fivethirthyeight--2020-09-18--Democrats Are Slight Favorites To Take Back The Senate

Democrats are slight favorites to regain control of the Senate , according to the FiveThirtyEight Senate forecast , which launched today .
But the map is wide open , with at least a dozen competitive races — none of which are certain pickups for Democrats — including some states where Democrats are playing defense .
In fact , while it ’ s possible that Democrats will wind up controlling 54 seats or perhaps even more , the most likely outcome is a much more closely divided chamber , including the possibility of a 50/50 split in which control of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vice president is Kamala Harris or Mike Pence .
( Joe Biden and Harris currently have a 76 percent chance of winning the presidential race , according to our forecast . )
Our Congressional model ( our forecast for House races will be released soon ) is largely the same as the version we built in 2018 , which was quite accurate in predicting the number of Senate and House seats that each party would win .
We ’ ve made a handful of changes since 2018 , most of which were designed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forecast , including assuming that uncertainty is slightly higher this year because of an increase in mail voting under COVID-19 .
But these adjustments don ’ t greatly change the outlook .
For a complete list of changes , see our methodology guide .
As in 2018 , there are three versions of the model , which build on one another and become increasingly complex : The Lite version of the model relies as much as possible on polling .
In races that don ’ t have much or any polling , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ races that have been polled .
The Classic version relies on polling but also incorporates “ fundamentals ” such as fundraising , incumbency and a state ’ s partisan lean relative to the rest of the country .
Finally , the Deluxe version takes all of the above and adds in expert ratings from The Cook Political Report , Inside Elections and Sabato ’ s Crystal Ball .
By default , we ’ re showing you the “ Deluxe ” version of the model this year .
It ’ s supposed to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everything going on — we ’ re inclined to cut to the chase .
But you can toggle between the versions using the magnifying glass icon at the bottom of the page .
You might want to get in the habit of doing this , too , because there are some fairly large differences between the model versions this year .
This reflects the fact that the polling in individual Senate races is generally quite good for Democrats , while other indicators and expert ratings are more equivocal .
For instance , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gives Democrats a 68 percent chance of winning the Senate , as compared to a 64 percent chance in the Classic version and a 58 percent chance in the Deluxe version .
These differences stem from the fact that despite their strong polling , conditions for Democrats are inherently a little challenging in the Senate .
They need to gain a net of three or four seats to win control , depending on if they also win the presidency .
More likely , though , they will need to flip four or five @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that one seat will flip from blue to red : Democrat Doug Jones is an underdog to keep his seat in Alabama , which he won against a very bad opponent in a special election in 2017 .
Furthermore , while there are a great many Republicans up for re-election this year , only two of them ( Colorado ’ s Sen. Cory Gardner and Maine ’ s Sen. Susan Collins ) are in states that Hillary Clinton won in 2016 .
Thus , Democrats will have to pick up seats in states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Georgia and North Carolina .
They also have some more ambitious ( but redder ) targets in races in Kansas , South Carolina and Alaska .
National conditions are pretty good for Democrats — they lead on the generic congressional ballot by 6.4 percentage points , and President Trump is fairly unpopular and an underdog for reelection — but they are not spectacular .
( Democrats won the popular vote for the House by nearly 9 points in 2018 , for example , a bigger margin than their current generic-ballot lead .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to defeat Republican incumbents , and even though the incumbency advantage has diminished in recent years , it ’ s rare that you can take much for granted in races featuring incumbents .
Still , the sheer number of plausible Democratic pickup opportunities is surprising — and favorable for the party — given that the conventional wisdom in 2019 was that Democrats might have trouble finding enough targets to take the Senate .
The table below is a list of Republican-held seats where Democrats have at least a 5 percent chance of winning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ model .
There are 16 ( ! )
of these .
In some cases , the model is being exceptionally conservative because of a lack of polling in the state , but the first dozen on the list are realistic pickup opportunities for Democrats .
Democrats ’ single best pickup opportunity is probably in Arizona , where Republican Sen. Martha McSally — who lost to Democrat Kyrsten Sinema in the race for Arizona ’ s other Senate seat two years ago — badly trails Democrat Mark Kelly in polls .
Nor is McSally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ following the death of Sen. John McCain , likely to benefit much from incumbency , as appointed incumbents typically perform much worse than elected ones .
Meanwhile , the two Republicans in Clinton-won states , Gardner and Collins , are also behind in polls .
Still , it may be premature to write their political obituaries , especially for Collins .
She won her last race by a large margin , she has a fairly moderate voting record , Maine only barely voted for Clinton in 2016 , and experts continue to rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ factors that help keep her afloat in our Classic and Deluxe models .
The fourth state where Democrats are currently favored for a pickup is in North Carolina , where Democrat Cal Cunningham , a former state senator , leads Republican incumbent Sen. Thom Tillis in polls and is also a slight favorite according to the “ fundamentals ” our model evaluates .
And troubling for Tillis is that he has some of the hallmarks of a weak incumbent : He only barely won his seat in 2014 , which was a much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face now , and he badly lags Cunningham in fundraising .
Indeed , many Republican incumbents , such as Sens .
Joni Ernst of Iowa , David Perdue of Georgia and Dan Sullivan of Alaska , face some version of this problem , as many of them won by single-digit margins in 2014 , a year when Republicans won the popular vote for the U.S. House by about 6 points .
But this year , the national environment favors Democrats by 6 or 7 points , so that ’ s around a 12-point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ narrow margins last time in the danger zone .
Other Demoratic opportunities are more idiosyncratic .
In Montana , they ’ re hoping to benefit from the personal popularity of Steve Bullock , who is currently the governor there ( although the Republican incumbent is favored in our forecast at the moment ) .
And in South Carolina , Democrat Jaime Harrison has run a surprisingly competitive race against incumbent Sen. Linsday Graham , who once had a reputation for moderation but has now become a major defender of Trump , a shift @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not satisfying voters in either camp .
In addition to Perdue ’ s seat , there is also a second seat open in Georgia , currently held by the appointed incumbent Sen. Kelly Loeffler .
( This special election is unusual , though , in that multiple candidates from both parties will face off on Election Day , and if no one gets a majority , two candidates will move to a runoff in January . )
In an average simulation , our forecast has Democrats picking up about six Republican-held seats in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Classic model and about four and a half in the Deluxe model .
And that would be enough for them to win control of the Senate — even if they fail to capture the presidency .
However , Democrats also have some seats of their own to defend .
Most notably , there is Jones ’ s seat in Alabama .
Running for reelection as a Democrat in one of the reddest states in the country puts him at a disadvantage , and this time around he doesn ’ t have the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who multiple women accused of pursuing sexual relationships with them while they were in their teens .
( Instead , his opponent is the former Auburn football coach Tommy Tuberville . )
But like Collins in Maine , whose chances shift significantly depending on which version of the model you look at , Jones might not be completely done for .
The polls do make it look like Jones is a goner ( hence his low chances in the Lite forecast ) , but the fundamentals — including the fact that he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a track record of moderation — give Jones an uphill chance at victory .
After Alabama , there is a big drop-off in the likelihood of possible Republican pickups , but their next best chance is probably in Michigan , where John James , who ran a surprisingly vigorous race against Demoratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow in 2018 , is within striking distance of Michigan ’ s other Democratic senator , Gary Peters .
Minnesota , New Mexico and New Hampshire also represent long-shot opportunities for Republicans , although those seats will likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going very badly for Democrats .
So while we know you ’ re tired of hearing this … the outcome is , at this point , uncertain .
There are plausible upside scenarios for Democrats where tight polling margins against incumbents like Graham prove to be the canary in the coal mine for widespread Republican problems , and Biden and Harris get to craft an agenda with as many as 54 or 55 Democratic senators .
At the same time , though , the Senate is probably a heavier lift for Democrats than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for example , that Biden flipped Wisconsin , Michigan , Pennsylvania and Arizona and retained all the states Clinton won , which would imply a solid but not overwhelming margin in the presidential race .
In that scenario , even if every Senate race went the same way as the presidential election , Democrats would still come up one seat short , picking up Maine , Colorado and Arizona but losing Jones ’ s seat in Alabama .
And while it ’ s certainly possible that most of the toss-up races will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential race , Senate races can be quirky .
Democrats got a mixed set of results in 2018 , for example , picking up seats in Arizona and Nevada — but also seeing four of their incumbents lose .
One thing Democrats don ’ t have to worry about : If they pick up the Senate , it ’ s very likely that they ’ ll have retained the House , too ; Republicans are starting out with a big deficit there and are playing at least as much defense as offense .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the House , but they involve the national climate unexpectedly turning into a Republcian landslide , in which case Democrats won ’ t be competitive in the Senate anyway .
But we ’ ll discuss that more when we release our House forecast .
In the meantime , please drop us a line if you have any questions about the Senate .

Democrats are slight favorites to regain control of the Senate, according to the FiveThirtyEight Senate forecast, which launched today. But the map is wide open, with at least a dozen competitive races — none of which are certain pickups for Democrats — including some states where Democrats are playing defense.
In fact, while it’s possible that Democrats will wind up controlling 54 seats or perhaps even more, the most likely outcome is a much more closely divided chamber, including the possibility of a 50/50 split in which control of the Senate would be determined by whether the vice president is Kamala Harris or Mike Pence. (Joe Biden and Harris currently have a 76 percent chance of winning the presidential race, according to our forecast. )
Our Congressional model (our forecast for House races will be released soon) is largely the same as the version we built in 2018, which was quite accurate in predicting the number of Senate and House seats that each party would win. We’ve made a handful of changes since 2018, most of which were designed to create more consistency with our presidential forecast, including assuming that uncertainty is slightly higher this year because of an increase in mail voting under COVID-19. But these adjustments don’t greatly change the outlook. For a complete list of changes, see our methodology guide.
As in 2018, there are three versions of the model, which build on one another and become increasingly complex:
The Lite version of the model relies as much as possible on polling. In races that don’t have much or any polling, it calculates the candidates’ standing from other races that have been polled.
The Classic version relies on polling but also incorporates “fundamentals” such as fundraising, incumbency and a state’s partisan lean relative to the rest of the country.
Finally, the Deluxe version takes all of the above and adds in expert ratings from The Cook Political Report, Inside Elections and Sabato’s Crystal Ball.
By default, we’re showing you the “Deluxe” version of the model this year. It’s supposed to be the most accurate one and — given everything going on — we’re inclined to cut to the chase. But you can toggle between the versions using the magnifying glass icon at the bottom of the page.
You might want to get in the habit of doing this, too, because there are some fairly large differences between the model versions this year. This reflects the fact that the polling in individual Senate races is generally quite good for Democrats, while other indicators and expert ratings are more equivocal. For instance, the poll-centric Lite version of the model currently gives Democrats a 68 percent chance of winning the Senate, as compared to a 64 percent chance in the Classic version and a 58 percent chance in the Deluxe version.
Model Talk: Democrats are slightly favored to win the Senate | FiveThirtyEight
These differences stem from the fact that despite their strong polling, conditions for Democrats are inherently a little challenging in the Senate. They need to gain a net of three or four seats to win control, depending on if they also win the presidency. More likely, though, they will need to flip four or five Republican-held seats, because chances are good that one seat will flip from blue to red: Democrat Doug Jones is an underdog to keep his seat in Alabama, which he won against a very bad opponent in a special election in 2017.
Furthermore, while there are a great many Republicans up for re-election this year, only two of them (Colorado’s Sen. Cory Gardner and Maine’s Sen. Susan Collins) are in states that Hillary Clinton won in 2016. Thus, Democrats will have to pick up seats in states that have traditionally been Republican-leaning, such as Georgia and North Carolina. They also have some more ambitious (but redder) targets in races in Kansas, South Carolina and Alaska.
National conditions are pretty good for Democrats — they lead on the generic congressional ballot by 6.4 percentage points, and President Trump is fairly unpopular and an underdog for reelection — but they are not spectacular. (Democrats won the popular vote for the House by nearly 9 points in 2018, for example, a bigger margin than their current generic-ballot lead.) Moreover, Democrats are mostly aiming to defeat Republican incumbents, and even though the incumbency advantage has diminished in recent years, it’s rare that you can take much for granted in races featuring incumbents.
Still, the sheer number of plausible Democratic pickup opportunities is surprising — and favorable for the party — given that the conventional wisdom in 2019 was that Democrats might have trouble finding enough targets to take the Senate. The table below is a list of Republican-held seats where Democrats have at least a 5 percent chance of winning in at least one version of our model. There are 16 (!) of these. In some cases, the model is being exceptionally conservative because of a lack of polling in the state, but the first dozen on the list are realistic pickup opportunities for Democrats.
Where Democrats are most likely to pick up Senate seats Republican-held seats where Democrats have at least a 5 percent chance of winning in at least one version of FiveThirtyEight’s model, as of 5 p.m on Sept. 17 Chance a Democrat wins State Incumbent Lite Classic Deluxe Arizona (special) McSally 86% 80% 78% Colorado Gardner 78 71 68 North Carolina Tillis 70 70 61 Maine Collins 75 54 51 Iowa Ernst 48 41 42 Montana Daines 40 32 32 Georgia Perdue 31 27 25 Kansas — 33 28 22 Georgia (special) Loeffler 17 19 17 South Carolina Graham 26 19 15 Alaska Sullivan 22 17 13 Texas Cornyn 15 13 11 Mississippi Hyde-Smith 14 11 5 Kentucky McConnell 7 6 5 Louisiana Cassidy 6 5 3 Tennessee — 11 <1 <1
Democrats’ single best pickup opportunity is probably in Arizona, where Republican Sen. Martha McSally — who lost to Democrat Kyrsten Sinema in the race for Arizona’s other Senate seat two years ago — badly trails Democrat Mark Kelly in polls. Nor is McSally, who was appointed to the seat following the death of Sen. John McCain, likely to benefit much from incumbency, as appointed incumbents typically perform much worse than elected ones.
Meanwhile, the two Republicans in Clinton-won states, Gardner and Collins, are also behind in polls. Still, it may be premature to write their political obituaries, especially for Collins. She won her last race by a large margin, she has a fairly moderate voting record, Maine only barely voted for Clinton in 2016, and experts continue to rate the race as a toss-up, all factors that help keep her afloat in our Classic and Deluxe models.
The fourth state where Democrats are currently favored for a pickup is in North Carolina, where Democrat Cal Cunningham, a former state senator, leads Republican incumbent Sen. Thom Tillis in polls and is also a slight favorite according to the “fundamentals” our model evaluates. And troubling for Tillis is that he has some of the hallmarks of a weak incumbent: He only barely won his seat in 2014, which was a much better political environment than the one Republicans face now, and he badly lags Cunningham in fundraising.
Indeed, many Republican incumbents, such as Sens. Joni Ernst of Iowa, David Perdue of Georgia and Dan Sullivan of Alaska, face some version of this problem, as many of them won by single-digit margins in 2014, a year when Republicans won the popular vote for the U.S. House by about 6 points. But this year, the national environment favors Democrats by 6 or 7 points, so that’s around a 12-point swing, putting Republicans who won by narrow margins last time in the danger zone.
Other Demoratic opportunities are more idiosyncratic. In Montana, they’re hoping to benefit from the personal popularity of Steve Bullock, who is currently the governor there (although the Republican incumbent is favored in our forecast at the moment). And in South Carolina, Democrat Jaime Harrison has run a surprisingly competitive race against incumbent Sen. Linsday Graham, who once had a reputation for moderation but has now become a major defender of Trump, a shift that may mean he’s now not satisfying voters in either camp. In addition to Perdue’s seat, there is also a second seat open in Georgia, currently held by the appointed incumbent Sen. Kelly Loeffler. (This special election is unusual, though, in that multiple candidates from both parties will face off on Election Day, and if no one gets a majority, two candidates will move to a runoff in January.)
In an average simulation, our forecast has Democrats picking up about six Republican-held seats in the Lite model, around five in the Classic model and about four and a half in the Deluxe model. And that would be enough for them to win control of the Senate — even if they fail to capture the presidency.
However, Democrats also have some seats of their own to defend. Most notably, there is Jones’s seat in Alabama. Running for reelection as a Democrat in one of the reddest states in the country puts him at a disadvantage, and this time around he doesn’t have the benefit of running against Roy Moore, who multiple women accused of pursuing sexual relationships with them while they were in their teens. (Instead, his opponent is the former Auburn football coach Tommy Tuberville.) But like Collins in Maine, whose chances shift significantly depending on which version of the model you look at, Jones might not be completely done for. The polls do make it look like Jones is a goner (hence his low chances in the Lite forecast), but the fundamentals — including the fact that he’s raised a lot of money and has a track record of moderation — give Jones an uphill chance at victory.
Where Republicans are most likely to pick up Senate seats Democrat-held seats where Republicans have at least a 5 percent chance of winning in at least one version of FiveThirtyEight’s model, as of 5 p.m. on Sept. 17 Chance a Republican wins State Incumbent Lite Classic Deluxe Alabama Jones 90% 64% 72% Michigan Peters 15 15 17 Minnesota Smith 15 14 7 New Mexico — 13 8 5 New Hampshire Shaheen 5 1 2
After Alabama, there is a big drop-off in the likelihood of possible Republican pickups, but their next best chance is probably in Michigan, where John James, who ran a surprisingly vigorous race against Demoratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow in 2018, is within striking distance of Michigan’s other Democratic senator, Gary Peters. Minnesota, New Mexico and New Hampshire also represent long-shot opportunities for Republicans, although those seats will likely change hands only if the night is going very badly for Democrats.
So while we know you’re tired of hearing this … the outcome is, at this point, uncertain.
There are plausible upside scenarios for Democrats where tight polling margins against incumbents like Graham prove to be the canary in the coal mine for widespread Republican problems, and Biden and Harris get to craft an agenda with as many as 54 or 55 Democratic senators.
At the same time, though, the Senate is probably a heavier lift for Democrats than the presidency. Let’s imagine, for example, that Biden flipped Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Arizona and retained all the states Clinton won, which would imply a solid but not overwhelming margin in the presidential race. In that scenario, even if every Senate race went the same way as the presidential election, Democrats would still come up one seat short, picking up Maine, Colorado and Arizona but losing Jones’s seat in Alabama.
And while it’s certainly possible that most of the toss-up races will break in the same direction as the presidential race, Senate races can be quirky. Democrats got a mixed set of results in 2018, for example, picking up seats in Arizona and Nevada — but also seeing four of their incumbents lose.
One thing Democrats don’t have to worry about: If they pick up the Senate, it’s very likely that they’ll have retained the House, too; Republicans are starting out with a big deficit there and are playing at least as much defense as offense. There are scenarios where Republicans could win the House, but they involve the national climate unexpectedly turning into a Republcian landslide, in which case Democrats won’t be competitive in the Senate anyway. But we’ll discuss that more when we release our House forecast. In the meantime, please drop us a line if you have any questions about the Senate.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-18--2020 Senate Election Forecast

2020 Senate Election Forecast

How the Senate forecast has changed See how each party ’ s forecasted seat total and chances of controlling the @ @ @ @ @ .
The forecast updates at least once a day and whenever we get a new @ @

How the Senate forecast has changed
See how each party’s forecasted seat total and chances of controlling the Senate have changed over time. The forecast updates at least once a day and whenever we get a new poll.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-18--What’s Going On With Kickers In The NFL?

Things got so bad on Monday night for newly signed Tennessee Titans kicker Stephen Gostkowski that the prospect of removing his pants before the final kick of the game wasn ’ t off the table .
Gostkowski had already missed three field goals and an extra point against the Denver Broncos when the cameras caught him sitting on the sidelines late in the fourth quarter , his right foot shoeless and sockless .
“ I mean , I would ’ ve taken my pants off to make that last kick , to try something different , ” Gostkowski said after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t doing very well , I had to switch something up , maybe just for mental sake.
” The beleaguered kicker went on to make his final field goal attempt of the night , partially redeeming himself by splitting the uprights with just 17 seconds remaining .
The final score : 16-14 , Titans .
The story could end there — a bit of human drama that helps make football compelling — but it turns out that Gostkowski ’ s Week 1 struggles were broadly representative of a terrible week for NFL kickers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all teams in Week 1 was just 71.6 percent , the lowest opening-game field goal success rate leaguewide in at least 20 years , according to data from ESPN ’ s Stats & Information Group .
It was also the 9th-worst kicking performance across all weeks since 2001 .
Of the eight weeks with a lower leaguewide field goal percentage , just one occurred in the past 15 years .
What ’ s happening here ?
The average length of the 67 attempts in Week 1 wasn ’ t significantly different from past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so the poor results can ’ t be explained by longer attempts .
Wind also can ’ t explain the difference : The windiest Week 1 of the past 20 years was in 2001 , according to ESPN Stats & Info , and the league converted 80 percent of its 55 attempts that year , with an average attempt distance of 37 yards .
In the age of COVID-19 , some might point to the lack of a preseason as a reason for the decline in kicking success .
But if that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to find other measures of play quality down this year as well .
According to Michael Lopez , director of football data and analytics for the NFL , the missed tackle rate is down 3 percent from Week 1 of 2019 , the dropped pass rate is down 4 percent , false starts are down 15 percent , and unsportsmanlike conduct penalties — such as unnecessary roughness — are down a whopping 43 percent .
Lopez wrote on Twitter , “ Basically every metric I ’ ve thought to track that would potentially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Except for kickers.
” And while it ’ s possible that some aspect of a kicker ’ s job could make that position more affected by a lack of preseason action than the rest of the team , it ’ s hard to imagine exactly what that might be .
The stadiums that players are kicking in are largely empty , removing one of the biggest differentiators between practice kicks and in-game situations .
And kicking itself is one of the more stable play types in football : There ’ s nowhere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ field goal attempt as there is on a pass or running play , for instance .
Long snappers could conceivably be rusty , but they ’ re specialists who are allocated a roster spot to do one thing , and one thing alone , so they have strong incentives to remain sharp .
Still , if it isn ’ t COVID-19 , and it isn ’ t longer attempts or more wind , what ’ s causing the dip ?
The answer is that it ’ s probably just randomness at work .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ across the league , it ’ s not a significantly different result in a statistical sense than the rates we saw in other seasons since 2001 .
In the same way that a player like Baker Mayfield can look like one of the worst starting quarterbacks in the league in Week 1 against Baltimore ( Total Quarterback Rating of 37.7 ) and then perform at an elite level the next week against Cincinnati ( total QBR of 98 ) , small samples sometimes provide results that can — if we ’ re not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re seeing a new trend long before we have enough evidence to be sure .
So while it may be unsatisfying , the answer is instructive .
We should avoid drawing broad conclusions based on limited but recent information , particularly in a high-variance sport like football .

Things got so bad on Monday night for newly signed Tennessee Titans kicker Stephen Gostkowski that the prospect of removing his pants before the final kick of the game wasn’t off the table. Gostkowski had already missed three field goals and an extra point against the Denver Broncos when the cameras caught him sitting on the sidelines late in the fourth quarter, his right foot shoeless and sockless.
“I mean, I would’ve taken my pants off to make that last kick, to try something different,” Gostkowski said after the game. “I wasn’t doing very well, I had to switch something up, maybe just for mental sake.”
The beleaguered kicker went on to make his final field goal attempt of the night, partially redeeming himself by splitting the uprights with just 17 seconds remaining. The final score: 16-14, Titans. The story could end there — a bit of human drama that helps make football compelling — but it turns out that Gostkowski’s Week 1 struggles were broadly representative of a terrible week for NFL kickers overall.
The field goal percentage for all teams in Week 1 was just 71.6 percent, the lowest opening-game field goal success rate leaguewide in at least 20 years, according to data from ESPN’s Stats & Information Group. It was also the 9th-worst kicking performance across all weeks since 2001. Of the eight weeks with a lower leaguewide field goal percentage, just one occurred in the past 15 years.
What’s happening here? The average length of the 67 attempts in Week 1 wasn’t significantly different from past years, at 38.2 yards per attempt, so the poor results can’t be explained by longer attempts. Wind also can’t explain the difference: The windiest Week 1 of the past 20 years was in 2001, according to ESPN Stats & Info, and the league converted 80 percent of its 55 attempts that year, with an average attempt distance of 37 yards.
In the age of COVID-19, some might point to the lack of a preseason as a reason for the decline in kicking success. But if that were the case, we might expect to find other measures of play quality down this year as well. According to Michael Lopez, director of football data and analytics for the NFL, the missed tackle rate is down 3 percent from Week 1 of 2019, the dropped pass rate is down 4 percent, false starts are down 15 percent, and unsportsmanlike conduct penalties — such as unnecessary roughness — are down a whopping 43 percent. Lopez wrote on Twitter, “Basically every metric I’ve thought to track that would potentially get worse this year has gotten better. Except for kickers.”
And while it’s possible that some aspect of a kicker’s job could make that position more affected by a lack of preseason action than the rest of the team, it’s hard to imagine exactly what that might be. The stadiums that players are kicking in are largely empty, removing one of the biggest differentiators between practice kicks and in-game situations. And kicking itself is one of the more stable play types in football: There’s nowhere near as much chaos on a typical field goal attempt as there is on a pass or running play, for instance. Long snappers could conceivably be rusty, but they’re specialists who are allocated a roster spot to do one thing, and one thing alone, so they have strong incentives to remain sharp.
Still, if it isn’t COVID-19, and it isn’t longer attempts or more wind, what’s causing the dip? The answer is that it’s probably just randomness at work. Despite the historically low field goal percentage across the league, it’s not a significantly different result in a statistical sense than the rates we saw in other seasons since 2001. In the same way that a player like Baker Mayfield can look like one of the worst starting quarterbacks in the league in Week 1 against Baltimore (Total Quarterback Rating of 37.7) and then perform at an elite level the next week against Cincinnati (total QBR of 98), small samples sometimes provide results that can — if we’re not careful — convince us that we’re seeing a new trend long before we have enough evidence to be sure. So while it may be unsatisfying, the answer is instructive. We should avoid drawing broad conclusions based on limited but recent information, particularly in a high-variance sport like football.
Check out our latest NFL predictions.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-18--The Aces Don’t Need Threes To Win

The Aces Don’t Need Threes To Win

The past decade of professional basketball featured an overwhelming buffet of stylistic changes built on one simple premise : Three is greater than two .
At all levels , coaches and players discovered the ramifications of a mathematical truth we all learn as toddlers .
By taking a step back on long jumpers , they can score more points and leverage the threat of those jumpers to create space to drive for layups .
As defenses adjusted , offenses kept pushing their players further from the hoop in a never-ending game of “ top this !
” Three-point shooting evolved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most important quality of great offense .
Now it seems impossible to win at the highest levels without it .
But as the 2020 season comes to a close , one team has emerged to challenge that truism .
When the Las Vegas Aces begin their WNBA postseason run on Sunday against the Connecticut Sun , they won ’ t just be fighting for their city ’ s first professional title .
They ’ ll also be competing to answer a fundamental question about the sport that seemed settled : Is it really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and making lots of 3-pointers ?
Maybe the answer is yes after all .
The Aces went 18-4 during the regular season , earning the league ’ s No .
1 overall seed despite the absences of All-Star center Liz Cambage and point guard Kelsey Plum , who broke out in the 2019 playoffs .
Along the way , they scored 109.6 points per 100 possessions , which gave them the ninth-most efficient regular season offense in WNBA history .
They ’ re the co-favorites for the 2020 WNBA crown despite ( or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to take long-distance shots .
They attempted just 11.5 3-pointers per game , which was nearly five and a half fewer than the next-lowest ranked team in the league , the Atlanta Dream .
The Aces also scored just 14.3 percent of their points on makes from beyond the arc , a share that six teams — half the league — doubled this season .
If we look at the difference between Vegas ’ s total 3-point attempts and the WNBA average , the Aces ’ reluctance to fire away from downtown compared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of shot profile is usually reserved for teams that can ’ t put the ball in the basket , not ones that have one of the most potent offenses ever .
Yet the Aces have somehow solved what seemed to be an impossible equation : how to score efficiently while largely eschewing the shots worth the most points .
The simple answer is that they maximize the strengths of their star instead of a theoretical one ( who might be a better deep shooter ) .
A ’ ja Wilson , 2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pick — and 2020 WNBA MVP — has blossomed in Cambage ’ s absence , allowing the Aces to mash teams inside with deep post-ups and endless drives to the basket .
They scored an average of 42.7 points per game in the paint this season , the most in WNBA history .
They also generated more free throws than any other team by far , grabbed a ton of offensive rebounds and posted the league ’ s lowest turnover rate .
Those strengths made up for the points the Aces gave away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complicated answer offers important lessons for would-be duplicators across all levels of the sport .
It centers on one word : pace .
We often use the shorthand “ pace and space ” to describe modern offenses , implicitly grouping two separate concepts together ( playing fast and shooting lots of threes ) into one larger philosophy .
But the key to the Aces ’ success is that they push the ball in transition and run their offense with relentless speed and precision .
They mask their limited “ space ” by turbo-charging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this case , manifests in multiple ways .
The Aces average the most possessions per game in the league , the most commonly cited measure of how fast a team plays .
Specifically , they push the pace in transition off their defense .
Nobody uses less of the shot clock on average after steals , and only Phoenix uses less after the other team misses .
An opponent has hardly any time to blink before an Aces ball-handler is rushing right at them .
Like many NBA teams , the Aces eschew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ players to dribble the ball up themselves .
Angel McCoughtry , a 34-year-old five-time All-Star who signed with the Aces in free agency after missing the 2018 playoffs and entire 2019 season with a knee injury , has revived her career as a devastating grab-and-go slasher in transition .
McCoughtry isn ’ t the only Aces player with the green light to push the ball .
Second-year guard Jackie Young and forward DeArica Hamby , the back-to-back Sixth Woman of the Year , have free rein to attack whenever they grab a rebound @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an outlet pass , the other guards run the wings and give Las Vegas a numbers advantage .
Every Aces defensive stop immediately becomes a high-leverage scoring opportunity .
But the Aces ’ pace is most notable in half-court situations , when the defense ( theoretically ) is set .
They waste little time getting the ball into the frontcourt and begin their sets sooner than most WNBA teams .
The Aces pass quickly , cut decisively and time their movement precisely to confuse the back-line defenders .
There ’ s no wasted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ usually happens when one player surveys the floor .
The Aces pass , catch and immediately attack with startling speed , given their allergy to 3-point shooting .
Even though the Aces led the league in possessions per game , their success also underscores the limits of older statistics like possessions per game and fast break points per game .
The Aces did not lead the league in the latter category — they were tied for fourth — but that kind of stat fails to convey just how the Aces keep up that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opportunity evaporates .
By continuing to move quickly in their half-court sets , the Aces rarely are forced to scramble to find a shot .
According to Synergy Sports , only 7.2 percent of the Aces ’ possessions ended with fewer than five seconds on the shot clock , the lowest mark in the league : The Aces have to play fast in every situation because they can ’ t rely on their shooting to space the floor .
Their most common alignment begins with the ball-handlers and two other players forming a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while the two other players running some sort of play on the opposite side .
By timing their possessions so the on- and off-ball movements happen simultaneously , the Aces are often able to clear one side of the floor for one of their stars to go to work , whether it ’ s Wilson inside , McCoughtry slashing to the cup , Kayla McBride curling off a screen , or any other combination .
Even if defenses wanted to ignore perimeter players and load up in the paint , the Aces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to send that help .
There ’ s a reason Wilson faces fewer double teams than she should based on her performance , and it ’ s not just because she makes her own move quickly .
The Aces don ’ t ward off potential double-teams with shooting .
They ward off potential double-teams by moving .
In a perfect world , the Aces could take a few more 3-pointers and thus not have to move so often to generate proper floor spacing .
All things being equal , it ’ s better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of threes than not .
Cutting and shooting don ’ t have to be mutually exclusive .
It ’ s also possible the Aces ’ style will be less effective in a playoff series , when their opponent is able to spend more time game planning against their idiosyncratic tendencies .
But all things are never equal in basketball .
This unique style suits coach Bill Laimbeer — whose teams have often ranked near the bottom of the league in 3-point shooting — and a roster missing Plum ’ s pick-and-roll wizardry and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As a result , the Aces have found a way to be better than the sum of their parts .
And that ’ s all any fan can really ask of their favorite team .

The past decade of professional basketball featured an overwhelming buffet of stylistic changes built on one simple premise: Three is greater than two. At all levels, coaches and players discovered the ramifications of a mathematical truth we all learn as toddlers. By taking a step back on long jumpers, they can score more points and leverage the threat of those jumpers to create space to drive for layups.
As defenses adjusted, offenses kept pushing their players further from the hoop in a never-ending game of “top this!” Three-point shooting evolved from a nifty bonus feature to the most important quality of great offense. Now it seems impossible to win at the highest levels without it.
But as the 2020 season comes to a close, one team has emerged to challenge that truism. When the Las Vegas Aces begin their WNBA postseason run on Sunday against the Connecticut Sun, they won’t just be fighting for their city’s first professional title. They’ll also be competing to answer a fundamental question about the sport that seemed settled: Is it really possible to win a championship without shooting and making lots of 3-pointers?
Maybe the answer is yes after all. The Aces went 18-4 during the regular season, earning the league’s No. 1 overall seed despite the absences of All-Star center Liz Cambage and point guard Kelsey Plum, who broke out in the 2019 playoffs. Along the way, they scored 109.6 points per 100 possessions, which gave them the ninth-most efficient regular season offense in WNBA history.
They’re the co-favorites for the 2020 WNBA crown despite (or because of?) their historic unwillingness to take long-distance shots. They attempted just 11.5 3-pointers per game, which was nearly five and a half fewer than the next-lowest ranked team in the league, the Atlanta Dream. The Aces also scored just 14.3 percent of their points on makes from beyond the arc, a share that six teams — half the league — doubled this season. If we look at the difference between Vegas’s total 3-point attempts and the WNBA average, the Aces’ reluctance to fire away from downtown compared to their competition was historic:
Vegas was historically reluctant to shoot from deep Largest negative percent difference between a team’s 3-point attempts and the WNBA average in a season, 1997-2020 3-point Attempts Season Team By Team Lg. Average % vs. Average 2004 Detroit Shock 209 415.4 -49.7 2005 Houston Comets 205 403.5 -49.2 1997 Cleveland Rockers 177 336.8 -47.4 2011 Atlanta Dream 284 537.9 -47.2 2020 Las Vegas Aces 253 465.4 -45.6 2018 Las Vegas Aces 361 660.2 -45.3 2002 Utah Starzz 247 419.7 -41.1 2005 Detroit Shock 238 403.5 -41.0 2014 Los Angeles Sparks 282 477.9 -41.0 2001 Utah Starzz 244 413.4 -41.0 Source: Basketball-Reference.com
That kind of shot profile is usually reserved for teams that can’t put the ball in the basket, not ones that have one of the most potent offenses ever. Yet the Aces have somehow solved what seemed to be an impossible equation: how to score efficiently while largely eschewing the shots worth the most points.
The simple answer is that they maximize the strengths of their star instead of a theoretical one (who might be a better deep shooter). A’ja Wilson, 2018’s No. 1 overall draft pick — and 2020 WNBA MVP — has blossomed in Cambage’s absence, allowing the Aces to mash teams inside with deep post-ups and endless drives to the basket. They scored an average of 42.7 points per game in the paint this season, the most in WNBA history. They also generated more free throws than any other team by far, grabbed a ton of offensive rebounds and posted the league’s lowest turnover rate. Those strengths made up for the points the Aces gave away at the 3-point line.
The more complicated answer offers important lessons for would-be duplicators across all levels of the sport. It centers on one word: pace.
We often use the shorthand “pace and space” to describe modern offenses, implicitly grouping two separate concepts together (playing fast and shooting lots of threes) into one larger philosophy. But the key to the Aces’ success is that they push the ball in transition and run their offense with relentless speed and precision. They mask their limited “space” by turbo-charging their “pace.”
Pace, in this case, manifests in multiple ways. The Aces average the most possessions per game in the league, the most commonly cited measure of how fast a team plays. Specifically, they push the pace in transition off their defense. Nobody uses less of the shot clock on average after steals, and only Phoenix uses less after the other team misses.
An opponent has hardly any time to blink before an Aces ball-handler is rushing right at them. Like many NBA teams, the Aces eschew outlet passes to allow their top wing players to dribble the ball up themselves. Angel McCoughtry, a 34-year-old five-time All-Star who signed with the Aces in free agency after missing the 2018 playoffs and entire 2019 season with a knee injury, has revived her career as a devastating grab-and-go slasher in transition.
McCoughtry isn’t the only Aces player with the green light to push the ball. Second-year guard Jackie Young and forward DeArica Hamby, the back-to-back Sixth Woman of the Year, have free rein to attack whenever they grab a rebound.
Instead of sitting back waiting for an outlet pass, the other guards run the wings and give Las Vegas a numbers advantage. Every Aces defensive stop immediately becomes a high-leverage scoring opportunity.
But the Aces’ pace is most notable in half-court situations, when the defense (theoretically) is set. They waste little time getting the ball into the frontcourt and begin their sets sooner than most WNBA teams. The Aces pass quickly, cut decisively and time their movement precisely to confuse the back-line defenders.
There’s no wasted time and little of the stagnation that usually happens when one player surveys the floor. The Aces pass, catch and immediately attack with startling speed, given their allergy to 3-point shooting.
Even though the Aces led the league in possessions per game, their success also underscores the limits of older statistics like possessions per game and fast break points per game. The Aces did not lead the league in the latter category — they were tied for fourth — but that kind of stat fails to convey just how the Aces keep up that relentless pace even after the initial scoring opportunity evaporates. By continuing to move quickly in their half-court sets, the Aces rarely are forced to scramble to find a shot. According to Synergy Sports, only 7.2 percent of the Aces’ possessions ended with fewer than five seconds on the shot clock, the lowest mark in the league:
Vegas plays fast in transition — and in the half-court Leaguewide rankings in the share of plays made in transition and with fewer than five seconds left on the shot clock, 2020 WNBA season Largest Share of Plays in Transition Largest share of plays w/ short clock* Rk Team Share Rk Team Share 1 LAS 16.4% 1 IND 11.0% 2 NYL 16.0 2 DAL 10.2 3 LVA 15.8 3 NYL 10.1 4 DAL 15.6 4 WAS 10.1 5 SEA 15.5 5 MIN 9.8 6 ATL 13.9 6 LAS 8.9 7 CON 13.1 7 ATL 8.8 8 PHX 12.7 8 CHI 8.8 9 WAS 12.7 9 CON 8.5 10 CHI 12.0 10 SEA 8.4 11 MIN 11.5 11 PHX 7.7 12 IND 9.7 12 LVA 7.2 *Short-clock situations are possessions that end with fewer than five seconds left on the shot clock. Source: Synergy Sports Technology
The Aces have to play fast in every situation because they can’t rely on their shooting to space the floor. Their most common alignment begins with the ball-handlers and two other players forming a triangle on one side of the court, while the two other players running some sort of play on the opposite side.
By timing their possessions so the on- and off-ball movements happen simultaneously, the Aces are often able to clear one side of the floor for one of their stars to go to work, whether it’s Wilson inside, McCoughtry slashing to the cup, Kayla McBride curling off a screen, or any other combination.
Even if defenses wanted to ignore perimeter players and load up in the paint, the Aces don’t give them any time to send that help. There’s a reason Wilson faces fewer double teams than she should based on her performance, and it’s not just because she makes her own move quickly. The Aces don’t ward off potential double-teams with shooting. They ward off potential double-teams by moving.
In a perfect world, the Aces could take a few more 3-pointers and thus not have to move so often to generate proper floor spacing. All things being equal, it’s better to shoot (and make) lots of threes than not. Cutting and shooting don’t have to be mutually exclusive. It’s also possible the Aces’ style will be less effective in a playoff series, when their opponent is able to spend more time game planning against their idiosyncratic tendencies.
But all things are never equal in basketball. This unique style suits coach Bill Laimbeer — whose teams have often ranked near the bottom of the league in 3-point shooting — and a roster missing Plum’s pick-and-roll wizardry and Cambage’s dominant interior scoring. As a result, the Aces have found a way to be better than the sum of their parts. And that’s all any fan can really ask of their favorite team.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-18--Politics Podcast: Our 2020 Senate Forecast Is Live!

We ’ ve launched our 2020 Senate forecast , and it shows that the Democrats are slightly favored to win @ @ @ @ @ of “ Model Talk ” on the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , Nate Silver and Galen @ @ @ @ @ the forecast model makes as well as which races are worth watching .
You can @ @ @ @ @ clicking the “ play ” button in the audio player above or by downloading it @ @ @ @ @ App or your favorite podcast platform .
If you are new to podcasts , learn @ @ @ @ @ FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast is recorded Mondays and Thursdays .
Help new listeners discover the show @ @ @ @ @ and review on iTunes .
Have a comment , question or suggestion for “ good @ @ @ @ @ ?
Get in touch by email , on Twitter or in the comments .

We’ve launched our 2020 Senate forecast, and it shows that the Democrats are slightly favored to win control. In this episode of “Model Talk” on the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, Nate Silver and Galen Druke discuss the various considerations the forecast model makes as well as which races are worth watching.
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast is recorded Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-18--Why Our Forecast Says Democrats Are Slightly Favored To Win The Senate

In this episode of Model Talk , Nate Silver and Galen Druke introduce our 2020 Senate forecast — and answer @ @ @ @

Why Our Forecast Says Democrats Are Slightly Favored To Win The Senate
In this episode of Model Talk, Nate Silver and Galen Druke introduce our 2020 Senate forecast — and answer some listener questions.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-19--What Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Death Could Mean For 2020 And The Supreme Court

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away on Friday night — a pivotal moment in the history of the nation ’ s highest court .
Ginsburg ’ s death is one of the biggest developments yet in 2020 , a year that has already included the impeachment of the sitting president , a deadly virus killing nearly 200,000 Americans and an economic collapse .
Ginsburg not only reshaped U.S. jurisprudence — in particular , as an advocate for women ’ s rights — but she became a cultural and political icon too , especially for liberals and progressives .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ fight to fill her seat , may have a number of political implications .
Those will become clearer over the next days and weeks , of course , with the election right around the corner , but here ’ s a first look at what some of those potential implications might be : 1 .
Republicans have to decide whether they will break from their “ no election year confirmations ” stance from 2016 Back in 2016 , when Senate Republicans blocked the nomination of then-President Barack Obama ’ s Supreme Court nominee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Leader Mitch McConnell argued that voters should get to choose the president and that president should get to pick the next justice .
Then-Justice Antonin Scalia died in February 2016 , and Obama nominated Garland that March .
Ginsburg ’ s death comes even closer to the 2020 election — 46 days away .
In all of American history , we have had only two Supreme Court vacancies closer to Election Day than we have now .
In both instances , the incumbent president won reelection and nominated a replacement shortly after Election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actual confirmation , one was confirmed in December , one in March . )
So by historical standards — and , notably , McConnell ’ s own previous standard — Trump would not nominate anyone unless he won a second term in November , since the election is less than two months away .
Back in 2016 , Democrats pushed forward Garland ’ s nomination .
Unsurprisingly , the parties have now flipped their positions .
McConnell said on Friday night that he intends to allow a floor vote to confirm a Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the winner of the election should choose the next justice .
This is a huge opportunity for Republicans — to have six GOP-appointed judges on the court at once .
It is hard to imagine they will pass it up .
It ’ s not guaranteed that 49 of the other 52 Senate Republicans would push forward and support a Trump nominee , particularly if Trump lost the election , but it seems likely .
2 .
It ’ s not clear if a confirmation process could finish before the election .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entire confirmation process in less than 46 days , the time left before the Nov. 3 election .
( The average confirmation process since the Harry Truman administration has lasted 50 days . )
That doesn ’ t mean there isn ’ t enough time for Trump to confirm a new justice , but it would be on the fast side .
Nevertheless , it ’ s possible that sometime in October , a judge has been nominated and perhaps confirmation hearings are taking place , right on the eve of the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loses the election and perhaps Republicans lose control of the Senate , but the lame duck president and some senators who have lost reelection put a justice on the Supreme Court — a move that will enrage Democrats .
Alternatively , Trump could win the election and see a new justice appointed before he even begins his second term .
3 .
Ginsburg ’ s death creates new dynamics if there is an election-related dispute before the Court With a 5-4 GOP majority , Chief Justice John Roberts has been a swing vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Court ’ s Democratic appointees .
Whether the court is 5-3 ( with Ginsburg ’ s seat not filled ) or 6-3 ( with a Trump nominee seated ) , Democrats would need two votes from GOP-appointed justices to win a case .
So if there is some kind of electoral dispute that gets to the court , that ’ s bad news for Democrats .
It raises the specter of a 4-4 tie in a pivotal election-related case , a potential deadlock that could complicate knowing who won the presidential race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court is now an even bigger electoral issue Both parties already intensely cared about the Supreme Court .
But now , there is the potential for a Supreme Court nomination ( or discussion of an open seat ) in the middle of the election .
For Trump , this choice is a big opportunity in two ways .
First , the Supreme Court nomination process might distract the media and public ’ s attention away from his mistakes in handling the COVID-19 outbreak and give him a way to galvanize conservatives who really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abortion .
Secondly , Trump is struggling in particular with women voters .
Trump may pick a woman to replace Ginsburg and make his nominee part of his pitch to women voters .
Biden , too , would likely need to talk about judicial issues more and perhaps describe the kind of person he would put in this seat .
( He has already promised to nominate a Black woman in the event of a Supreme Court vacancy if he becomes president . )
Also , Democratic vice-presidential nominee Kamala Harris is on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be involved in any kind of confirmation process .
This is also now a big issue in Senate races .
GOP incumbents like Sen. Martha McSally of Arizona and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine may be faced with the choice of irritating GOP voters if they oppose a Trump pick or irritating more moderate voters if they back someone who is viewed as too conservative .
This is a particularly acute issue for Collins , who is struggling in her reelection campaign in part because she backed Trump Supreme Court nominee Brett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the most divisive elections in America history will now likely be even more tense and fraught .
5. Who Trump chooses is a really big deal Assuming that Trump opts to nominate someone , who he chooses is a really big deal .
With the election looming , does he nominate someone more moderate than he otherwise would have ?
Does he nominate a woman ?
A woman of color ?
Someone with a long record of opinions or someone who is more unknown ?
6 .
If there are six @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law in America could fundamentally move to the right This is the most important implication , even if it is not the most immediate .
If Trump is able to appoint a justice who is similar in ideology to Neil Gorsuch and Kavanagh , his first two picks , it seems likely that abortion and affirmative action could be severely limited in the future , the Affordable Care Act overturned and a host of other conservative rulings issued .
That is not guaranteed , but seems quite possible .
Trump and Republicans putting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or post-election , in the case that he Trump loses , is also likely to trigger an aggressive Democratic response that could have long-lasting implications .
Democratic activists were already floating the idea of increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court to make up for the Garland seat , and I would expect so-called court-packing ideas to accelerate if Trump puts another conservative justice on the court before or right after he loses a presidential election .

Perry Bacon Jr. (perry.bacon@fivethirtyeight.com)

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away on Friday night — a pivotal moment in the history of the nation’s highest court. Ginsburg’s death is one of the biggest developments yet in 2020, a year that has already included the impeachment of the sitting president, a deadly virus killing nearly 200,000 Americans and an economic collapse. Ginsburg not only reshaped U.S. jurisprudence — in particular, as an advocate for women’s rights — but she became a cultural and political icon too, especially for liberals and progressives.
Indeed, her death, and the fight to fill her seat, may have a number of political implications. Those will become clearer over the next days and weeks, of course, with the election right around the corner, but here’s a first look at what some of those potential implications might be:
1. Republicans have to decide whether they will break from their “no election year confirmations” stance from 2016
Back in 2016, when Senate Republicans blocked the nomination of then-President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell argued that voters should get to choose the president and that president should get to pick the next justice. Then-Justice Antonin Scalia died in February 2016, and Obama nominated Garland that March.
Emergency Podcast: The SCOTUS vacancy | FiveThirtyEight
Ginsburg’s death comes even closer to the 2020 election — 46 days away. In all of American history, we have had only two Supreme Court vacancies closer to Election Day than we have now. In both instances, the incumbent president won reelection and nominated a replacement shortly after Election Day. (In terms of the actual confirmation, one was confirmed in December, one in March.) So by historical standards — and, notably, McConnell’s own previous standard — Trump would not nominate anyone unless he won a second term in November, since the election is less than two months away.
Filling a seat this close to the election is unheard of Supreme Court vacancies in presidential election years, by how many days before the election they occurred and whether a replacement was confirmed before the election Before election, replacement was… Justice Date of Vacancy Days before Election Nominated Confirmed S. Minton Oct. 15, 1956 22 R. Taney Oct. 12, 1864 27 R. B. Ginsburg Sept. 18, 2020 46 ? ? R. Trimble Aug. 25, 1828 67 J. McKinley July 19, 1852 106 ✓ C. E. Hughes June 16, 1916 144 ✓ ✓ P. V. Daniel May 31, 1860 159 H. Baldwin April 21, 1844 194 ✓ M. R. Waite March 23, 1888 228 ✓ ✓ A. Scalia Feb. 13, 2016 269 ✓ A. Moore Jan. 26, 1804 281 ✓ ✓ J. P. Bradley Jan. 22, 1892 291 ✓ ✓ O. W. Holmes Jan. 12, 1932 301 ✓ ✓ J. R. Lamar Jan. 2, 1916 310 ✓ ✓ In the early 19th century, the election was held over the course of multiple days; the number of days before the election is the number of days before voting began. Source: U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Senate
Back in 2016, Democrats pushed forward Garland’s nomination. Unsurprisingly, the parties have now flipped their positions. McConnell said on Friday night that he intends to allow a floor vote to confirm a Trump nominee, while Democrats are suggesting that the winner of the election should choose the next justice.
This is a huge opportunity for Republicans — to have six GOP-appointed judges on the court at once. It is hard to imagine they will pass it up. It’s not guaranteed that 49 of the other 52 Senate Republicans would push forward and support a Trump nominee, particularly if Trump lost the election, but it seems likely.
2. It’s not clear if a confirmation process could finish before the election
It would be unusually fast to finish the entire confirmation process in less than 46 days, the time left before the Nov. 3 election. (The average confirmation process since the Harry Truman administration has lasted 50 days.) That doesn’t mean there isn’t enough time for Trump to confirm a new justice, but it would be on the fast side.
Nevertheless, it’s possible that sometime in October, a judge has been nominated and perhaps confirmation hearings are taking place, right on the eve of the election. This creates the possibility that Trump loses the election and perhaps Republicans lose control of the Senate, but the lame duck president and some senators who have lost reelection put a justice on the Supreme Court — a move that will enrage Democrats. Alternatively, Trump could win the election and see a new justice appointed before he even begins his second term.
3. Ginsburg’s death creates new dynamics if there is an election-related dispute before the court
With a 5-4 GOP majority, Chief Justice John Roberts has been a swing vote, and one who occasionally joins with the court’s Democratic appointees. Whether the court is 5-3 (with Ginsburg’s seat not filled) or 6-3 (with a Trump nominee seated), Democrats would need two votes from GOP-appointed justices to win a case. So if there is some kind of electoral dispute that gets to the court, that’s bad news for Democrats. It raises the specter of a 4-4 tie in a pivotal election-related case, a potential deadlock that could complicate knowing who won the presidential race.
4. The future of the court is now an even bigger electoral issue
Both parties already intensely cared about the Supreme Court. But now, there is the potential for a Supreme Court nomination (or discussion of an open seat) in the middle of the election. For Trump, this choice is a big opportunity in two ways. First, the Supreme Court nomination process might distract the media and public’s attention away from his mistakes in handling the COVID-19 outbreak and give him a way to galvanize conservatives who really care about judicial nominations and issues like abortion. Secondly, Trump is struggling in particular with women voters. Trump may pick a woman to replace Ginsburg and make his nominee part of his pitch to women voters.
Biden, too, would likely need to talk about judicial issues more and perhaps describe the kind of person he would put in this seat. (He has already promised to nominate a Black woman in the event of a Supreme Court vacancy if he becomes president.) Also, Democratic vice-presidential nominee Kamala Harris is on the Senate Judiciary Committee, so she would be involved in any kind of confirmation process.
This is also now a big issue in Senate races. GOP incumbents like Sen. Martha McSally of Arizona and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine may be faced with the choice of irritating GOP voters if they oppose a Trump pick or irritating more moderate voters if they back someone who is viewed as too conservative. This is a particularly acute issue for Collins, who is struggling in her reelection campaign in part because she backed Trump Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in 2018.
More broadly, one of the most divisive elections in American history will now likely be even more tense and fraught.
5. Who Trump chooses is a really big deal
Assuming that Trump opts to nominate someone, who he chooses is a really big deal. With the election looming, does he nominate someone more moderate than he otherwise would have? Does he nominate a woman? A woman of color? Someone with a long record of opinions or someone who is more unknown?
6. If there are six GOP-appointed justices on the Supreme Court, law in America could fundamentally move to the right
This is the most important implication, even if it is not the most immediate. If Trump is able to appoint a justice who is similar in ideology to Neil Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, his first two picks, it seems likely that abortion and affirmative action could be severely limited in the future, the Affordable Care Act overturned and a host of other conservative rulings issued. That is not guaranteed, but seems quite possible.
Trump and Republicans putting another justice on the bench either pre- or post-election, in the case that he loses, is also likely to trigger an aggressive Democratic response that could have long-lasting implications. Democratic activists were already floating the idea of increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court to make up for the Garland seat, and I would expect so-called court-packing ideas to accelerate if Trump puts another conservative justice on the court before or right after he loses a presidential election.
CORRECTION (September 24, 2020, 12:53 p.m.): An earlier version of this article misspelled Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s last name.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-19--Can We Trust A COVID-19 Vaccine That Gets Approved?

On this week ’ s episode of PODCAST-19 , we discuss whether the Food and Drug Administration ’ s process @ @ @ @ @ political interference , and how the agency can reassure the public that everything is working @ @ @ @ @ ’ t want to miss an episode of PODCAST-19 , FiveThirtyEight ’ s weekly look @ @ @ @ @ and what we know we don ’ t know — about COVID-19 ?
Subscribe on @ @ @ @ @ For example , here ’ s where to do it on Apple Podcasts and Spotify @

On this week’s episode of PODCAST-19, we discuss whether the Food and Drug Administration’s process for approving vaccines can withstand political interference, and how the agency can reassure the public that everything is working as it should.
Don’t want to miss an episode of PODCAST-19, FiveThirtyEight’s weekly look at what we know — and what we know we don’t know — about COVID-19? Subscribe on your favorite podcasting app. For example, here’s where to do it on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-19--Will The Supreme Court Be The Most Important Issue For Voters In 2020?

In this emergency installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew discusses the implications of Supreme Court Justice Ruth @ @ @ @ @ and what that might mean for the election and the future of the court .

Will The Supreme Court Be The Most Important Issue For Voters In 2020?
In this emergency installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew discusses the implications of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death and what that might mean for the election and the future of the court.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-19--Politics Podcast: How A Supreme Court Vacancy Will Shape The Election

In this emergency installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew discusses Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ @ @ @ @ @ political fight over the court ’ s new vacancy might unfold .
You can listen @ @ @ @ @ the “ play ” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in @ @ @ @ @ or your favorite podcast platform .
If you are new to podcasts , learn how @ @ @ @ @ Politics podcast is recorded Mondays and Thursdays .
Help new listeners discover the show by @ @ @ @ @ review on iTunes .
Have a comment , question or suggestion for “ good polling @ @ @ @ @ Get in touch by email , on Twitter or in the comments .

In this emergency installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew discusses Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death and how the political fight over the court’s new vacancy might unfold.
Emergency Podcast: The SCOTUS vacancy | FiveThirtyEight
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast is recorded Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-21--Politics Podcast: What Comes Next In The Fight To Fill Ginsburg’s Seat

So far , two Republican senators — Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski — have announced their opposition to filling the @ @ @ @ @ belonged to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg before the 2020 election takes place .
In this @ @ @ @ @ podcast , the crew discusses the political calculations for both Republicans and Democrats over how @ @ @ @ @ .
They also look at the dynamics at play in key Senate races in Maine @ @ @ @ @ You can listen to the episode by clicking the “ play ” button in the @ @ @ @ @ downloading it in iTunes , the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform .
If @ @ @ @ @ , learn how to listen .
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast is recorded Mondays and Thursdays @ @ @ @ @ the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes .
Have a comment @ @ @ @ @ “ good polling vs. bad polling ” ?
Get in touch by email , on @ @ @ @ @ .

So far, two Republican senators — Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski — have announced their opposition to filling the Supreme Court seat that once belonged to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg before the 2020 election takes place. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew discusses the political calculations for both Republicans and Democrats over how to proceed in replacing Ginsburg. They also look at the dynamics at play in key Senate races in Maine, Iowa and Arizona.
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast is recorded Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-21--A Record Number Of Black Americans Could Vote Early This Year

In the face of the continued threat of the coronavirus , many Americans won ’ t be voting in person on Election Day .
Instead , polls show that a much larger share of voters intend to cast ballots by mail or vote early in person than in previous elections .
For instance , in a recent AP/NORC poll , as many as 54 percent said they would vote early this year — whether by mail or in person .
If that happens , that would mark a massive shift from 2016 , when just 40 percent of voters voted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Assistance Commission .
Who votes early , though , hasn ’ t historically mattered that much .
There is , for example , no evidence of a big partisan split .
There also aren ’ t any really big gaps by race that aren ’ t explained by geographic differences ( early voting rules differ by state ) .
Broadly speaking , voting early is something that has steadily grown in popularity but is still largely dependent on where someone lives .
But that could change this year .
Charles Stewart , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its Election Data and Science Lab , told me that , “ Prior to 2020 , differences in racial makeup or use of these different [ voting ] modes was driven by where you live , what the opportunities were , what the campaigns were encouraging people to do , ” but in 2020 , he said , “ It ’ s varying heavily according to what party you ’ re in.
” Polls show that Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to say they ’ ll vote early , sometimes by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means it ’ s not only likely that there will be a partisan split in ballots cast this year , but we might also see a change in voting behavior among many non-white voters , since they are much more Democratic-leaning than white voters .
This is especially true for Black voters , whom polls suggest are now 25 percentage points more likely to cast an early ballot than they were in 2016 .
Granted , the share of voters who plan to cast an early ballot is up across the board , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stands out .
In fact , based on the polls we looked at , it ’ s possible that around one and half times as many Black voters will cast an early ballot in 2020 compared to 2016 .
This could potentially make a big difference in battleground states , where we see signs high shares of Black voters are saying they will vote early .
However , there are still real questions about how much Black voters trust the early voting process .
A number of polls have found , for instance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about casting mail or absentee ballots .
Studies have also shown that Black and Hispanic voters have their mail ballots rejected at a higher rate than white voters .
And according to an early August survey from the Voter Participation Center , two-thirds of Black voters in six battleground states thought their vote was more likely to count if they voted in person , so there ’ s definitely a tension between how Black voters might prefer to vote in “ normal ” times and what they are planning to do in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those concerns about not voting in person , Black voters look set to sharply increase their rate of voting by mail .
In fact , our average of recent polls suggests Black voters might be almost as likely as Hispanic and white voters to use a mail ballot this fall , even though they ’ ve historically been less likely to vote that way , according to the Survey of the Performance of American Elections .
( Instead Black voters have tended to vote in person early more than white or Hispanic voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may be the most likely to vote by mail in 2020 , which may have to do with the fact that many Hispanic voters live in states where voting by mail is the norm .
Additionally , states with large Hispanic populations like Arizona , California and Florida have greatly expanded access to voting by mail in recent years .
In fact , almost half the country ’ s Hispanic population lives in states that entirely vote by mail or have high rates of mail balloting .
This doesn ’ t mean that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote won ’ t be counted , however .
Similar to Black voters , Latino voters expressed doubts about their vote being counted if they voted early .
Not to mention , despite states expanding access to voting by mail this year , there is still the question of whether Americans will trust the U.S .
Postal Service to handle their ballot , as there are concerns that the USPS will be unable to handle the increase in volume of mail ballots .
This , in turn , could affect how many voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That leaves voters with one other alternative to cast their ballot early : voting in person before Election Day .
Yet at the moment , it doesn ’ t look like there will be a huge uptick in the use of in-person early voting .
Recent polls found that about a fifth of voters intend to go to the polls in person before Election Day , which is very similar to the share of voters who cast their ballots this way in 2016 .
There is one exception : Black voters are much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to say they will vote early in person .
In fact , according to recent polls , we could see a 9-point change in how many Black voters vote in person early from 2016 .
Part of this is because Black voters are just more familiar with in-person early voting .
Roughly 60 percent of Black people in the U.S. live in the South , where voting in person early is more prevalent .
In fact , campaigns in that region have long urged voters to go to the polls early with get-out-the-vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” which encourages Black churchgoers to vote on the Sunday before the election .
Additionally , calls to vote early in person by leading Democratic voices like Michelle Obama may also influence Black voters ’ voting plans this year .
Still , it ’ s worth noting that eight states will not offer early in-person voting in 2020 , including four states with populations that are at least 20 percent Black : Alabama , Delaware , Mississippi and South Carolina .
Of course , how voters plan to cast their ballots could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nonetheless , it ’ s pretty clear that there will be a sharp uptick in early voting , especially among Black voters .
Much of that change seems to be driven by an increased preference to vote by mail , although more Black voters look set to use in-person early voting , too .
At the very least , we can probably expect far fewer votes to be cast in-person on Election Day .

In the face of the continued threat of the coronavirus, many Americans won’t be voting in person on Election Day. Instead, polls show that a much larger share of voters intend to cast ballots by mail or vote early in person than in previous elections.
For instance, in a recent AP/NORC poll, as many as 54 percent said they would vote early this year — whether by mail or in person. If that happens, that would mark a massive shift from 2016, when just 40 percent of voters voted early, according to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
Who votes early, though, hasn’t historically mattered that much. There is, for example, no evidence of a big partisan split. There also aren’t any really big gaps by race that aren’t explained by geographic differences (early voting rules differ by state). Broadly speaking, voting early is something that has steadily grown in popularity but is still largely dependent on where someone lives.
But that could change this year.
Charles Stewart, a political scientist at MIT and director of its Election Data and Science Lab, told me that, “Prior to 2020, differences in racial makeup or use of these different [voting] modes was driven by where you live, what the opportunities were, what the campaigns were encouraging people to do,” but in 2020, he said, “It’s varying heavily according to what party you’re in.”
Polls show that Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to say they’ll vote early, sometimes by as much as 31 points. This means it’s not only likely that there will be a partisan split in ballots cast this year, but we might also see a change in voting behavior among many non-white voters, since they are much more Democratic-leaning than white voters.
This is especially true for Black voters, whom polls suggest are now 25 percentage points more likely to cast an early ballot than they were in 2016.
Black voters are the most likely to vote early in 2020 Average share of voters who said they planned to vote early in person or by mail in recent polls, compared to vote method used in 2016, by race or ethnicity Share voting early in person or by mail Race 2020 2016 Difference Black 66% 42% +25 Hispanic 61 51 +11 White 55 45 +10 Overall 57 45 +12 Figures for 2020 are an average of nine polls conducted since the end of the Republican National Convention, with multiple polls from the same pollster averaged together to avoid over-weighting one pollster. Figures for 2016 are estimates calculated from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, based on validated voters and removing a small number of respondents who said they didn’t know how they voted. Figures are rounded after calculation. Source: COOPERATIVE CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION STUDY, POLLS
Granted, the share of voters who plan to cast an early ballot is up across the board, but the increase among Black voters truly stands out. In fact, based on the polls we looked at, it’s possible that around one and half times as many Black voters will cast an early ballot in 2020 compared to 2016. This could potentially make a big difference in battleground states, where we see signs high shares of Black voters are saying they will vote early.
However, there are still real questions about how much Black voters trust the early voting process. A number of polls have found, for instance, that Black voters are more concerned about casting mail or absentee ballots. Studies have also shown that Black and Hispanic voters have their mail ballots rejected at a higher rate than white voters. And according to an early August survey from the Voter Participation Center, two-thirds of Black voters in six battleground states thought their vote was more likely to count if they voted in person, so there’s definitely a tension between how Black voters might prefer to vote in “normal” times and what they are planning to do in the face of the coronavirus.
But despite those concerns about not voting in person, Black voters look set to sharply increase their rate of voting by mail. In fact, our average of recent polls suggests Black voters might be almost as likely as Hispanic and white voters to use a mail ballot this fall, even though they’ve historically been less likely to vote that way, according to the Survey of the Performance of American Elections. (Instead Black voters have tended to vote in person early more than white or Hispanic voters.)
Voting by mail is up across the board in 2020 Average share of voters who said they planned to vote by mail in recent polls, compared to the share that voted by mail in 2016, by race or ethnicity Percentage voting by mail Race/Ethnicity 2020 2016 Difference Hispanic 37% 28% +9 White 35 25 +10 Black 33 17 +16 Overall 35 24 +11 Figures for 2020 are an average of nine polls conducted since the end of the Republican National Convention, with multiple polls from the same pollster averaged together to avoid over-weighting one pollster. Figures for 2016 are estimates calculated from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, based on validated voters and removing a small number of respondents who said they didn’t know how they voted. Figures are rounded after calculation. Source: COOPERATIVE CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION STUDY, POLLS
Latino voters, however, may be the most likely to vote by mail in 2020, which may have to do with the fact that many Hispanic voters live in states where voting by mail is the norm. Additionally, states with large Hispanic populations like Arizona, California and Florida have greatly expanded access to voting by mail in recent years. In fact, almost half the country’s Hispanic population lives in states that entirely vote by mail or have high rates of mail balloting.
This doesn’t mean that Latino voters aren’t concerned their vote won’t be counted, however. Similar to Black voters, Latino voters expressed doubts about their vote being counted if they voted early. Not to mention, despite states expanding access to voting by mail this year, there is still the question of whether Americans will trust the U.S. Postal Service to handle their ballot, as there are concerns that the USPS will be unable to handle the increase in volume of mail ballots. This, in turn, could affect how many voters actually end up voting by mail.
That leaves voters with one other alternative to cast their ballot early: voting in person before Election Day. Yet at the moment, it doesn’t look like there will be a huge uptick in the use of in-person early voting. Recent polls found that about a fifth of voters intend to go to the polls in person before Election Day, which is very similar to the share of voters who cast their ballots this way in 2016. There is one exception: Black voters are much more likely than white and Hispanic voters to say they will vote early in person. In fact, according to recent polls, we could see a 9-point change in how many Black voters vote in person early from 2016.
Only Black voters are more likely to vote in person early Average share of voters who said they planned to vote early in person in recent polls, compared to the share that voted early in person in 2016, by race or ethnicity Percentage voting early in person Race/Ethnicity 2020 2016 Difference Black 33% 24% +9 Hispanic 25 23 +2 White 20 20 0 Overall 22 21 +1 Figures for 2020 are an average of nine polls conducted since the end of the Republican National Convention, with multiple polls from the same pollster averaged together to avoid over-weighting one pollster. Figures for 2016 are estimates calculated from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, based on validated voters and removing a small number of respondents who said they didn’t know how they voted. Figures are rounded after calculation. Source: COOPERATIVE CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION STUDY, POLLS
Part of this is because Black voters are just more familiar with in-person early voting. Roughly 60 percent of Black people in the U.S. live in the South, where voting in person early is more prevalent. In fact, campaigns in that region have long urged voters to go to the polls early with get-out-the-vote initiatives like “Souls to the Polls,” which encourages Black churchgoers to vote on the Sunday before the election. Additionally, calls to vote early in person by leading Democratic voices like Michelle Obama may also influence Black voters’ voting plans this year. Still, it’s worth noting that eight states will not offer early in-person voting in 2020, including four states with populations that are at least 20 percent Black: Alabama, Delaware, Mississippi and South Carolina.
Of course, how voters plan to cast their ballots could change between now and Election Day. Nonetheless, it’s pretty clear that there will be a sharp uptick in early voting, especially among Black voters. Much of that change seems to be driven by an increased preference to vote by mail, although more Black voters look set to use in-person early voting, too. At the very least, we can probably expect far fewer votes to be cast in-person on Election Day.