shoulder, how his Hoyas shut down Manley Field House, how — with an all-Black starting five — he became the first Black coach to win an NCAA championship. But as with every discussion of Thompson’s legacy, the hardwood is only a part of how “Big John” cast such a long shadow on his sport.
Thompson’s Hoyas, tenacious on defense, came to embody the rough and gritty Big East Conference of the 1980s, and Thompson was at the center of it all. He won 596 games and coached four Hall of Famers in Patrick Ewing, Alonzo Mourning, Dikembe Mutombo and Allen Iverson. It’s not an exaggeration to say that Thompson created Georgetown basketball — and Big East basketball — as we know it.
When Big John arrived at Georgetown in 1972, after brief stints in the NBA and coaching high school basketball in Washington, D.C., the school had enjoyed little success as an independent, reaching just one NCAA tournament. It was one of the last Catholic schools in the country not to recruit Black athletes. But Thompson changed all that. His teams were unapologetically Black, and they made their mark on the national scene — bringing the new Big East with them.
After the Big East was formed in 1979, Georgetown made three national title games in six seasons. They prevailed against Houston’s Phi Slama Jama in 1984 and were within 5 points of winning all three, if it weren’t for historic shooting from eighth-seeded Villanova in 1985 and a shot from some guy named Michael Jordan in 1982. The Big East also flourished in those years and throughout the 1980s; three teams, including Villanova, made the Final Four in 1985, and three more (Syracuse and Providence in 1987 and Seton Hall in 1989) would make it the rest of the decade. The Big East’s meteoric rise and subsequent expansion was thanks in no small part to Thompson’s Georgetown teams putting it on the map.
The Georgetown clubs of the 1980s were fiery and intimidating, known primarily for three big men: Ewing (1981-85), Mourning (1988-92) and Mutombo (1988-91). The Ewing-Thompson combo went a combined 121-23 in four years; the broader world took notice, as Georgetown’s applications increased by 45 percent from 1983 to 1986. Mourning and Mutombo comprised a fearsome defensive duo; they blocked so many shots that fans created a “rejection row” for all the opposing attempts they sent into the stands.
Georgetown’s time on the national stage wouldn’t last forever. After a loss to up-and-coming Duke in the 1989 Elite Eight, the Hoyas would reach the Sweet Sixteen only twice more under Thompson.
No matter. Thompson’s biggest legacy was off the court, both in his creation of a college basketball brand that was explicitly Black and in his drive for social change.
Culturally, Georgetown basketball was embraced by Black Americans. Whether it was the racial composition of Thompson’s teams — they were almost all Black — the Georgetown starter jackets, or the Kente cloth that the Iverson-led Hoyas of the ’90s donned, Georgetown basketball embodied a brand that Black Americans felt they owned, just as white Americans disapproved of it. And in a majority-Black city with a Black mayor, the Thompson-led Hoyas, as The Undefeated’s Chris Palmer put it, “appealed greatly to local Black fans, particularly young Black men who felt labeled, disrespected and disregarded.” That appeal to “disregarded” Black men extended to Iverson himself; Thompson was one of the few coaches to offer the future No. 1 overall NBA draft pick a scholarship after he served a jail sentence.
“He created that environment, and that worked for us,” former guard Gene Smith said about Thompson in a recent interview with The Georgetown Voice. “But also for Black America, it was like, ‘Okay, we’re not taking any shit. We’re not apologizing.’”
The success Thompson had at Georgetown almost certainly prompted more schools to hire Black coaches. During the 1978-79 season, there were just seven Black head coaches, including Thompson, coaching at the Division I level outside of historically Black colleges or universities. But by 1991, after Georgetown achieved its powerhouse status, that number had jumped to 34. It’s also telling that, among the 10 winningest Black coaches in Division I men’s basketball history, Thompson (who still ranks second behind only Tubby Smith) started coaching at that level first. Of the other members of the top 10, eight started their careers at least a decade after Thompson had begun building influence at Georgetown:
John Thompson paved the way for more Black coaches Black coaches by most wins in men’s Division I college basketball history Rank Coach Years Primary School Wins 1 Tubby Smith 1992-pres. Kentucky 622 2 John Thompson 1973-1999 Georgetown 596 3 Leonard Hamilton 1987-pres. Florida State 582 4 John Chaney 1983-2006 Temple 516 5 Nolan Richardson 1981-2002 Arkansas 509 6 Oliver Purnell 1989-2015 Dayton 448 7 Mike Jarvis 1986-2014 George Washington 439 8 Fang Mitchell 1987-2014 Coppin State 429 9 Tommy Amaker 1998-pres. Harvard 427 10 Al Skinner 1989-2019 Boston College 426 Includes record as coach of major (D-I or equivalent) programs. Source: Sports-Reference.com/CBB
In the coach’s mind, that progress was long overdue. When he made it to his first Final Four back in 1982, a reporter asked Thompson if he felt pride in being the first Black coach to reach that stage in the tournament.
“I resent the hell out of that question,” he said. “It implies that I’m the first Black man to be accomplished enough and intelligent enough to do this. It’s an insult to my race. There have been plenty of others who could’ve gotten here if they’d been given the opportunity they deserved.”
Thompson took a tremendous interest in his players’ lives outside of basketball and wasn’t afraid to speak out against injustices they faced. He sat out multiple games to protest the NCAA’s decision to apply Prop 48, a controversial measure that denied eligibility to athletes who didn’t meet certain academic requirements, to freshmen — and that he believed unfairly targeted Black athletes. When a local drug kingpin got too close to his players, Thompson warned him to stay away. When his players faced racist abuse on the road, Thompson forcefully defended them and castigated opposing fans and administrators. Ultimately, 97 percent of his four-year players graduated from Georgetown.
Even years after his retirement, Thompson maintained a towering presence at the university he helped put on the map. He remained close to the program as his son, John Thompson III, coached the Hoyas from 2004 to 2017, and he was a fixture at Georgetown home games — and postgame press conferences. (Now Ewing, Thompson’s prized pupil, leads the program.)
And just as he never minced words on social justice and responsibility in his coaching years, he didn’t in retirement, either. In 2014, following a grand jury’s decision not to indict the police officer who put Eric Garner in a chokehold, killing him, Georgetown players donned shirts that said “I Can’t Breathe,” Garner’s final words. After the game, the elder Thompson intercepted a reporter’s question about the shirts directed at his son.
“It’s a fucking school, man,” he said. “That’s your responsibility, to deal with things like that.”
In the current moment surrounding sports and social justice, Thompson’s message of responsibility rings especially clear.
Neil Paine contributed research.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-02--More Women Than Ever Are Running For Office. But Are They Winning Their Primaries?

You ’ ve probably already heard that more women are running for Congress in 2020 than in any other election cycle — and that ’ s saying a lot , given the record-breaking number of female candidates in the 2018 midterms .
However , that cycle had an indisputable blue tinge , whereas this year , the share of female candidates who are Republican also shot up , thanks in part to a growing list of organizations committed to recruiting and supporting Republican women ’ s candidacies .
But an increase in the number of women running doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make it to the general election .
So now that 2020 ’ s primary elections are almost all over , let ’ s assess how female candidates fared — and whether organizations that focus on electing more women have made a difference .
Like we did in 2018 , FiveThirtyEight has been compiling a wealth of information , including gender , for every major-party candidate for Senate , House and governor this year .
And based on data from primaries that were decided by Aug. 25 , we found that more Republican women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the last election cycle , while Democratic women are also improving on their impressive 2018 performance .
As a result , the GOP won ’ t eclipse Democrats as the party of women anytime soon .
Republican gains notwithstanding , more women have still run this year in Democratic primaries than in Republican ones .
Thirty-seven percent ( 377 out of 1,015 ) of all candidates in the Democratic primaries we analyzed were women , compared with just 20 percent ( 237 out of 1,164 ) of candidates in Republican primaries .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who advanced to the general election ) , the difference was even starker .
Forty-seven percent ( 211 out of 445 ) of Democrats who advanced to the general election are women , versus just 22 percent ( 94 out of 426 ) of Republicans .
The main reason Democratic women were more likely to win the nomination is that they were incredibly successful in primaries without an incumbent .
Women made up 40 percent ( 224 out of 565 ) of all the candidates who ran in Democratic primaries with no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 126 out of 221 ) of candidates who advanced to the general election in those races .
Even in 2018 , Democratic women were not winning primaries at that high a rate .
They made up just 48 percent of the Democratic nominees in primaries that had been decided by Aug. 7 , 2018 ( when we conducted our analysis ) .
But although Republican women once again lag their Democratic counterparts here , they do have some reason for optimism .
Women made up just 24 percent ( 200 out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these primaries , but 32 percent ( 77 out of 240 ) of their winners .
It ’ s still a long way from parity , but it shows that when Republican women run in incumbent-less races , they have a good chance of getting the nomination .
Now for the bad news for the GOP : A lot of those 77 female nominees might not win their general elections .
Only six of them won primaries in seats that election handicapper Sabato ’ s Crystal Ball rates as “ Safe Republican.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ running in “ Safe Democratic ” seats , which means they will probably never set foot in the halls of Congress or their state capitol .
So Republicans hoping to increase , say , the number of Republican women in the House of Representatives ( there are currently only 13 ) may make only middling progress this year .
A healthy majority of the losing candidates in both parties were men , although the main reason for that is simply that more men were running than women , so male candidates had more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smaller numbers of women on the ballot , there is one stat that undeniably shows they ’ re doing well , or at least keeping pace with men , in primaries on both sides : There have been 92 incumbent-less Democratic primaries pitting at least one woman against at least one man so far this year ; women won 67 of them ( 73 percent ) .
And there have been 108 such Republican primaries so far ; men won 54 , and women won 54 .
So on the whole , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are winning .
But reducing the gender gap in elected office-holders is more complicated than simply getting more women to run .
This is why research shows that endorsements ( and the financial backing that tends to come with them ) can be crucial to addressing underrepresentation among women in political office .
That ’ s why groups like Emily ’ s List even exist .
Emily ’ s List , named for the phrase “ early money is like yeast ” ( because it makes the dough rise ) , was formed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their campaigns for Congress , as the group ’ s founder , Ellen Malcolm , knew that if female candidates could raise money early in the race , they ’ d be seen as more viable .
That bet has paid off .
Emily ’ s List has grown to be a force within the Democratic Party , raising and spending tens of millions each election cycle .
After seeing the success of Emily ’ s List , some Republicans have worked over the past few cycles to try to replicate that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This sort of intervention is especially important for Republican women , who are often less prominent in political pipelines and more likely to encounter voters who are skeptical of female candidate ’ s partisan loyalties , as our colleague Perry Bacon Jr. has explained .
Take the group that Rep. Elise Stefanik , a rising star in the GOP , launched in 2018 , E-PAC .
She formed that organization to explicitly support female candidates in their primaries .
Inspired by the competitive primary she herself faced in 2014 , Stefanik says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican women don ’ t get boxed out .
And the data suggests that the support of these organizations could be making a real difference .
To determine this , while collecting data about major-party candidates in every Senate , House and governor primary , we tracked endorsements by three key women ’ s groups : Emily ’ s List for Democrats , and E-PAC and Winning for Women for Republicans .
And it turns out that the win rate for women endorsed by these groups is higher than it is for women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incumbent-less primaries , 18 of the 21 women endorsed by E-PAC ( 86 percent ) and 13 of the 15 women endorsed by Winning for Women ( 87 percent ) won their primaries .
These win rates are much higher than the win rate of Republican women in incumbent-less primaries overall , which stands at 39 percent .
This suggests either that an endorsement from these groups ( and the financial backing that came with it ) helped those women win , or that these groups are shrewdly endorsing the GOP ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a combination of both — the encouragement of groups like E-PAC and Winning for Women could be drawing more formidable women into the race .
And on the Democratic side , Emily ’ s List endorsed 31 candidates in incumbent-less primaries , 26 of whom won .
That ’ s an 84 percent win rate , much higher than Democratic women ’ s 56 percent win rate overall , but similar to the rates for E-PAC and Winning for Women .
That said , Emily ’ s List also flexed its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Women did not : It endorsed two women who were challenging incumbents — Marie Newman in Illinois ’ s 3rd Congressional District and Jessica Cisneros in Texas ’ s 28th Congressional District .
( Newman ’ s and Cisernos ’ s opponents both opposed abortion , which helps explain why Emily ’ s List got involved . )
What ’ s more , Newman actually won , and the nearly $ 1 million Emily ’ s List spent on the race was probably a big part of that .
E-PAC and Winning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scene , so it makes sense that they may not be quite as bold as Emily ’ s List , which has become a major player in Democratic politics .
By contrast , establishment Republicans viewed E-PAC skeptically , and GOP women ’ s groups face obstacles that Democratic groups do not : Unlike Democrats , the Republican Party and its voters tend to recoil from explicit appeals to gender diversity , which can make it difficult for female candidates to campaign on the unique perspective or qualifications they ’ d bring to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that groups like E-PAC and Winning for Women are off to a promising start in their attempt to bring gender diversity to the GOP .
Their next big test becomes how many of these women will win in November .

More Women Than Ever Are Running For Office. But Are They Winning Their Primaries?
You’ve probably already heard that more women are running for Congress in 2020 than in any other election cycle — and that’s saying a lot, given the record-breaking number of female candidates in the 2018 midterms. However, that cycle had an indisputable blue tinge, whereas this year, the share of female candidates who are Republican also shot up, thanks in part to a growing list of organizations committed to recruiting and supporting Republican women’s candidacies.
But an increase in the number of women running doesn’t mean much if they don’t make it to the general election. So now that 2020’s primary elections are almost all over, let’s assess how female candidates fared — and whether organizations that focus on electing more women have made a difference.
Like we did in 2018, FiveThirtyEight has been compiling a wealth of information, including gender, for every major-party candidate for Senate, House and governor this year. And based on data from primaries that were decided by Aug. 25, we found that more Republican women are getting nominated this year than in the last election cycle, while Democratic women are also improving on their impressive 2018 performance. As a result, the GOP won’t eclipse Democrats as the party of women anytime soon.
More women run, and win, in Democratic primaries Share of all candidates who were women and share of candidates advancing to the general election who were women, in Senate, House and governor primaries Party Candidates Primary Winners Democrats 37% 47% Republicans 20 22 As of Aug. 25, 2020. Sources: Center for American Women and Politics, state election offices, Associated Press
Republican gains notwithstanding, more women have still run this year in Democratic primaries than in Republican ones. Thirty-seven percent (377 out of 1,015) of all candidates in the Democratic primaries we analyzed were women, compared with just 20 percent (237 out of 1,164) of candidates in Republican primaries. And among primary winners (or at least people who advanced to the general election ), the difference was even starker. Forty-seven percent (211 out of 445) of Democrats who advanced to the general election are women, versus just 22 percent (94 out of 426) of Republicans.
More women are running in open primaries Share of all candidates who were women and share of candidates advancing to the general election who were women, in Senate, House and governor primaries with no incumbent running Party Candidates Primary Winners Democrats 40% 57% Republicans 24 32 As of Aug. 25, 2020. In states where members of all parties compete in the same primary, the primary was considered open if any incumbent in the race belonged to a different party than the relevant candidate. Sources: Center for American Women and Politics, state election offices, Associated Press
The main reason Democratic women were more likely to win the nomination is that they were incredibly successful in primaries without an incumbent. Women made up 40 percent (224 out of 565) of all the candidates who ran in Democratic primaries with no incumbent, but a whopping 57 percent (126 out of 221) of candidates who advanced to the general election in those races. Even in 2018, Democratic women were not winning primaries at that high a rate. They made up just 48 percent of the Democratic nominees in primaries that had been decided by Aug. 7, 2018 (when we conducted our analysis).
But although Republican women once again lag their Democratic counterparts here, they do have some reason for optimism. Women made up just 24 percent (200 out of 824) of all Republican candidates in these primaries, but 32 percent (77 out of 240) of their winners. It’s still a long way from parity, but it shows that when Republican women run in incumbent-less races, they have a good chance of getting the nomination.
GOP women are winning primaries in mostly blue seats How Sabato’s Crystal Ball rates the general election in the 77 races where a Republican woman won a primary for Senate, House or governor in which she was not the incumbent and did not face an incumbent Rating Number of Races Safe Republican 6 Competitive 22 Safe Democratic 49 As of Aug. 25, 2020. Sources: Center for American Women and Politics, state election offices, Associated Press, Sabato’s Crystal Ball
Now for the bad news for the GOP: A lot of those 77 female nominees might not win their general elections. Only six of them won primaries in seats that election handicapper Sabato’s Crystal Ball rates as “Safe Republican.” By contrast, 49 Republican women are running in “Safe Democratic” seats, which means they will probably never set foot in the halls of Congress or their state capitol. So Republicans hoping to increase, say, the number of Republican women in the House of Representatives (there are currently only 13) may make only middling progress this year.
A healthy majority of the losing candidates in both parties were men, although the main reason for that is simply that more men were running than women, so male candidates had more chances to lose. But despite the smaller numbers of women on the ballot, there is one stat that undeniably shows they’re doing well, or at least keeping pace with men, in primaries on both sides: There have been 92 incumbent-less Democratic primaries pitting at least one woman against at least one man so far this year; women won 67 of them (73 percent). And there have been 108 such Republican primaries so far; men won 54, and women won 54.
Women are beating men in head-to-head races Races won by gender, in primaries for Senate, House and governor where no incumbent was running and where at least one male and one female candidate were running No. of Primaries won by … Party Men Women Share won by women Democrats 25 67 73% Republicans 54 54 50 As of Aug. 25, 2020. In states where members of all parties compete in the same primary, the primary was considered incumbent-less if any incumbent in the race belonged to a different party than the relevant candidate. In two all-party races, two women advanced to the general election. Sources: Center for American Women and Politics, state election offices, Associated Press
So on the whole, because more women are running, more women are winning. But reducing the gender gap in elected office-holders is more complicated than simply getting more women to run. This is why research shows that endorsements (and the financial backing that tends to come with them) can be crucial to addressing underrepresentation among women in political office.
That’s why groups like Emily’s List even exist. Emily’s List, named for the phrase “early money is like yeast” (because it makes the dough rise), was formed in 1985 to support pro-abortion-rights Democratic women in their campaigns for Congress, as the group’s founder, Ellen Malcolm, knew that if female candidates could raise money early in the race, they’d be seen as more viable. That bet has paid off. Emily’s List has grown to be a force within the Democratic Party, raising and spending tens of millions each election cycle.
After seeing the success of Emily’s List, some Republicans have worked over the past few cycles to try to replicate that type of influence in their own party. This sort of intervention is especially important for Republican women, who are often less prominent in political pipelines and more likely to encounter voters who are skeptical of female candidate’s partisan loyalties, as our colleague Perry Bacon Jr. has explained. Take the group that Rep. Elise Stefanik, a rising star in the GOP, launched in 2018, E-PAC. She formed that organization to explicitly support female candidates in their primaries. Inspired by the competitive primary she herself faced in 2014, Stefanik says goal is to make sure other qualified Republican women don’t get boxed out.
And the data suggests that the support of these organizations could be making a real difference. To determine this, while collecting data about major-party candidates in every Senate, House and governor primary, we tracked endorsements by three key women’s groups: Emily’s List for Democrats, and E-PAC and Winning for Women for Republicans. And it turns out that the win rate for women endorsed by these groups is higher than it is for women overall.
Women with endorsements almost always won How female candidates endorsed by three women’s groups fared in primaries for Senate, House and governor where no incumbent was running Affiliation No. Endorsed No. Who Won win Percentage Winning for Women Republican 15 13 87% E-PAC Republican 21 18 86 Emily’s List Democratic 31 26 84 As of Aug. 25, 2020. Some women were endorsed by both E-PAC and Winning for Women. In states where members of all parties compete in the same primary, the primary was considered incumbent-less if any incumbent in the race belonged to a different party than the relevant candidate. Sources: Winning for women, Emily’s list, E-PAC, associated press, Center for American Women and Politics
Once again looking only at incumbent-less primaries, 18 of the 21 women endorsed by E-PAC (86 percent) and 13 of the 15 women endorsed by Winning for Women (87 percent) won their primaries. These win rates are much higher than the win rate of Republican women in incumbent-less primaries overall, which stands at 39 percent. This suggests either that an endorsement from these groups (and the financial backing that came with it) helped those women win, or that these groups are shrewdly endorsing the GOP’s strongest female candidates. Or perhaps it’s a combination of both — the encouragement of groups like E-PAC and Winning for Women could be drawing more formidable women into the race.
And on the Democratic side, Emily’s List endorsed 31 candidates in incumbent-less primaries, 26 of whom won. That’s an 84 percent win rate, much higher than Democratic women’s 56 percent win rate overall, but similar to the rates for E-PAC and Winning for Women. That said, Emily’s List also flexed its muscle in a way E-PAC and Winning for Women did not: It endorsed two women who were challenging incumbents — Marie Newman in Illinois’s 3rd Congressional District and Jessica Cisneros in Texas’s 28th Congressional District. (Newman’s and Cisernos’s opponents both opposed abortion, which helps explain why Emily’s List got involved.) What’s more, Newman actually won, and the nearly $1 million Emily’s List spent on the race was probably a big part of that.
E-PAC and Winning for Women are both new on the scene, so it makes sense that they may not be quite as bold as Emily’s List, which has become a major player in Democratic politics. By contrast, establishment Republicans viewed E-PAC skeptically, and GOP women’s groups face obstacles that Democratic groups do not: Unlike Democrats, the Republican Party and its voters tend to recoil from explicit appeals to gender diversity, which can make it difficult for female candidates to campaign on the unique perspective or qualifications they’d bring to the table. But the data suggests that groups like E-PAC and Winning for Women are off to a promising start in their attempt to bring gender diversity to the GOP. Their next big test becomes how many of these women will win in November.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-02--Trump May Have Gotten A Convention Bounce. But It’s Very Slight And May Already Be Fading.

We ’ ve now seen an array of new national polls conducted in the aftermath of the Republican National Convention , and collectively they show nothing major has shifted in the race between President Trump and Joe Biden .
Trump may have enjoyed a very slight convention bounce , but one that represents only a small boost compared to where the race stood before the party conventions — and even that small bounce is showing some signs of fading .
FiveThirtyEight ’ s general election forecast tells the tale .
On Aug. 16 , the Sunday before the Democratic convention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shot at winning .
A little over a week later , as the GOP convention was taking place , Trump ’ s chances ticked up to 32 in 100 , as there wasn ’ t much evidence of Biden getting any post-DNC bounce .
And as of the afternoon of Wednesday , Sept. 2 , Trump has a 30 in 100 chance .
All in all , there ’ s been only a very small shift in Trump ’ s direction .
Those forecasted odds are derived mostly from the polling data being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a closer look at that data ; we ’ ll separate the polls into batches according to their methodologies — telephone surveys , online polls and tracking polls .
First , four live-telephone pollsters released surveys on Wednesday that offered only modestly positive news for the president .
Quinnipiac University found Biden ahead by 10 points , 52 percent to 42 percent , in a poll conducted after both conventions , which marked an improvement over Trump ’ s 15-point deficit in the pollster ’ s mid-July survey ( the new poll is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one was of registered voters — the former tend to be a tad more Republican-leaning than the latter ) .
Meanwhile , USA Today/Suffolk University gave Biden a 7-point edge , 50 percent to 43 percent , smaller than the 12-point lead Biden had in late June .
Grinnell College/Selzer & Co. also released a new survey , finding Biden ahead by 8 points , 49 percent to 41 percent , although it hadn ’ t tested the race since late March when it gave Biden just a 4-point lead over Trump .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually showed a marginal improvement for Biden — he led by 8 points , 51 percent to 43 percent , up from his 4-point lead in mid-August .
However , pollsters that conduct surveys online haven ’ t shown much movement in their national numbers .
And the online pollsters have tended to poll more often than live-phone outfits , giving us more recent benchmarks to judge the conventions ’ effects ( mostly pre-convention polls conducted just prior to the Democratic event ) .
Ipsos showed a marginal improvement for Trump , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mid-August to 7 points after the conventions .
But others found no real change .
Canadian pollster Léger found Biden ’ s lead going from 8 points in early August to 7 points after the GOP convention , while Morning Consult found no change in voter sentiment in three-day polls before and after the convention period , giving Biden an 8-point edge in both surveys .
Meanwhile , three pollsters showed a very slight increase in Biden ’ s margin : YouGov/The Economist , IBD/TIPP and Redfield & Wilton all found Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Lastly , Emerson College partially conducts its surveys online , and its latest poll found Trump down by only 3 points after he trailed by 6.5 points at the end of July .
Finally , tracking polls — which conduct daily interviews over a rolling period of time — have been a mixed bag .
In its first 7-day tracking poll ending on Aug. 17 , leading into the Democratic convention , USC Dornsife found Biden up by 10 points based on responses to its probabilistic voting questions , and Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democratic convention .
But as of Sept. 1 , with the GOP convention days mostly out of this weekly tracker , Biden led by 9 points .
Morning Consult also conducted a handful of 1-day polls in and around the convention period , and the pollster found that Trump received a small bounce the day after his convention ; though , as we mentioned earlier , the pollster didn ’ t find any improvement for Trump in its lengthier polls .
Of course , these national surveys tell only part of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be decided by the vote in each state .
New state-level surveys are coming in , as well , and we plan to have more to say about those tomorrow .
We ’ ll be looking for whether Trump ’ s slight bounce is enduring or fading ( or was even there to begin with ) .
But for now , it looks like the conventions didn ’ t fundamentally alter the trajectory of the campaign .

We’ve now seen an array of new national polls conducted in the aftermath of the Republican National Convention, and collectively they show nothing major has shifted in the race between President Trump and Joe Biden. Trump may have enjoyed a very slight convention bounce, but one that represents only a small boost compared to where the race stood before the party conventions — and even that small bounce is showing some signs of fading.
FiveThirtyEight’s general election forecast tells the tale. On Aug. 16, the Sunday before the Democratic convention, Trump had a 28 in 100 shot at winning. A little over a week later, as the GOP convention was taking place, Trump’s chances ticked up to 32 in 100, as there wasn’t much evidence of Biden getting any post-DNC bounce. And as of the afternoon of Wednesday, Sept. 2, Trump has a 30 in 100 chance. All in all, there’s been only a very small shift in Trump’s direction.
Those forecasted odds are derived mostly from the polling data being released. So let’s take a closer look at that data; we’ll separate the polls into batches according to their methodologies — telephone surveys, online polls and tracking polls.
First, four live-telephone pollsters released surveys on Wednesday that offered only modestly positive news for the president. Quinnipiac University found Biden ahead by 10 points, 52 percent to 42 percent, in a poll conducted after both conventions, which marked an improvement over Trump’s 15-point deficit in the pollster’s mid-July survey (the new poll is among likely voters, while the earlier one was of registered voters — the former tend to be a tad more Republican-leaning than the latter). Meanwhile, USA Today/Suffolk University gave Biden a 7-point edge, 50 percent to 43 percent, smaller than the 12-point lead Biden had in late June. Grinnell College/Selzer & Co. also released a new survey, finding Biden ahead by 8 points, 49 percent to 41 percent, although it hadn’t tested the race since late March when it gave Biden just a 4-point lead over Trump. Lastly, CNN/SSRS’s post-convention survey actually showed a marginal improvement for Biden — he led by 8 points, 51 percent to 43 percent, up from his 4-point lead in mid-August.
However, pollsters that conduct surveys online haven’t shown much movement in their national numbers. And the online pollsters have tended to poll more often than live-phone outfits, giving us more recent benchmarks to judge the conventions’ effects (mostly pre-convention polls conducted just prior to the Democratic event). Ipsos showed a marginal improvement for Trump, who went from trailing by 11 points in mid-August to 7 points after the conventions. But others found no real change. Canadian pollster Léger found Biden’s lead going from 8 points in early August to 7 points after the GOP convention, while Morning Consult found no change in voter sentiment in three-day polls before and after the convention period, giving Biden an 8-point edge in both surveys. Meanwhile, three pollsters showed a very slight increase in Biden’s margin: YouGov/The Economist, IBD/TIPP and Redfield & Wilton all found Biden’s margin actually increased by 1 point. Lastly, Emerson College partially conducts its surveys online, and its latest poll found Trump down by only 3 points after he trailed by 6.5 points at the end of July.
Finally, tracking polls — which conduct daily interviews over a rolling period of time — have been a mixed bag. In its first 7-day tracking poll ending on Aug. 17, leading into the Democratic convention, USC Dornsife found Biden up by 10 points based on responses to its probabilistic voting questions, and Biden’s lead expanded to 14 points following the Democratic convention. But as of Sept. 1, with the GOP convention days mostly out of this weekly tracker, Biden led by 9 points. Morning Consult also conducted a handful of 1-day polls in and around the convention period, and the pollster found that Trump received a small bounce the day after his convention; though, as we mentioned earlier, the pollster didn’t find any improvement for Trump in its lengthier polls.
Of course, these national surveys tell only part of the story, as the Electoral College will be decided by the vote in each state. New state-level surveys are coming in, as well, and we plan to have more to say about those tomorrow. We’ll be looking for whether Trump’s slight bounce is enduring or fading (or was even there to begin with). But for now, it looks like the conventions didn’t fundamentally alter the trajectory of the campaign.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-02--A FiveThirtyEight Forecast Update: Was There A Convention Bounce?

Galen Druke takes a look at FiveThirtyEight ’ s 2020 presidential forecast and asks whether either candidate got a convention @ @ @ @ @ have the closest races right now .

Galen Druke takes a look at FiveThirtyEight’s 2020 presidential forecast and asks whether either candidate got a convention bounce — and which states have the closest races right now.