fivethirthyeight--2020-10-21--Are The Chicago Bears Good Or Just Lucky?

With one NFL Sunday left in the month of October , the Chicago Bears hold sole possession of first place in the NFC North .
They ’ re 5-1 after six games , and FiveThirtyEight ’ s Elo-based projections give them an 85 percent chance of making the playoffs .
Even if they played .500 football the rest of the way , they would still finish 10-6 .
So why are some observers labeling their success as “ fraudulent ” ?
The easy answer is they haven ’ t faced many good teams — and they haven ’ t won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to date ( the Detroit Lions , New York Giants , Atlanta Falcons , Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Carolina Panthers ) have a combined win percentage of .379 .
Given that the Bears have only outscored their opponents by a total of 128-116 , predictive metrics like the Simple Ranking System don ’ t love them .
With a weak slate like that , it ’ s no surprise that opponent-adjusted stats like Football Outsiders ’ Defense-adjusted Value Over Average ( DVOA ) aren ’ t impressed by their performances so far , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NFL games is never a complete accident , and there are plenty of concrete football arguments for the Bears being what the scoreboard says they are .
They rank seventh in both scoring and yardage defense , thanks to a secondary that ’ s allowed the lowest completion rate of any team in the NFL .
All-Pro edge rusher Khalil Mack has 4.5 sacks as part of a unit that ’ s tied for 10th-most sacks in the league despite blitzing less often than all but five other teams .
They ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the second-lowest third-down conversion rate and lowest red-zone touchdown rate in the league .
These numbers don ’ t stack up to those of hallowed Bears defenses like the 2006 and 1985 units .
But it ’ s reasonable to believe the 2020 edition will still be tough to score against for the rest of the regular season — and , likely , the playoffs .
The obvious problem is on the other side of the ball , where a quarterback combination of Nick Foles and Mitchell Trubisky has made for one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attacks .
The Bears rank 26th in team completion rate and passer rating , and they sit in 30th in both yards per attempt and yards per completion .
As good as their situational defense has been , their situational offense has been nearly that bad : They rank 27th in third-down conversion rate and 26th in red-zone touchdown rate .
The passing attack has generated just 17.5 expected points , seventh-worst in the league .
The Great NFL Passing Boom of the 2010s primed football-watching minds to correlate passing success with team @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opportunity for defenses to cycle back to ascendance , the rise of do-everything quarterbacks like Patrick Mahomes , Lamar Jackson and Russell Wilson 2.0 seems to have squashed it .
If the NFL is still a pass-first league , just how badly can Chicago ’ s quarterbacks perform without killing the team ’ s postseason hopes ?
Let ’ s compare what the Bears have gotten from Foles and Trubisky so far with where the bar seems to be .
There have been 60 playoff teams over the past five full NFL seasons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very effective through the air .
Last year , eight of the NFL ’ s top 10 passing offenses made the playoffs .
Here ’ s where the 2020 Bears stack up against the best , worst and average passing attacks — by adjusted net yards per attempt — from the past five playoff fields : The Bears are definitely getting more from their passing attack than the worst-throwing recent playoff team , the 2016 Houston Texans .
But “ more ” than Brock Osweiler and Tom Savage were able to contribute to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 AFC South is not much .
In fact , if you drop the Bears ’ current passing rate stats in with that field of 60 , they would rank near the bottom in almost all of them : completion rate ( 49th ) , touchdown rate ( 34th ) , interception rate ( 56th ) , yards per attempt ( 60th ) , passer rating ( 55th ) and adjusted net yards per attempt ( 58th ) .
But unlike the 2016 Texans , the Bears don ’ t have a productive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Miller and Alfred Blue gained 1,493 yards for those Texans at a 4.06 per-carry rate , leading that season ’ s eighth-most-prolific rushing attack .
With 2020 Bears starter Tarik Cohen already out for the season , second-year back David Montgomery has managed just 305 yards over six games , averaging 3.7 yards a pop .
The team ’ s No .
2 active rusher ?
Wideout Cordarrelle Patterson , with just 70 yards .
To stay competitive for the rest of the season — let alone make noise in the playoffs — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better at one of these phases of the game .
But if Foles can ’ t get closer to his top form , Montgomery can ’ t run more effectively , and the defense can ’ t find an even higher gear , there ’ s still one element driving the Bears ’ success : fumble luck .
On defense , the Bears have forced four fumbles and recovered three , while on offense , they ’ ve recovered all six of their own fumbles .
All in all , they ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that have hit the ground in their games so far , the highest rate in the NFL .
For comparison , the highest recorded full-season recovery rate since 2003 was the 69.8 percent put up by the 2009 Tampa Bay Buccaneers .
But whether the Bears have been lucky , good or both , it doesn ’ t change what ’ s happened .
They ’ re still 5-1 , with remaining games against the 1-5 Texans , 2-3 Detroit Lions and 1-5 Jacksonville Jaguars — and two games against the 1-5 Vikings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a little , and even if they don ’ t play significantly better , the Bears ’ hot start has given them a nearly 50-50 chance to win the division and a 17 percent shot at a first-round bye .
Bears fans probably like those odds , even if the numbers lead everyone else to call them frauds .

With one NFL Sunday left in the month of October, the Chicago Bears hold sole possession of first place in the NFC North. They’re 5-1 after six games, and FiveThirtyEight’s Elo-based projections give them an 85 percent chance of making the playoffs. Even if they played .500 football the rest of the way, they would still finish 10-6.
So why are some observers labeling their success as “fraudulent”?
The easy answer is they haven’t faced many good teams — and they haven’t won by very much. Their five conquests to date (the Detroit Lions, New York Giants, Atlanta Falcons, Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Carolina Panthers) have a combined win percentage of .379. Given that the Bears have only outscored their opponents by a total of 128-116, predictive metrics like the Simple Ranking System don’t love them. With a weak slate like that, it’s no surprise that opponent-adjusted stats like Football Outsiders’ Defense-adjusted Value Over Average (DVOA) aren’t impressed by their performances so far, either.
But winning five of six NFL games is never a complete accident, and there are plenty of concrete football arguments for the Bears being what the scoreboard says they are. They rank seventh in both scoring and yardage defense, thanks to a secondary that’s allowed the lowest completion rate of any team in the NFL. All-Pro edge rusher Khalil Mack has 4.5 sacks as part of a unit that’s tied for 10th-most sacks in the league despite blitzing less often than all but five other teams. They’re an especially good situational defense, allowing the second-lowest third-down conversion rate and lowest red-zone touchdown rate in the league.
These numbers don’t stack up to those of hallowed Bears defenses like the 2006 and 1985 units. But it’s reasonable to believe the 2020 edition will still be tough to score against for the rest of the regular season — and, likely, the playoffs.
The obvious problem is on the other side of the ball, where a quarterback combination of Nick Foles and Mitchell Trubisky has made for one of the league’s most anemic passing attacks. The Bears rank 26th in team completion rate and passer rating, and they sit in 30th in both yards per attempt and yards per completion. As good as their situational defense has been, their situational offense has been nearly that bad: They rank 27th in third-down conversion rate and 26th in red-zone touchdown rate. The passing attack has generated just 17.5 expected points, seventh-worst in the league.
The Great NFL Passing Boom of the 2010s primed football-watching minds to correlate passing success with team success — and if there was an opportunity for defenses to cycle back to ascendance, the rise of do-everything quarterbacks like Patrick Mahomes, Lamar Jackson and Russell Wilson 2.0 seems to have squashed it.
If the NFL is still a pass-first league, just how badly can Chicago’s quarterbacks perform without killing the team’s postseason hopes? Let’s compare what the Bears have gotten from Foles and Trubisky so far with where the bar seems to be.
There have been 60 playoff teams over the past five full NFL seasons, and most of them have been very effective through the air. Last year, eight of the NFL’s top 10 passing offenses made the playoffs.
Here’s where the 2020 Bears stack up against the best, worst and average passing attacks — by adjusted net yards per attempt — from the past five playoff fields:
Chicago’s passing looks like the worst playoff teams Passing stats for the top five and bottom five 2015-19 playoff teams by adjusted net yards per attempt (ANY/Att), plus the 2020 Chicago Bears Team Year Comp% TD% Int% Yds/Att ANY/Att Bears 2020* 61.3% 5.0% 2.9% 6.0 5.1 Top 5 teams Year Comp% TD% Int% Yds/Att ANY/Att Falcons 2016 69.6% 7.1% 1.3% 9.2 9.0 Chiefs 2018 66.0 8.6 2.1 8.8 8.9 Patriots 2016 66.9 5.8 0.4 8.1 8.5 Chiefs 2019 65.6 5.2 0.9 8.1 8.1 Saints 2018 73.4 6.4 1.3 8.0 8.1 Bottom 5 teams Year Comp% TD% Int% Yds/Att ANY/Att Panthers 2017 58.5% 4.4% 3.2% 6.6 5.2 Bills 2017 60.7 3.4 2.1 6.5 5.2 Broncos 2015 60.7 3.1 3.8 7.0 5.1 Titans 2017 61.7 2.8 3.4 6.8 5.1 Texans 2016 59.5 2.6 2.7 5.9 4.5 Years Comp% TD% Int% Yds/Att ANY/Att Average 2015-19 65.1% 5.2% 1.9% 7.6 6.9 *2020 stats through games of Oct. 18. Adjusted net yards per attempt is calculated as (pass yards + 20*(pass TD) – 45*(interceptions thrown) – sack yards)/(passing attempts + sacks). Source: Pro-Football-Reference.com
The Bears are definitely getting more from their passing attack than the worst-throwing recent playoff team, the 2016 Houston Texans. But “more” than Brock Osweiler and Tom Savage were able to contribute to a team that barely won the dire 2016 AFC South is not much.
In fact, if you drop the Bears’ current passing rate stats in with that field of 60, they would rank near the bottom in almost all of them: completion rate (49th), touchdown rate (34th), interception rate (56th), yards per attempt (60th), passer rating (55th) and adjusted net yards per attempt (58th).
But unlike the 2016 Texans, the Bears don’t have a productive tailback, let alone two. Lamar Miller and Alfred Blue gained 1,493 yards for those Texans at a 4.06 per-carry rate, leading that season’s eighth-most-prolific rushing attack. With 2020 Bears starter Tarik Cohen already out for the season, second-year back David Montgomery has managed just 305 yards over six games, averaging 3.7 yards a pop. The team’s No. 2 active rusher? Wideout Cordarrelle Patterson, with just 70 yards.
To stay competitive for the rest of the season — let alone make noise in the playoffs — the Bears will likely have to get better at one of these phases of the game. But if Foles can’t get closer to his top form, Montgomery can’t run more effectively, and the defense can’t find an even higher gear, there’s still one element driving the Bears’ success: fumble luck.
On defense, the Bears have forced four fumbles and recovered three, while on offense, they’ve recovered all six of their own fumbles. All in all, they’ve picked up 81.8 percent of the balls that have hit the ground in their games so far, the highest rate in the NFL. For comparison, the highest recorded full-season recovery rate since 2003 was the 69.8 percent put up by the 2009 Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
But whether the Bears have been lucky, good or both, it doesn’t change what’s happened. They’re still 5-1, with remaining games against the 1-5 Texans, 2-3 Detroit Lions and 1-5 Jacksonville Jaguars — and two games against the 1-5 Vikings. Even if their fumble luck regresses a little, and even if they don’t play significantly better, the Bears’ hot start has given them a nearly 50-50 chance to win the division and a 17 percent shot at a first-round bye.
Bears fans probably like those odds, even if the numbers lead everyone else to call them frauds.
Check out our latest NFL predictions.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-21--Home Teams Aren’t Winning As Much In College Football This Season. The Big Ten Should Fit Right In.

In the weeks leading up to this strange , limited-capacity season of college football , oddsmakers salivated over the prospect of something akin to a control study for home-field advantage .
What role does geography play if crowds are reduced by 75 percent , or if there are no crowds at all ?
“ I think home-field advantage for everyone may be gone , ” Big Ten Network analyst Howard Griffith said in mid-September .
So far , he seems to have been right .
Home losses have piled up regardless of conference or program pedigree .
Through seven weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) is the lowest at this point in any season since at least 2008 .
Some of that has to do with the lack of cupcake opponents , given that teams have largely played within their conferences : Only 63 of the 167 home contests played so far in the Football Bowl Subdivision have involved nonconference opponents , for a share of just 37.7 percent ; from 2008 through 2019 , nonconference games made up 61.4 percent of the home games among the first six games played each season .
If we look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win their matchups , they ’ re also scuffling .
According to ESPN Stats & Information Group , home favorites won 78.3 percent of games from 2008 to 2019 ; this season , they are winning just 70.1 percent , a full 5.7 percentage points lower than any season over that stretch .
Even home favorites with a lead entering the fourth quarter are struggling , relatively speaking : Those teams are winning only 86.9 percent of their games , compared with the 2008-19 average of 93.5 percent .
In 2019 , SEC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their conference games than any Power Five conference ’ s home teams , but they ’ re just 14-12 so far in 2020 ; that includes home losses to unranked teams by ranked LSU , Mississippi State and Tennessee .
Only once last season did a ranked SEC program fall at home to an unranked one .
This season , top 10 teams have already suffered three home losses to unranked opponents , an occurrence that since 2012 has happened at most seven times over an entire season .
As Dennis Dodd of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after two of the four largest home-field advantages on record were produced in the past two seasons .
All this before two major conferences unlock the gates to public-less venues in the coming weeks .
While team success within friendly confines has nosedived , if the trend holds , it won ’ t be much of a departure for the Big Ten , which opens play Friday .
In an increasingly offense-ruled sport , no conference in the College Football Playoff era has featured worse offensive production by home teams in conference play @ @ @ @ @ @ @ teams rank last in points per drive , score percentage and successful play rate .
That ’ s last among ALL Football Bowl Subdivision conferences , not just the Power Five .
And that affects the win column .
Over the past 10 seasons , Big Ten home teams have a lower win rate in conference play than any other Power Five conference ’ s home teams , and compared to all conferences over the past two seasons , only the Mountain West ’ s home teams have been worse .
Since Maryland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prior to the 2014 season , Big Ten road favorites have won a higher percentage of conference games than any other conference ’ s road favorites .
To assess whether crowd noise has had a measurable impact on offensive performance , FiveThirtyEight turned to expected points added ( EPA ) per play .
And to filter out unbalanced matchups , FiveThirtyEight compared only favored home and away teams in conference play .
While all favorites aren ’ t created equal , this inches the exercise closer to a fairer approximate baseline with which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suspect that a roaring crowd would adversely affect the communication of play calls , the cadence of snap counts and the general comfort of road team offenses .
It hasn ’ t .
In three of the five seasons since the College Football Playoff was introduced , Big Ten road favorites generated more EPA per play in conference games than home favorites did .
That is not an experience shared by any other major conference .
In the SEC , for example , home favorites saw more EPA per play in every single @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Big Ten is that it will fit right in with the current national landscape , where road is king .
This year marks the first since 2005 that EPA per play is higher for favored road teams in conference play than it is for favored home teams , and the split is the widest it ’ s been since ESPN ’ s Stats & Information Group began tracking it in 2004 .
Recently , Big Ten crowds haven ’ t helped home teams win close games .
Over the past 10 seasons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead of any kind entering the fourth quarter had the lowest win percentage of any conference ’ s home favorites .
And in one-possession games , Big Ten road favorites had a .778 win percentage , the second highest rate of any conference and by far the highest of any Power Five conference .
Another way to measure home performance is to turn to betting lines .
In the College Football Playoff era , the Big Ten ’ s home teams rank last among major-conference home teams in cover percentage during conference play @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on an anecdotal level .
A cursory search will indicate that the Big Ten is home to at least a handful of the most intimidating environments in the sport .
It ’ s a conference that includes the sport ’ s birthplace and one of the oldest stadiums , the nation ’ s longest consecutive sellout streak , The Best Damn Band In The Land and whiteout spectacles .
That doesn ’ t even include The Big House .
But in recent years , the Big Ten ’ s home-stadium notoriety has hardly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And in 2020 , a season in which anything can seemingly happen , the conference will fit right in .

Home Teams Aren’t Winning As Much In College Football This Season. The Big Ten Should Fit Right In.
In the weeks leading up to this strange, limited-capacity season of college football, oddsmakers salivated over the prospect of something akin to a control study for home-field advantage. What role does geography play if crowds are reduced by 75 percent, or if there are no crowds at all?
“I think home-field advantage for everyone may be gone,” Big Ten Network analyst Howard Griffith said in mid-September. So far, he seems to have been right. Home losses have piled up regardless of conference or program pedigree.
Through seven weeks, overall home winning percentage (.617) is the lowest at this point in any season since at least 2008. Some of that has to do with the lack of cupcake opponents, given that teams have largely played within their conferences: Only 63 of the 167 home contests played so far in the Football Bowl Subdivision have involved nonconference opponents, for a share of just 37.7 percent; from 2008 through 2019, nonconference games made up 61.4 percent of the home games among the first six games played each season.
If we look just at the home teams favored to win their matchups, they’re also scuffling. According to ESPN Stats & Information Group, home favorites won 78.3 percent of games from 2008 to 2019; this season, they are winning just 70.1 percent, a full 5.7 percentage points lower than any season over that stretch. Even home favorites with a lead entering the fourth quarter are struggling, relatively speaking: Those teams are winning only 86.9 percent of their games, compared with the 2008-19 average of 93.5 percent.
In 2019, SEC home teams won a higher share of their conference games than any Power Five conference’s home teams, but they’re just 14-12 so far in 2020; that includes home losses to unranked teams by ranked LSU, Mississippi State and Tennessee. Only once last season did a ranked SEC program fall at home to an unranked one. This season, top 10 teams have already suffered three home losses to unranked opponents, an occurrence that since 2012 has happened at most seven times over an entire season.
As Dennis Dodd of CBS Sports noted, this downturn comes after two of the four largest home-field advantages on record were produced in the past two seasons. All this before two major conferences unlock the gates to public-less venues in the coming weeks.
While team success within friendly confines has nosedived, if the trend holds, it won’t be much of a departure for the Big Ten, which opens play Friday.
In an increasingly offense-ruled sport, no conference in the College Football Playoff era has featured worse offensive production by home teams in conference play than the Big Ten, whose home teams rank last in points per drive, score percentage and successful play rate. That’s last among ALL Football Bowl Subdivision conferences, not just the Power Five.
And that affects the win column. Over the past 10 seasons, Big Ten home teams have a lower win rate in conference play than any other Power Five conference’s home teams, and compared to all conferences over the past two seasons, only the Mountain West’s home teams have been worse. Since Maryland and Rutgers officially joined the Big Ten prior to the 2014 season, Big Ten road favorites have won a higher percentage of conference games than any other conference’s road favorites.
To assess whether crowd noise has had a measurable impact on offensive performance, FiveThirtyEight turned to expected points added (EPA) per play. And to filter out unbalanced matchups, FiveThirtyEight compared only favored home and away teams in conference play. While all favorites aren’t created equal, this inches the exercise closer to a fairer approximate baseline with which to compare home-and-road splits.
One might suspect that a roaring crowd would adversely affect the communication of play calls, the cadence of snap counts and the general comfort of road team offenses. It hasn’t. In three of the five seasons since the College Football Playoff was introduced, Big Ten road favorites generated more EPA per play in conference games than home favorites did. That is not an experience shared by any other major conference. In the SEC, for example, home favorites saw more EPA per play in every single season.
Big Ten favorites have produced a lot on the road Expected points added (EPA) per play for home favorites minus EPA per play for road favorites by season among the Power 5 conferences Season ACC Big Ten Big 12 Pac-12 SEC 2019 +0.02 -0.05 +0.00 +0.02 +0.04 2018 -0.06 +0.07 +0.07 +0.02 +0.01 2017 +0.05 -0.04 +0.06 +0.16 +0.04 2016 +0.00 +0.05 -0.04 -0.02 +0.07 2015 +0.06 -0.04 -0.03 +0.01 +0.06 2014 +0.04 +0.05 +0.14 -0.01 +0.06 Source: ESPN STATS & INFORMATION GROUP
But the good news for the Big Ten is that it will fit right in with the current national landscape, where road is king. This year marks the first since 2005 that EPA per play is higher for favored road teams in conference play than it is for favored home teams, and the split is the widest it’s been since ESPN’s Stats & Information Group began tracking it in 2004.
Recently, Big Ten crowds haven’t helped home teams win close games. Over the past 10 seasons, Big Ten home favorites with a lead of any kind entering the fourth quarter had the lowest win percentage of any conference’s home favorites. And in one-possession games, Big Ten road favorites had a .778 win percentage, the second highest rate of any conference and by far the highest of any Power Five conference.
Another way to measure home performance is to turn to betting lines. In the College Football Playoff era, the Big Ten’s home teams rank last among major-conference home teams in cover percentage during conference play.
This is surprising, at least on an anecdotal level. A cursory search will indicate that the Big Ten is home to at least a handful of the most intimidating environments in the sport. It’s a conference that includes the sport’s birthplace and one of the oldest stadiums, the nation’s longest consecutive sellout streak, The Best Damn Band In The Land and whiteout spectacles. That doesn’t even include The Big House.
But in recent years, the Big Ten’s home-stadium notoriety has hardly guaranteed a win for the host. And in 2020, a season in which anything can seemingly happen, the conference will fit right in.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-22--Is Tonight’s Presidential Debate Too Late To Shake Up The Race?

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight ’ s politics chat .
The transcript below has been lightly edited .
sarah ( Sarah Frostenson , politics editor ) : This is it — the last presidential debate — and , as we ’ ve said in our presidential forecast for a while now , President Trump is running out of time .
Joe Biden has a double-digit lead in national polls and has gotten a number of good state polls in the past few days .
We still expect the race to tighten here in the home stretch , and a debate is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But it ’ s also true that the last two weeks before an election don ’ t necessarily change the race all that much .
So , let ’ s start there .
How big are the stakes going into tonight ?
nrakich ( Nathaniel Rakich , elections analyst ) : The stakes are kind of big but also kind of not ?
On the one hand , it ’ s the last obvious opportunity for Trump to win voters over and for Biden to screw up .
On the other hand , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wall for Trump .
Granted , our presidential forecast still gives him a 13-in-100 chance of staging a comeback .
But Trump just hasn ’ t shown any inclination to change his base-first strategy .
He ’ s also been behind Biden for a while now in our forecast : I guess I ’ m just not counting on seeing a different Trump tonight from the one who bombed in the first debate .
kaleigh ( Kaleigh Rogers , tech and politics reporter ) : It ’ s rare for debates to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the best of times , so it ’ s hard to imagine a scenario where this debate upends things in a dramatic way .
geoffrey.skelley ( Geoffrey Skelley , elections analyst ) : Given how rare live events are in the COVID-19 era , though , it ’ s not impossible that something could come out that reflects poorly on Biden .
So , in that sense , it is a big deal .
At the same time , a national poll from The Economist/YouGov found this week that Biden led 52 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and that only 4 percent of those voters said they might change their minds .
So , unless Trump can win over the incredibly small number of voters who genuinely are unsure — there are a lot fewer undecided voters this year — it ’ s going to be tough to win the election .
And I ’ m not sure much can happen that ’ s going to shift public opinion sharply .
kaleigh : Like Nathaniel , I ’ m curious to see whether Trump changes his strategy at all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limit how much he can talk over Biden , but arguably , that tactic didn ’ t work so well .
At least one poll found the majority of respondents disapproved of Trump ’ s behavior in the last debate , and even some Republicans said it made them support him less afterward .
nrakich : I ’ m not so sure the muted mics will make a big difference , Kaleigh .
Maybe we won ’ t be able to hear Trump ’ s interruptions , but Biden will .
And that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mid-answer .
sarah : Saying Trump bombed is a bit harsh , though , Nathaniel .
After all , Clinton “ won ” the 2016 debates , and we saw how that turned out .
It ’ s easy to get obsessed with comparisons to 2016 , and as we ’ ve written , you shouldn ’ t make too much of one election — after all , it ’ s a sample size of one .
That said , there are some pretty big differences from 2016 , yes ?
kaleigh : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s a pretty stark contrast .
It has changed how we vote , how candidates campaign , how the economy is doing and so much more .
I wonder how different this election would be compared with 2016 ’ s if COVID-19 hadn ’ t happened .
geoffrey.skelley : Well , as that Economist/YouGov survey and others have shown , this election has far fewer undecided or third-party voters , which makes it harder for the debates to move mountains .
In FiveThirtyEight ’ s national polling average , Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up to about 94 percent .
But at the same point in 2016 , Trump and Clinton totaled just about 86 percent — a lot more voters were in play even in the late stages of the campaign .
The same is true in state-level polls as well .
For example , around 95 percent of voters in Wisconsin are backing Biden or Trump in our polling average , whereas 86 percent of voters there said they supported Trump or Clinton at this point in 2016. nrakich : Not to mention , Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clinton ’ s was at this stage of the 2016 campaign .
As of Wednesday afternoon , Biden led by 9.9 points in our national polling average ; 13 days before Election Day in 2016 , Clinton would have led by an average of 6.4 points , using the same methodology .
Something else that I think makes tonight ’ s debate less important : At least a quarter of voters have probably already cast their ballots .
According to statistics collected by political scientist Michael McDonald , more than 41 million early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or 30 percent of 2016 turnout ( although 2020 turnout could be much higher if voter enthusiasm is any indication ) .
So , even if something big happens tonight , a lot of people will have already voted .
geoffrey.skelley : That ’ s true , Nathaniel , but it could be that those early voters would have voted already anyway , as studies have shown that voters who vote early are more likely to be very partisan .
Or , put another way , maybe those people weren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sarah : Those are all really good points — especially Kaleigh ’ s , about what this election would have looked like if COVID-19 hadn ’ t happened .
What could we be missing , though ?
( And one big reason why comparisons to 2016 have their limitations ! )
nrakich : Well , it ’ s always possible there will be a polling error .
So , if the debate budges the polls just enough — say , to where Biden has a 4-point national lead instead of a 10-point one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Trump could win .
If Biden stays at +10 nationally , though , it would take a truly bonkers polling error to save Trump .
kaleigh : There are also more conventional differences .
For example , this election has an incumbent candidate .
geoffrey.skelley : Speaking of polling error — and whether we could have a “ Dewey Defeats Truman ” on our hands — pollsters have tried to account for some of the things that led to problems with state polls in 2016 .
For example , some are weighting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ education and race , to avoid underrepresenting white voters without a college degree , voters who went so strongly for Trump in 2016 .
So , some state polls could be better this time — although , of course , it ’ s impossible to predict the direction of a polling error before an election .
sarah : OK , back to the debate .
The rules have changed , as Kaleigh and Nathaniel were mentioning earlier , and now the moderator can mute the candidates if they speak out of turn .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ six issues they are expected to stick to : What do we think might be covered by these issues ?
What plays to Biden ’ s strengths ?
And Trump ’ s ?
geoffrey.skelley : Well , I ’ m going to go out on a limb and say that “ fighting COVID-19 ” is not going to go well for Trump because Americans generally think he ’ s done a poor job handling the pandemic .
That leaves Biden with a lot of material to work with .
nrakich : Yeah — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the last debate , respondents said 78 percent to 20 percent that Biden was better on the issue of COVID-19 .
And that was before Trump announced he had tested positive for COVID-19 .
kaleigh : Trump has already been trying to positively spin his bout with the coronavirus — he ’ s been through it !
He survived !
But it will be pretty easy for Biden to point out that Trump didn ’ t take the virus seriously since he actually caught it .
Not to mention , many Americans don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ precautions , and there are signs that this hurt him electorally .
nrakich : I ’ m curious what the “ American families ” segment will touch on … does anyone have any inkling what that means ?
geoffrey.skelley : 🤷♂ Perhaps it ’ s a roundabout way of saying the economy .
Kitchen table issues .
Of course , the economy touches almost every topic to some extent .
kaleigh : That ’ s my bet , Geoffrey , but it ’ s just vague enough to be uncertain .
sarah : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Or , at the very least , I can imagine suburban families being mentioned by both Biden and Trump .
Trump won suburban voters in 2016 , but he ’ s in real trouble here in 2020 , as many white suburban women are continuing to move away from the Republican Party , as we saw in 2018 .
But , yeah , given the economy ranked as voters ’ first or second issue , according to our polling with Ipsos , I think that ’ s right , too , Geoffrey and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where Trump has always had an advantage .
nrakich : “ Climate change ” and “ race in America ” also seem like good issues for Biden .
According to that Ipsos poll , more than 90 percent of Americans trust Biden more than Trump on both of those issues !
On the other hand , they also said they trust Trump more than Biden , about 81 percent to 18 percent , on “ violent crime.
” So Trump might try to reframe the segment on race in America into one about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security , I think it ’ s fair to say that segment will move the fewest votes .
American elections generally aren ’ t decided on foreign-policy grounds .
kaleigh : Honestly , is there anything in that lineup that isn ’ t well-trodden territory at this point ?
sarah : Yeah , it is hard to imagine that any of the issues discussed tonight will cover new ground in a way that sways voters .
They do feel like well-trodden talking points at this stage , and the reality remains that Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Otherwise , his odds in our forecast will continue to fall .
But , of course , even a 5 percent chance of something happening is something you should take seriously .
OK , the stakes are high .
Trump needs some movement in the polls , and Biden isn ’ t a safe bet .
What will you be watching for tonight , and in the last week of the election — knowing , of course , we ’ re all kind of flying blind ?
nrakich : To me , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maintain his 10-point national lead after this debate ?
Or will tonight “ reset ” the race and bring the polling average down to Biden +7 or so , which is where it has been for most of the year ?
Even if that were to happen , Biden would still have a good chance of winning , but the size of his margin could determine things like whether Democrats win the Senate or the number of state legislatures Democrats flip .
geoffrey.skelley : It ’ s true that incumbent presidents have had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , only to come back stronger in later ones .
This was true of Barack Obama in 2012 and Ronald Reagan in 1984 .
So don ’ t count out a much better showing from Trump tonight .

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.
sarah (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): This is it — the last presidential debate — and, as we’ve said in our presidential forecast for a while now, President Trump is running out of time. Joe Biden has a double-digit lead in national polls and has gotten a number of good state polls in the past few days.
[Live Updates: We’re Tracking The Vote And Voting Problems]
We still expect the race to tighten here in the home stretch, and a debate is a great way for that to happen. But it’s also true that the last two weeks before an election don’t necessarily change the race all that much.
The final two weeks usually don’t change much How much the national polling margin changed between 15 days before the presidential election and Election Day, since 1972 Leader in FiveThirtyEight national polling average Year 15 days before ELECTION Election Day Change 2016 Clinton +6.9 Clinton +3.8 3.1 2012 Romney +1.2 Obama +0.4 1.6 2008 Obama +6.8 Obama +7.1 0.3 2004 Bush +2.4 Bush +1.6 0.8 2000 Bush +2.7 Bush +3.5 0.8 1996 Clinton +14.9 Clinton +12.8 2.1 1992 Clinton +14.1 Clinton +7.1 7.0 1988 Bush +11.8 Bush +10.4 1.4 1984 Reagan +16.7 Reagan +18.0 1.3 1980 Reagan +2.3 Reagan +2.1 0.2 1976 Carter +2.0 Carter +0.8 1.2 1972 Nixon +25.5 Nixon +24.1 1.4 The averages listed are calculated retroactively based on FiveThirtyEight’s current polling average methodology.
So, let’s start there. How big are the stakes going into tonight?
nrakich (Nathaniel Rakich, elections analyst): The stakes are kind of big but also kind of not?
On the one hand, it’s the last obvious opportunity for Trump to win voters over and for Biden to screw up. On the other hand, I think the writing is on the wall for Trump.
Granted, our presidential forecast still gives him a 13-in-100 chance of staging a comeback. But Trump just hasn’t shown any inclination to change his base-first strategy. He’s also been behind Biden for a while now in our forecast:
I guess I’m just not counting on seeing a different Trump tonight from the one who bombed in the first debate.
kaleigh (Kaleigh Rogers, tech and politics reporter): It’s rare for debates to have large, lasting impacts on the polls at the best of times, so it’s hard to imagine a scenario where this debate upends things in a dramatic way.
geoffrey.skelley (Geoffrey Skelley, elections analyst): Given how rare live events are in the COVID-19 era, though, it’s not impossible that something could come out that reflects poorly on Biden. So, in that sense, it is a big deal.
At the same time, a national poll from The Economist/YouGov found this week that Biden led 52 percent to 43 percent among likely voters, and that only 4 percent of those voters said they might change their minds. So, unless Trump can win over the incredibly small number of voters who genuinely are unsure — there are a lot fewer undecided voters this year — it’s going to be tough to win the election. And I’m not sure much can happen that’s going to shift public opinion sharply.
Over 25 million have already voted, but this is what pollsters expected: Nate Silver
kaleigh: Like Nathaniel, I’m curious to see whether Trump changes his strategy at all. Obviously, the muted mics will limit how much he can talk over Biden, but arguably, that tactic didn’t work so well. At least one poll found the majority of respondents disapproved of Trump’s behavior in the last debate, and even some Republicans said it made them support him less afterward.
nrakich: I’m not so sure the muted mics will make a big difference, Kaleigh. Maybe we won’t be able to hear Trump’s interruptions, but Biden will. And that could trip Biden up or stop him mid-answer.
sarah: Saying Trump bombed is a bit harsh, though, Nathaniel. After all, Clinton “won” the 2016 debates, and we saw how that turned out.
It’s easy to get obsessed with comparisons to 2016, and as we’ve written, you shouldn’t make too much of one election — after all, it’s a sample size of one. That said, there are some pretty big differences from 2016, yes?
kaleigh: Well, there’s the pandemic. That’s a pretty stark contrast. It has changed how we vote, how candidates campaign, how the economy is doing and so much more.
I wonder how different this election would be compared with 2016’s if COVID-19 hadn’t happened.
geoffrey.skelley: Well, as that Economist/YouGov survey and others have shown, this election has far fewer undecided or third-party voters, which makes it harder for the debates to move mountains.
In FiveThirtyEight’s national polling average, Biden and Trump’s combined support adds up to about 94 percent. But at the same point in 2016, Trump and Clinton totaled just about 86 percent — a lot more voters were in play even in the late stages of the campaign. The same is true in state-level polls as well. For example, around 95 percent of voters in Wisconsin are backing Biden or Trump in our polling average, whereas 86 percent of voters there said they supported Trump or Clinton at this point in 2016.
nrakich: Not to mention, Biden’s lead is simply bigger than Clinton’s was at this stage of the 2016 campaign.
As of Wednesday afternoon, Biden led by 9.9 points in our national polling average; 13 days before Election Day in 2016, Clinton would have led by an average of 6.4 points, using the same methodology.
Something else that I think makes tonight’s debate less important: At least a quarter of voters have probably already cast their ballots. According to statistics collected by political scientist Michael McDonald, more than 41 million early or absentee votes have already been cast, or 30 percent of 2016 turnout (although 2020 turnout could be much higher if voter enthusiasm is any indication). So, even if something big happens tonight, a lot of people will have already voted.
geoffrey.skelley: That’s true, Nathaniel, but it could be that those early voters would have voted already anyway, as studies have shown that voters who vote early are more likely to be very partisan. Or, put another way, maybe those people weren’t going to change their minds anyway.
sarah: Those are all really good points — especially Kaleigh’s, about what this election would have looked like if COVID-19 hadn’t happened. What could we be missing, though? (And one big reason why comparisons to 2016 have their limitations!)
nrakich: Well, it’s always possible there will be a polling error.
So, if the debate budges the polls just enough — say, to where Biden has a 4-point national lead instead of a 10-point one — that makes it significantly more likely that Trump could win.
If Biden stays at +10 nationally, though, it would take a truly bonkers polling error to save Trump.
kaleigh: There are also more conventional differences. For example, this election has an incumbent candidate.
geoffrey.skelley: Speaking of polling error — and whether we could have a “Dewey Defeats Truman” on our hands — pollsters have tried to account for some of the things that led to problems with state polls in 2016. For example, some are weighting their samples by education, or even education and race, to avoid underrepresenting white voters without a college degree, voters who went so strongly for Trump in 2016.
So, some state polls could be better this time — although, of course, it’s impossible to predict the direction of a polling error before an election.
Polling bias is not very consistent from cycle to cycle Weighted-average statistical bias of polls in final 21 days of the election, among polls in FiveThirtyEight’s Pollster Ratings database Cycle Governor U.S. Senate U.S. House Pres. General Combined 1998 R+5.7 R+4.8 R+1.5 R+4.2 1999-2000 D+0.6 R+2.9 D+0.9 R+2.6 R+1.8 2001-2002 D+3.0 D+1.4 D+1.3 D+2.2 2003-2004 R+4.2 D+1.7 D+2.5 D+1.1 D+0.9 2005-2006 D+0.3 R+1.3 D+0.2 R+0.1 2007-2008 D+0.5 D+0.8 D+1.0 D+1.1 D+1.0 2009-2010 R+0.7 D+1.7 D+0.6 2011-2012 R+1.3 R+3.3 R+2.6 R+2.5 R+2.6 2013-2014 D+2.3 D+2.5 D+3.7 D+2.7 2015-2016 D+3.3 D+2.8 D+3.7 D+3.1 D+3.0 2017-2019 R+0.9 D+0.1 R+0.3 R+0.3 All years D+0.3 D+0.1 D+0.7 D+0.2 D+0.3 Bias is calculated only for elections where the top two finishers were a Republican and Democrat. Therefore, it is not calculated for presidential primaries. Averages are weighted by the square root of the number of polls that a particular pollster conducted for that particular type of election in that particular cycle. Polls that are banned by FiveThirtyEight because we know or suspect they faked data are excluded from the analysis.
sarah: OK, back to the debate. The rules have changed, as Kaleigh and Nathaniel were mentioning earlier, and now the moderator can mute the candidates if they speak out of turn. Here’s a snapshot of the six issues they are expected to stick to:
Fighting COVID-19 American families Race in America Climate change National security Leadership
What do we think might be covered by these issues? What plays to Biden’s strengths? And Trump’s?
geoffrey.skelley: Well, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that “fighting COVID-19” is not going to go well for Trump because Americans generally think he’s done a poor job handling the pandemic. That leaves Biden with a lot of material to work with.
nrakich: Yeah — according to our poll with Ipsos before the last debate, respondents who said COVID-19 was their top issue said 78 percent to 20 percent that Biden was better on handling COVID-19. And that was before Trump announced he had tested positive for COVID-19.
More people trust Biden to handle COVID-19
Share of people who named each issue as the most important one facing the U.S., and whether they think Trump or Biden would handle that issue better, according to a FiveThirtyEight/Ipsos poll Who’s better on the issue… issue share TRUMP biden COVID-19 31.9% 20.1% – 78.0% – The economy 22.0 79.1 – 19.2 – Health care 9.6 27.9 – 71.8 – Racial inequality 7.4 6.0 – 90.9 – Climate change 4.9 4.7 – 95.3 – The Supreme Court 4.5 61.1 – 38.4 – Violent crime 4.2 80.6 – 18.1 – Economic inequality 2.9 14.3 – 85.7 – Immigration 2.8 61.3 – 38.7 – Abortion 2.8 93.5 – 6.5 – Other 1.7 55.3 – 41.8 – Education 1.5 44.7 – 44.1 – Gun policy 1.4 69.6 – 30.4 – Respondents who didn’t name a top issue are not shown. Data comes from polling done by Ipsos for FiveThirtyEight, using Ipsos’s KnowledgePanel, a probability-based online panel that is recruited to be representative of the U.S. population. The poll was conducted Sept. 30 – Oct. 6 among a general population sample of adults, with 2,994 respondents and a margin of error of +/- 2.0 percentage points.
kaleigh: Trump has already been trying to positively spin his bout with the coronavirus — he’s been through it! He survived! But it will be pretty easy for Biden to point out that Trump didn’t take the virus seriously since he actually caught it. Not to mention, many Americans don’t think Trump took enough COVID-19 precautions, and there are signs that this hurt him electorally.
nrakich: I’m curious what the “American families” segment will touch on … does anyone have any inkling what that means?
geoffrey.skelley: 🤷♂ Perhaps it’s a roundabout way of saying the economy. Kitchen table issues. Of course, the economy touches almost every topic to some extent.
kaleigh: That’s my bet, Geoffrey, but it’s just vague enough to be uncertain.
sarah: My money is on the suburbs.
Or, at the very least, I can imagine suburban families being mentioned by both Biden and Trump. Trump won suburban voters in 2016, but he’s in real trouble here in 2020, as many white suburban women are continuing to move away from the Republican Party, as we saw in 2018.
But, yeah, given the economy ranked as voters’ first or second issue, according to our polling with Ipsos, I think that’s right, too, Geoffrey and Kaleigh.
The economy is one issue where Trump has always had an advantage.
nrakich: “Climate change” and “race in America” also seem like good issues for Biden. According to that Ipsos poll, more than 90 percent of Americans who said climate change or racial inequality was their top issue trust Biden more than Trump on each issue respectively.
On the other hand, among those for whom violent crime is their top issue, the majority trust Trump more than Biden, by about 81 percent to 18 percent. So Trump might try to reframe the segment on race in America into one about rioting and looting.
As for national security, I think it’s fair to say that segment will move the fewest votes. American elections generally aren’t decided on foreign-policy grounds.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: What full Democratic control would look like
kaleigh: Honestly, is there anything in that lineup that isn’t well-trodden territory at this point?
sarah: Yeah, it is hard to imagine that any of the issues discussed tonight will cover new ground in a way that sways voters. They do feel like well-trodden talking points at this stage, and the reality remains that Trump really does need the polls to tighten. Otherwise, his odds in our forecast will continue to fall. But, of course, even a 5 percent chance of something happening is something you should take seriously.
OK, the stakes are high. Trump needs some movement in the polls, and Biden isn’t a safe bet. What will you be watching for tonight, and in the last week of the election — knowing, of course, we’re all kind of flying blind?
nrakich: To me, the big question is, can Biden maintain his 10-point national lead after this debate? Or will tonight “reset” the race and bring the polling average down to Biden +7 or so, which is where it has been for most of the year?
Even if that were to happen, Biden would still have a good chance of winning, but the size of his margin could determine things like whether Democrats win the Senate or the number of state legislatures Democrats flip.
geoffrey.skelley: It’s true that incumbent presidents have had a habit of struggling in first debates, only to come back stronger in later ones. This was true of Barack Obama in 2012 and Ronald Reagan in 1984. So don’t count out a much better showing from Trump tonight.
CORRECTION (Oct. 22, 2020, 11:25 a.m.): This chat has been updated to better reflect the findings of the FiveThirtyEight/Ipsos survey. The share of respondents who trust one candidate over the other on certain issues was among only respondents who named that issue as the top concern facing the U.S. today, not among all respondents.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-22--What Would Democrats Do If They Controlled Congress And The White House?

There ’ s a decent chance that in January 2021 , Washington , D.C. will be a one-party town .
Democrats have a 72 percent chance of controlling the White House , House of Representatives and Senate , according to the Deluxe version of FiveThirtyEight ’ s 2020 forecast .
It would be the first time they ’ ve had a political “ trifecta ” since the first two years of the Obama administration .
But while that possibility has pushed some to dream big , Democratic operatives say the limitations of their party ’ s big-tent politics will likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wishes of a Biden administration .
In the closing weeks of the presidential campaign , Biden has dodged questions about a once-fringe idea for expanding the number of seats on the Supreme Court , which has let imaginations run wild .
Could Democrats actually pursue structural changes on a level not seen in decades ?
Statehood for Washington , D.C. and Puerto Rico , an overhaul of the federal judiciary , a “ Green New Deal ” on the scale of what Franklin Roosevelt did during the Great Depression ?
The country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and there is some sense that politics has moved to a more Machiavellian plane ; if you are guaranteed power for only two years , leverage it to the hilt .
Yet even court-expansion advocates seem dubious about whether Biden and a Democratic Congress would actually come out of the gate by adding judges to the highest court .
The “ wish list , ” said Christopher Kang of Demand Justice , a liberal group that advocates for judicial reform , is led by “ expanding the Supreme Court by adding four seats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have now been stolen from a Democratic president.
” More likely , though , according to Kang , is that Democrats expand the broader federal judiciary and nominate judges with resumes outside the bounds of the typical white-shoe law firm pedigrees ( civil rights activists and academics fill the Demand Justice shortlist ) .
Kang suggested as many as 200 judgeships could be added , pointing out that the Judicial Conference ( the policymaking body for the federal courts ) has recommended the creation of 70 new judgeships to keep up with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will also be determined by their margin of victory in the Senate .
Sen. Joe Manchin will still be in the caucus , after all .
Ryan McConaghy , who worked for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer , was circumspect when it came to the subject of court expansion .
“ That is definitely the type of thing that would take a long time and require very careful consideration of where the votes are , ” he said .
McConaghy , like other Democrats I spoke to , expected that a Democratic Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stimulus package .
He drew comparisons to Obama ’ s first term for what might happen next .
“ Democrats do not hold all three decision-making bodies often , so there ’ s going to be a real desire to have progress on a core priority .
I think there ’ s a good chance that climate plays the role in 2021 that the ACA played in 2009 and 2010.
” As Election Day and a potential transition bears down , what seemed most on the minds of the progressives I spoke to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be staffed .
There ’ s a worry on the left that Biden — known for hewing closely to wherever the party ’ s center is at any particular moment — won ’ t seize on a post-Trump moment to make big changes .
One progressive Democratic aide , who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of intraparty critiques during an election , told me that they were worried that recent history — the Obama administration during the financial crisis — would be a guide for how Biden might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the time about how Barack Obama was reading “ Team of Rivals , ” and he picked Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State , but you look at what they did with their economic team , and it was all the Citi Group-allied , Wall Street-sympathetic cabal.
” Back in January 2019 , economist Paul Krugman , who lobbied the Obama administration unsuccessfully for a bigger stimulus package following the economic collapse of 2008 , joked to me that “ the financial industry has so much clout and so much influence , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re smart people , they ’ re persuasive , they have great tailors.
” There ’ s a sense that Biden could choose gatekeepers who aren ’ t open to the sorts of broad changes that the Democratic primaries put in front of voters .
Under particular scrutiny are Biden ’ s choices for Chief of Staff : Ron Klain , Steve Ricchetti and Bruce Reed have all served as Biden ’ s chief of staff at various points in time .
Progressives have carved out a favorite in Klain , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that if Biden chose Ricchetti or Reed , “ It ’ s a major tone-setter.
” In areas like government antitrust action — the Department of Justice filed suit against Google this week for antitrust violations — the aide said they weren ’ t optimistic about a Biden administration .
“ The odds that he picks people that are allied with Amazon , Google , and Facebook to run DOJ antitrust , to run the FTC — they ’ re pretty high , ” they said .
“ I ’ m pessimistic.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Data For Progress , seemed hesitant to get too optimistic .
“ I think the big constraint for the Obama administration and not doing progressive stuff was first the deficit fearmongering , ” he said .
“ We ’ re going to spend a lot of time making the case that Democrats shouldn ’ t allow themselves to sort of be hampered by the deficit.
” Saikat Chakrabarti , Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ’ s former chief of staff , also brought up what he saw as the misguided thinking of establishment Democrats — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matters like the deficit .
“ I think he ’ s probably got some ideological hang-ups around how debt works and how deficits work and how taxes work , ” Chakrabarti said .
“ He just needs people around him who can shake him free of those misconceptions.
” McConaghy thinks Democrats are also likely to push for the kind of reforms outlined in H.R .
1 , a bill passed by the House in 2019 that proposed automatic voter registration , restoration of provisions in the Voting Rights Act and offered ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ D.C a state .
That last item is one progressives are sure to push for .
McElwee called granting D.C. statehood “ morally the right thing to do.
” But McConaghy said it could be tough to make a reality .
“ That type of thing exists in the outer ring of what the main focus will be , ” he said , pointing out that the nature of the Democratic caucus is “ ideologically wide and geographically diverse.
” Some rural state Democrats would likely be against D.C. statehood , he said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would dilute the power of their vote .
The big-tent nature of the Democratic Party is already being tested , as the Biden campaign floated the idea this week that certain Republicans could find a place in the former vice president ’ s cabinet .
The news was met with opprobrium from parts of the Democratic ecosystem .
“ People Biden is not vetting : Anyone who endorsed Bernie Sanders .
”

There’s a decent chance that in January 2021, Washington, D.C. will be a one-party town.
Democrats have a 72 percent chance of controlling the White House, House of Representatives and Senate, according to the Deluxe version of FiveThirtyEight’s 2020 forecast. It would be the first time they’ve had a political “trifecta” since the first two years of the Obama administration. But while that possibility has pushed some to dream big, Democratic operatives say the limitations of their party’s big-tent politics will likely determine what gets done as much as the wishes of a Biden administration.
Fewer undecided voters is good news for Biden in the Midwest| FiveThirtyEight
In the closing weeks of the presidential campaign, Biden has dodged questions about a once-fringe idea for expanding the number of seats on the Supreme Court, which has let imaginations run wild. Could Democrats actually pursue structural changes on a level not seen in decades? Statehood for Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico, an overhaul of the federal judiciary, a “Green New Deal” on the scale of what Franklin Roosevelt did during the Great Depression? The country is brutally divided by partisan affiliation, and there is some sense that politics has moved to a more Machiavellian plane; if you are guaranteed power for only two years, leverage it to the hilt.
[Live Updates: We’re Tracking The Vote And Voting Problems]
Yet even court-expansion advocates seem dubious about whether Biden and a Democratic Congress would actually come out of the gate by adding judges to the highest court. The “wish list,” said Christopher Kang of Demand Justice, a liberal group that advocates for judicial reform, is led by “expanding the Supreme Court by adding four seats to offset the two seats that would have now been stolen from a Democratic president.” More likely, though, according to Kang, is that Democrats expand the broader federal judiciary and nominate judges with resumes outside the bounds of the typical white-shoe law firm pedigrees (civil rights activists and academics fill the Demand Justice shortlist). Kang suggested as many as 200 judgeships could be added, pointing out that the Judicial Conference (the policymaking body for the federal courts) has recommended the creation of 70 new judgeships to keep up with the pace of caseloads.
Democrats’ agenda will also be determined by their margin of victory in the Senate. Sen. Joe Manchin will still be in the caucus, after all. Ryan McConaghy, who worked for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, was circumspect when it came to the subject of court expansion. “That is definitely the type of thing that would take a long time and require very careful consideration of where the votes are,” he said. McConaghy, like other Democrats I spoke to, expected that a Democratic Congress’s first priority would be a stimulus package. He drew comparisons to Obama’s first term for what might happen next. “Democrats do not hold all three decision-making bodies often, so there’s going to be a real desire to have progress on a core priority. I think there’s a good chance that climate plays the role in 2021 that the ACA played in 2009 and 2010.”
As Election Day and a potential transition bears down, what seemed most on the minds of the progressives I spoke to is how a Biden White House would be staffed. There’s a worry on the left that Biden — known for hewing closely to wherever the party’s center is at any particular moment — won’t seize on a post-Trump moment to make big changes. One progressive Democratic aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of intraparty critiques during an election, told me that they were worried that recent history — the Obama administration during the financial crisis — would be a guide for how Biden might act. “Everyone was talking at the time about how Barack Obama was reading “Team of Rivals,” and he picked Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, but you look at what they did with their economic team, and it was all the Citi Group-allied, Wall Street-sympathetic cabal.” Back in January 2019, economist Paul Krugman, who lobbied the Obama administration unsuccessfully for a bigger stimulus package following the economic collapse of 2008, joked to me that “the financial industry has so much clout and so much influence, not just because of the money but because they’re smart people, they’re persuasive, they have great tailors.” There’s a sense that Biden could choose gatekeepers who aren’t open to the sorts of broad changes that the Democratic primaries put in front of voters.
Under particular scrutiny are Biden’s choices for Chief of Staff: Ron Klain, Steve Ricchetti and Bruce Reed have all served as Biden’s chief of staff at various points in time. Progressives have carved out a favorite in Klain, and the Democratic aide I spoke to said that if Biden chose Ricchetti or Reed, “It’s a major tone-setter.” In areas like government antitrust action — the Department of Justice filed suit against Google this week for antitrust violations — the aide said they weren’t optimistic about a Biden administration. “The odds that he picks people that are allied with Amazon, Google, and Facebook to run DOJ antitrust, to run the FTC — they’re pretty high,” they said. “I’m pessimistic.”
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: What full Democratic control would look like
Sean McElwee, executive director of Data For Progress, seemed hesitant to get too optimistic. “I think the big constraint for the Obama administration and not doing progressive stuff was first the deficit fearmongering,” he said. “We’re going to spend a lot of time making the case that Democrats shouldn’t allow themselves to sort of be hampered by the deficit.”
Saikat Chakrabarti, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s former chief of staff, also brought up what he saw as the misguided thinking of establishment Democrats — Biden foremost among them — on economic matters like the deficit. “I think he’s probably got some ideological hang-ups around how debt works and how deficits work and how taxes work,” Chakrabarti said. “He just needs people around him who can shake him free of those misconceptions.”
McConaghy thinks Democrats are also likely to push for the kind of reforms outlined in H.R. 1, a bill passed by the House in 2019 that proposed automatic voter registration, restoration of provisions in the Voting Rights Act and offered (non-binding) support for making Washington, D.C a state. That last item is one progressives are sure to push for. McElwee called granting D.C. statehood “morally the right thing to do.” But McConaghy said it could be tough to make a reality. “That type of thing exists in the outer ring of what the main focus will be,” he said, pointing out that the nature of the Democratic caucus is “ideologically wide and geographically diverse.” Some rural state Democrats would likely be against D.C. statehood, he said, because of a perception that it would dilute the power of their vote.
The big-tent nature of the Democratic Party is already being tested, as the Biden campaign floated the idea this week that certain Republicans could find a place in the former vice president’s cabinet.
The news was met with opprobrium from parts of the Democratic ecosystem.
“People Biden is vetting: John Kasich, Meg Whitman, Jeff Flake, Charlie Baker, Charlie Dent,” one activist tweeted.
“People Biden is not vetting: Anyone who endorsed Bernie Sanders.”


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-23--What To Watch For During The Final Presidential Debate

The FiveThirtyEight politics crew discusses how the last presidential debate might affect the election .
Is there still time to @ @ @ @ @ voters already made up their minds ?

What To Watch For During The Final Presidential Debate
The FiveThirtyEight politics crew discusses how the last presidential debate might affect the election. Is there still time to shift opinions, or have voters already made up their minds?


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-22--Will We Know The Winner On Election Night? Pay Attention To These States.

In this forecast update , Galen Druke explores whether we ’ ll have a good idea of who won on @ @ @ @ @ do we expect results from ?
And what could those results mean for who will @ @ @ @

Will We Know The Winner On Election Night? Pay Attention To These States.
In this forecast update, Galen Druke explores whether we’ll have a good idea of who won on election night. Which states do we expect results from? And what could those results mean for who will win the presidency?


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-22--Daryl Morey Made A Lot Of Trades. How Much Did They Help The Rockets?

Daryl Morey ’ s 13-year tenure as general manager of the Houston Rockets ended the way most things end : badly .
The Rockets bowed out of the 2020 playoffs in the second round , falling to the eventual champion Los Angeles Lakers in a gentleman ’ s sweep that didn ’ t feel all that close , with each of their final three losses coming by double digits .
The next day , Rockets coach Mike D ’ Antoni informed the team that he would not seek a contract renewal and would instead enter the free-agent market .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ himself stepped down from his post — even after Rockets owner Tilman Fertitta had previously said the GM ’ s job was “ safe.
” Though the end was ugly , there were many successes on the journey .
The Rockets posted the second-best record in the NBA during Morey ’ s tenure , winning 61.5 percent of their regular-season games .
They made 10 playoff appearances and two trips to the conference finals , scoring the eighth-most playoff wins ( 51 ) of any team in the league along the way .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ innovations on the floor .
They shattered records ( several times over ) for 3-pointers made and attempted , revolutionizing what it meant to be an efficient NBA offense .
But there were also distinct disappointments .
Houston was one of just two teams with 50-plus playoff victories during Morey ’ s tenure that did not also win a championship .
The Rockets of recent vintage went all-out to defeat the Golden State Warriors but fell short in two series — once when Chris Paul injured his hamstring and missed the final two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a calf injury and sitting out the clincher .
Morey is most famous , though , for his role as a pioneer in the basketball analytics movement .
Morey ’ s adherence to the math behind basketball shone through most notably in the team ’ s shot selection ( which consisted almost exclusively of 3-pointers and attempts in the immediate area around the rim ) , but it also extended outside the confines of the hardwood and into the executive suite .
Morey firmly believed that a team needs multiple star players to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he relentlessly pursued that structure throughout his tenure .
“ People say , ‘ They ’ ll do and trade anything , ’ ” Morey once told the Elyria ( Ohio ) Chronicle-Telegram .
“ Yeah , we will .
Until you have your foundational players , your franchise should be in a state of flux .
You need to keep trading and moving players until you get to that point.
” When he said that , he really meant it .
In 13 seasons as general manager , Morey completed a whopping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — the Philadelphia 76ers , who at one point were helmed by Morey ’ s protégé , Sam Hinkie — made more swaps during that time .
In those deals , Morey acquired 27 draft picks and sent 37 out the door .
He brought in 70 players and sent 72 packing — including 30 players that made it on both of those lists .
He traded and/or acquired the rights to Ukrainian guard Sergei Lishouk five times .
He traded cash for a draft pick that was eventually used on Australian forward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the NBA ) , then traded Newley ’ s rights a full decade later .
He made three different deals involving the draft pick that became Chandler Parsons , including two on the same day .
He executed quite possibly the funniest trade in NBA history , sending Patrick Ewing Jr. to the New York Knicks in exchange for the rights to Frédéric Weis .
But was all the moving and shaking worth it ?
Did Morey ’ s wheeling and dealing actually add value to the team ?
Short answer : yes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whole lot .
Most crucially , each of the five pieces Morey packaged together to acquire James Harden from the Oklahoma City Thunder ( Kevin Martin , Jeremy Lamb , the Nos .
12 and 32 overall picks in 2012 and a top-20 protected pick in 2014 ) was acquired in a previous trade .
Just that , right there , made everything worth it .
But Morey added value beyond the Harden deal .
How much value ?
We ’ re glad you asked , because we actually can quantify it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Value Over Replacement Player ( VORP ) .
For each of Morey ’ s trades , we tabulated the following : • The VORP produced during the remainder of that specific tenure with the Rockets by players the Rockets acquired and the VORP produced during the remainder of their tenure with the specific team to which the Rockets traded them by players the Rockets traded away .
• The VORP produced during their tenure with the Rockets by any player whose draft rights the Rockets acquired and the VORP produced during their tenure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rockets traded them by any players whose draft rights the Rockets traded away .
• The projected VORP of all future draft picks traded to the Rockets and the projected VORP of all future draft picks traded away by the Rockets .
Take Morey ’ s first significant trade : In 2007 , the Rockets sent the draft rights to Vassilis Spanoulis to the San Antonio Spurs along with a 2009 second-round pick and cash in exchange for Jackie Butler and the draft rights to Luis Scola .
Spanoulis never played in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The 2009 second-round pick eventually landed at No .
53 , which we could project would be worth just over 0.1 VORP .
Butler never actually played a game with the Rockets because he was waived at the end of training camp , but Scola stayed in Houston for five seasons and produced 4.7 VORP during his tenure .
Subtract 0.1 ( No .
53 pick ) from 4.7 ( Scola ) , and Morey added 4.6 VORP for the Rockets with the deal .
There were some other true gems along @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in which the Rockets sent Rafer Alston to Orlando and acquired Magic forward Brian Cook and Grizzlies guard Kyle Lowry ( plus-5.7 VORP ) ; a 2010 three-team deal with the Knicks and Kings in which Houston acquired Kevin Martin , Hilton Armstrong , Jordan Hill , Jared Jeffries , the right to swap 2011 first-round picks with New York and a protected future first-round pick in exchange for Tracy McGrady , Carl Landry , Joey Dorsey and cash ( plus-5.4 ) ; and a 2011 trade of Aaron Brooks to the Suns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pick ( plus-3.4 ) .
There were also some clunkers .
The 2012 swap that sent Lowry to the Raptors for guard Gary Forbes and a protected first-round pick comes to mind ( minus-27.5 VORP ) .
So does the 2008 draft-day deal that saw the Rockets acquire the rights to Donté Greene and Dorsey , plus a 2009 second-round pick , in exchange for the rights to Nicolas Batum ( minus-15.9 ) .
Perform the same calculation for each of Morey ’ s trades , though , and the Rockets came out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it this way : In his 13-year tenure as Rockets GM , Morey added almost the same value over replacement player via trade that Lowry did on the court ( 35.5 ) .
The significant majority of the value Morey generated via trade came in the Harden deal .
To date , Harden has produced 58.2 VORP for the Rockets .
Martin produced 1.6 VORP during his time in OKC , and Lamb produced 1.3 .
The Nos .
12 , 32 and 24 picks could be projected for around 4.8 VORP , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this trade by 50.3 VORP .
That ’ s just about as good as it gets .
It ’ s a career-making trade .
Morey ’ s efforts to secure Harden a second star , though , were largely less successful .
The first and arguably worst attempt was the signing of Dwight Howard .
Howard bristled at a perceived lack of touches , his back injuries accelerated his physical decline , and his personality clashes with Harden accelerated his ignominious exit from Houston .
The Rockets thought they had a Chris Bosh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away a future first-round pick to offload Jeremy Lin ’ s contract and open up the necessary cap space , but Bosh elected to stay with the Heat at the last minute .
Bosh ’ s spurning Houston meant the Rockets played three more seasons before finding Harden a proper second star : Chris Paul .
That deal worked about as well as could be expected for Houston on the floor : The 2017-18 and 2018-19 Rockets are two of the 14 most efficient offenses in NBA history , and the team made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was actually a loser by VORP ( minus-9.8 and counting ) because three of the pieces Morey sent to the Clippers became key rotation pieces in L.A. : Patrick Beverley , Montrezl Harrell and Lou Williams .
And Paul ’ s reported falling-out with Harden motivated the Rockets to ship him out last year , dumping his contract on the Thunder for the even-more-onerous contract of Russell Westbrook and sacrificing two future first-round picks ( 2024 and 2026 ) and two pick swaps ( 2021 and 2025 ) just to do it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ players ’ first seasons with their new teams , and now that Morey will no longer be in charge of building the Rockets ’ future , it ’ s entirely possible that the picks he traded will end up being more valuable than he projected they ’ d be when he sent them to Oklahoma City .
In the end , Morey ’ s tenure as general manager largely followed the trajectory of the Rockets as a franchise , which isn ’ t all that surprising .
He spent years meticulously accumulating assets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hope that he could eventually pounce on a chance for the type of superstar who could lead the team to championship contention .
He eventually found the right player at the right price , and he hit his shot so far out of the park that it might actually have been attached to a rocket .
He then nailed moves for supporting players , like trading for Trevor Ariza in 2014 ( plus-9.9 VORP ) ; drafting Clint Capela and elevating him to the starting lineup after letting Howard walk ; rebounding from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ P.J .
Tucker in 2017 ; and signing quality role players like Luc Mbah a Moute , Gerald Green , Nenê , Austin Rivers , Ben McLemore and Danuel House ( for the last one , bubble indiscretions notwithstanding ) .
But the big post-Harden moves didn ’ t quite work out — or at least , they didn ’ t achieve the desired result .
Howard was a bad fit .
Bosh changed his mind .
Ryan Anderson had a couple of great shooting seasons but eventually became unplayable on defense .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ health before his body failed him again this season .
Paul and Harden couldn ’ t get over the hump .
Westbrook got injured , tested positive for COVID-19 and wasn ’ t himself in the bubble .
Now , Morey has moved on .
Eventually , the Rockets will as well .
They ’ ll hire a new GM , find a new coach , swap out some players , send draft picks flying around the league — all in an effort to climb the mountaintop for the first time since 1995 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than a decade , they won ’ t have one of the league ’ s most prolific dealmakers calling the shots .

Daryl Morey’s 13-year tenure as general manager of the Houston Rockets ended the way most things end: badly. The Rockets bowed out of the 2020 playoffs in the second round, falling to the eventual champion Los Angeles Lakers in a gentleman’s sweep that didn’t feel all that close, with each of their final three losses coming by double digits.
The next day, Rockets coach Mike D’Antoni informed the team that he would not seek a contract renewal and would instead enter the free-agent market. A month and two days later, Morey himself stepped down from his post — even after Rockets owner Tilman Fertitta had previously said the GM’s job was “safe.”
Though the end was ugly, there were many successes on the journey. The Rockets posted the second-best record in the NBA during Morey’s tenure, winning 61.5 percent of their regular-season games. They made 10 playoff appearances and two trips to the conference finals, scoring the eighth-most playoff wins (51) of any team in the league along the way. They consistently pushed the league forward with innovations on the floor. They shattered records (several times over) for 3-pointers made and attempted, revolutionizing what it meant to be an efficient NBA offense.
But there were also distinct disappointments. Houston was one of just two teams with 50-plus playoff victories during Morey’s tenure that did not also win a championship. The Rockets of recent vintage went all-out to defeat the Golden State Warriors but fell short in two series — once when Chris Paul injured his hamstring and missed the final two games and once despite Kevin Durant suffering a calf injury and sitting out the clincher.
Morey is most famous, though, for his role as a pioneer in the basketball analytics movement. Morey’s adherence to the math behind basketball shone through most notably in the team’s shot selection (which consisted almost exclusively of 3-pointers and attempts in the immediate area around the rim), but it also extended outside the confines of the hardwood and into the executive suite. Morey firmly believed that a team needs multiple star players to truly contend for a championship, and he relentlessly pursued that structure throughout his tenure.
“People say, ‘They’ll do and trade anything,’” Morey once told the Elyria (Ohio) Chronicle-Telegram. “Yeah, we will. Until you have your foundational players, your franchise should be in a state of flux. You need to keep trading and moving players until you get to that point.”
When he said that, he really meant it. In 13 seasons as general manager, Morey completed a whopping 77 trades. Only one NBA team — the Philadelphia 76ers, who at one point were helmed by Morey’s protégé, Sam Hinkie — made more swaps during that time.
In those deals, Morey acquired 27 draft picks and sent 37 out the door. He brought in 70 players and sent 72 packing — including 30 players that made it on both of those lists.
He traded and/or acquired the rights to Ukrainian guard Sergei Lishouk five times. He traded cash for a draft pick that was eventually used on Australian forward Brad Newley (who never played in the NBA), then traded Newley’s rights a full decade later. He made three different deals involving the draft pick that became Chandler Parsons, including two on the same day. He executed quite possibly the funniest trade in NBA history, sending Patrick Ewing Jr. to the New York Knicks in exchange for the rights to Frédéric Weis.
But was all the moving and shaking worth it? Did Morey’s wheeling and dealing actually add value to the team? Short answer: yes. Longer answer: yes, a whole lot.
Most crucially, each of the five pieces Morey packaged together to acquire James Harden from the Oklahoma City Thunder (Kevin Martin, Jeremy Lamb, the Nos. 12 and 32 overall picks in 2012 and a top-20 protected pick in 2014) was acquired in a previous trade. Just that, right there, made everything worth it. But Morey added value beyond the Harden deal.
How much value? We’re glad you asked, because we actually can quantify it. To do so, we turned to Value Over Replacement Player (VORP). For each of Morey’s trades, we tabulated the following:
The VORP produced during the remainder of that specific tenure with the Rockets by players the Rockets acquired and the VORP produced during the remainder of their tenure with the specific team to which the Rockets traded them by players the Rockets traded away.
The VORP produced during their tenure with the Rockets by any player whose draft rights the Rockets acquired and the VORP produced during their tenure with the specific team to which the Rockets traded them by any players whose draft rights the Rockets traded away.
The projected VORP of all future draft picks traded to the Rockets and the projected VORP of all future draft picks traded away by the Rockets.
Take Morey’s first significant trade: In 2007, the Rockets sent the draft rights to Vassilis Spanoulis to the San Antonio Spurs along with a 2009 second-round pick and cash in exchange for Jackie Butler and the draft rights to Luis Scola.
Spanoulis never played in the NBA and thus never produced any VORP. The 2009 second-round pick eventually landed at No. 53, which we could project would be worth just over 0.1 VORP. Butler never actually played a game with the Rockets because he was waived at the end of training camp, but Scola stayed in Houston for five seasons and produced 4.7 VORP during his tenure. Subtract 0.1 (No. 53 pick) from 4.7 (Scola), and Morey added 4.6 VORP for the Rockets with the deal.
There were some other true gems along the way: a 2009 three-team trade in which the Rockets sent Rafer Alston to Orlando and acquired Magic forward Brian Cook and Grizzlies guard Kyle Lowry (plus-5.7 VORP); a 2010 three-team deal with the Knicks and Kings in which Houston acquired Kevin Martin, Hilton Armstrong, Jordan Hill, Jared Jeffries, the right to swap 2011 first-round picks with New York and a protected future first-round pick in exchange for Tracy McGrady, Carl Landry, Joey Dorsey and cash (plus-5.4); and a 2011 trade of Aaron Brooks to the Suns for Goran Dragić and a future first-round pick (plus-3.4).
There were also some clunkers. The 2012 swap that sent Lowry to the Raptors for guard Gary Forbes and a protected first-round pick comes to mind (minus-27.5 VORP). So does the 2008 draft-day deal that saw the Rockets acquire the rights to Donté Greene and Dorsey, plus a 2009 second-round pick, in exchange for the rights to Nicolas Batum (minus-15.9).
Perform the same calculation for each of Morey’s trades, though, and the Rockets came out ahead by 34.8 VORP. Think of it this way: In his 13-year tenure as Rockets GM, Morey added almost the same value over replacement player via trade that Lowry did on the court (35.5).
The significant majority of the value Morey generated via trade came in the Harden deal. To date, Harden has produced 58.2 VORP for the Rockets. Martin produced 1.6 VORP during his time in OKC, and Lamb produced 1.3. The Nos. 12, 32 and 24 picks could be projected for around 4.8 VORP, meaning the Rockets have so far won this trade by 50.3 VORP. That’s just about as good as it gets. It’s a career-making trade.
Morey’s efforts to secure Harden a second star, though, were largely less successful. The first and arguably worst attempt was the signing of Dwight Howard. Howard bristled at a perceived lack of touches, his back injuries accelerated his physical decline, and his personality clashes with Harden accelerated his ignominious exit from Houston.
The Rockets thought they had a Chris Bosh signing lined up in 2014 and traded away a future first-round pick to offload Jeremy Lin’s contract and open up the necessary cap space, but Bosh elected to stay with the Heat at the last minute. Bosh’s spurning Houston meant the Rockets played three more seasons before finding Harden a proper second star: Chris Paul.
That deal worked about as well as could be expected for Houston on the floor: The 2017-18 and 2018-19 Rockets are two of the 14 most efficient offenses in NBA history, and the team made the conference finals in 2018. But it was actually a loser by VORP (minus-9.8 and counting) because three of the pieces Morey sent to the Clippers became key rotation pieces in L.A.: Patrick Beverley, Montrezl Harrell and Lou Williams.
And Paul’s reported falling-out with Harden motivated the Rockets to ship him out last year, dumping his contract on the Thunder for the even-more-onerous contract of Russell Westbrook and sacrificing two future first-round picks (2024 and 2026) and two pick swaps (2021 and 2025) just to do it. Paul then outplayed Westbrook in the players’ first seasons with their new teams, and now that Morey will no longer be in charge of building the Rockets’ future, it’s entirely possible that the picks he traded will end up being more valuable than he projected they’d be when he sent them to Oklahoma City.
In the end, Morey’s tenure as general manager largely followed the trajectory of the Rockets as a franchise, which isn’t all that surprising. He spent years meticulously accumulating assets without ever bottoming out, hoping against hope that he could eventually pounce on a chance for the type of superstar who could lead the team to championship contention.
He eventually found the right player at the right price, and he hit his shot so far out of the park that it might actually have been attached to a rocket. He then nailed moves for supporting players, like trading for Trevor Ariza in 2014 (plus-9.9 VORP); drafting Clint Capela and elevating him to the starting lineup after letting Howard walk; rebounding from being rebuffed by Andre Iguodala by signing P.J. Tucker in 2017; and signing quality role players like Luc Mbah a Moute, Gerald Green, Nenê, Austin Rivers, Ben McLemore and Danuel House (for the last one, bubble indiscretions notwithstanding).
But the big post-Harden moves didn’t quite work out — or at least, they didn’t achieve the desired result. Howard was a bad fit. Bosh changed his mind. Ryan Anderson had a couple of great shooting seasons but eventually became unplayable on defense. Eric Gordon had three years of good health before his body failed him again this season. Paul and Harden couldn’t get over the hump. Westbrook got injured, tested positive for COVID-19 and wasn’t himself in the bubble.
Now, Morey has moved on. Eventually, the Rockets will as well. They’ll hire a new GM, find a new coach, swap out some players, send draft picks flying around the league — all in an effort to climb the mountaintop for the first time since 1995. But for the first time in more than a decade, they won’t have one of the league’s most prolific dealmakers calling the shots.
Neil Paine contributed research.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-22--Where The Presidential Race Stands Before The Last Debate

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight ’ s Election Update for Thursday , Oct. 22 , 2020 !
As President Trump and Joe Biden prepare to take the stage tonight for the final presidential debate , Trump has just a 12 in 100 chance of winning the presidency , while Biden has an 88 in 100 chance , according to our presidential forecast .
And according to national polls , Biden leads Trump by an average of 9.9 percentage points .
How voting is going so far in 2020 | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast This is lower than Biden ’ s peak 10.7-point lead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than his 7.1-point lead over Trump before their first debate on Sept. 29 .
In the last few days , national polls have tightened a bit , something our forecast was anticipating in the home stretch .
But , to be clear , Biden is still well ahead overall in our forecast .
But of course , the national popular vote doesn ’ t pick the president — states do , via the Electoral College .
And we got a flurry of state polls Wednesday that were still good for Biden .
Take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chance of deciding the election , according to our forecast ’ s tipping-point odds .
Wednesday , no fewer than four high-quality polls of Pennsylvania were released .
Biden garnered 50 percent support and Trump garnered 45 percent in a Fox News poll ; Biden led by 6 points in a Suffolk University poll ; Biden led by 8 points in a Quinnipiac University poll ; and CNN/SSRS even put Biden ahead by 10 points among likely voters .
Though these ran the gamut from being OK to great polls for Biden , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with other polls we ’ ve seen this month — in other words , Biden has a solid , though not insurmountable , lead in Pennsylvania .
Over 25 million have already voted , but this is what pollsters expected : Nate Silver This is , however , still an improvement from where he stood before the first debate , when the winner of Pennsylvania was more uncertain .
Since Sept. 29 , Biden ’ s odds of winning Pennsylvania have increased from 79 in 100 to 87 in 100 .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another important potential tipping point state ; Trump has a less than 1 percent chance of winning the White House without it .
Biden ’ s average lead in Florida polls is currently 3.8 points — not much lower than Biden ’ s October high of 4.5 points , achieved for a few days last week .
And Wednesday , Reuters/Ipsos , CNN/SSRS and Civiqs/Daily Kos all released surveys of Florida that gave Biden either a 4- or 5-point lead among likely voters .
These numbers are a bit better for Biden than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when he led by an average of 2 points or less in the Sunshine State .
That early-October increase brought his chances of winning Florida from about 3 in 5 to around 7 in 10 , but that number has barely changed in the last couple weeks .
What ’ s more , states like Iowa , Ohio and Georgia all now have almost exactly 50-50 odds in our forecast .
Take the several Iowa polls we got Wednesday : Emerson College found Trump and Biden tied at 48 percent ; Siena College/The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 46 percent and Trump at 43 percent ; and depending on the turnout model used , Monmouth University gave Biden either a 3- or 5-point lead among likely voters .
With these polls , Biden actually improved his position in our Iowa polling average .
He went from a 0.4-point lead on Monday to a 1.1-point lead currently — the opposite of the tightening we ’ ve seen elsewhere .
And although our forecast doesn ’ t think Biden is favored to win Iowa , he does now have a 48 in 100 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been all year .
And that ’ s bad news for Republicans , since in worlds where Biden carries Iowa , he wins the presidency more than 99 percent of the time .
Meanwhile , in Georgia , two pollsters — Siena College/The New York Times Upshot and Morning Consult — both found Trump and Biden in a dead heat in Georgia this week .
And appropriately enough , our forecast now finds that both Trump and Biden have exactly a 50 in 100 shot of carrying the Peach State .
According to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent support and Trump 47 percent support in Texas , another fairly red state that is a must-win for Trump .
And a Quinnipiac University poll of the Lone Star State released Wednesday found a tied race , although Quinnipiac has tended to have good results for Biden this year relative to other pollsters .
Accordingly , our forecast is not yet convinced that Texas is a toss-up , although it ’ s not safely red by any means .
Trump has just a 64 in 100 chance of winning .
I could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ picture .
Biden is still ahead in all the states he needs in order to win — and is a real threat to win some that would just be icing on the cake for him .
Trump still has a path to victory , but he needs to turn things around in all of these states fast — and the debate could be his last opportunity to do so .

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s Election Update for Thursday, Oct. 22, 2020! As President Trump and Joe Biden prepare to take the stage tonight for the final presidential debate, Trump has just a 12 in 100 chance of winning the presidency, while Biden has an 88 in 100 chance, according to our presidential forecast. And according to national polls, Biden leads Trump by an average of 9.9 percentage points.
How voting is going so far in 2020 | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast
This is lower than Biden’s peak 10.7-point lead as of Monday, but still higher than his 7.1-point lead over Trump before their first debate on Sept. 29. In the last few days, national polls have tightened a bit, something our forecast was anticipating in the home stretch. But, to be clear, Biden is still well ahead overall in our forecast.
But of course, the national popular vote doesn’t pick the president — states do, via the Electoral College. And we got a flurry of state polls Wednesday that were still good for Biden. Take Pennsylvania, the state with the highest chance of deciding the election, according to our forecast’s tipping-point odds. Wednesday, no fewer than four high-quality polls of Pennsylvania were released. Biden garnered 50 percent support and Trump garnered 45 percent in a Fox News poll; Biden led by 6 points in a Suffolk University poll; Biden led by 8 points in a Quinnipiac University poll; and CNN/SSRS even put Biden ahead by 10 points among likely voters. Though these ran the gamut from being OK to great polls for Biden, together they were pretty well in line with other polls we’ve seen this month — in other words, Biden has a solid, though not insurmountable, lead in Pennsylvania.
Over 25 million have already voted, but this is what pollsters expected: Nate Silver
This is, however, still an improvement from where he stood before the first debate, when the winner of Pennsylvania was more uncertain. Since Sept. 29, Biden’s odds of winning Pennsylvania have increased from 79 in 100 to 87 in 100.
It’s a similar story in Florida, another important potential tipping point state; Trump has a less than 1 percent chance of winning the White House without it. Biden’s average lead in Florida polls is currently 3.8 points — not much lower than Biden’s October high of 4.5 points, achieved for a few days last week. And Wednesday, Reuters/Ipsos, CNN/SSRS and Civiqs/Daily Kos all released surveys of Florida that gave Biden either a 4- or 5-point lead among likely voters. These numbers are a bit better for Biden than they were before the last debate, when he led by an average of 2 points or less in the Sunshine State. That early-October increase brought his chances of winning Florida from about 3 in 5 to around 7 in 10, but that number has barely changed in the last couple weeks.
What’s more, states like Iowa, Ohio and Georgia all now have almost exactly 50-50 odds in our forecast. Take the several Iowa polls we got Wednesday: Emerson College found Trump and Biden tied at 48 percent; Siena College/The New York Times Upshot put Biden at 46 percent and Trump at 43 percent; and depending on the turnout model used, Monmouth University gave Biden either a 3- or 5-point lead among likely voters. With these polls, Biden actually improved his position in our Iowa polling average. He went from a 0.4-point lead on Monday to a 1.1-point lead currently — the opposite of the tightening we’ve seen elsewhere. And although our forecast doesn’t think Biden is favored to win Iowa, he does now have a 48 in 100 shot — the highest his odds have been all year. And that’s bad news for Republicans, since in worlds where Biden carries Iowa, he wins the presidency more than 99 percent of the time.
Meanwhile, in Georgia, two pollsters — Siena College/The New York Times Upshot and Morning Consult — both found Trump and Biden in a dead heat in Georgia this week. And appropriately enough, our forecast now finds that both Trump and Biden have exactly a 50 in 100 shot of carrying the Peach State.
According to Morning Consult, Biden also garnered 48 percent support and Trump 47 percent support in Texas, another fairly red state that is a must-win for Trump. And a Quinnipiac University poll of the Lone Star State released Wednesday found a tied race, although Quinnipiac has tended to have good results for Biden this year relative to other pollsters. Accordingly, our forecast is not yet convinced that Texas is a toss-up, although it’s not safely red by any means. Trump has just a 64 in 100 chance of winning.
I could go on, but you get the picture. Biden is still ahead in all the states he needs in order to win — and is a real threat to win some that would just be icing on the cake for him. Trump still has a path to victory, but he needs to turn things around in all of these states fast — and the debate could be his last opportunity to do so.