fivethirthyeight--2020-10-26--The Dodgers Went From A Stunning Loss To The Brink Of A Championship

The Los Angeles Dodgers could have imploded after a historic series of miscues allowed the opposing Tampa Bay Rays to tie the World Series at two games apiece Saturday night .
Game 5 starter Clayton Kershaw could have lived down to his less-than-perfect postseason reputation , and the Dodgers could have let yet another title shot slip away .
Instead , though , they got back to work and produced a businesslike 4-2 victory Sunday night , showcasing all of the myriad reasons why Los Angeles is just one win away from its first championship in 32 years .
Tampa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was an all-timer — and an all-time gut-punch of a loss for the Dodgers , who had fought hard to stake themselves to a 7-6 lead with two outs in the bottom of the ninth before all hell broke loose .
According to win probability added ( WPA ) , the single by backup Rays outfielder Brett Phillips ( and the two Dodger errors that followed ) swung the odds of Game 4 by 81 percentage points , making it one of the most game-changing plays ever in a World Series .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the game itself , that play lowered Los Angeles ’ s championship odds by 29.7 percentage points , making it probably the costliest set of errors in baseball history .
Again , you might have thought the way that game went down would weigh heavily on the Dodgers going forward .
But all L.A. had to do was glance at the stat sheet to realize the balance of the series was still tipped in its favor .
Entering Sunday ’ s game , the Dodgers had a 158-point advantage in OPS during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in fielding independent pitching and a 6.2-point advantage in defensive efficiency ratio .
That it took a historic sequence of events for Tampa Bay to even tie things up also spoke to how well Los Angeles had played for the vast majority of the series .
And the Dodgers got back to that formula in Game 5 .
Though they were held to just six hits — after banging out 25 in Games 3 and 4 combined — three went for extra bases ( including two home runs ) , and they managed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an early lead , scoring first for the fourth time in five games , further adding to Tampa Bay starter Tyler Glasnow ’ s postseason frustrations .
After allowing four earned runs in five innings Sunday , Glasnow has a 6.28 postseason ERA ( including a 9.64 mark in this World Series ) .
As is customary at this point , L.A. ’ s deep lineup also delivered RBIs from the Nos .
2 ( Corey Seager ) , 4 ( Max Muncy ) , 6 ( Cody Bellinger ) and 8 ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order .
But the biggest factor to turn the tide of the series back toward the Dodgers was their pitching .
Kershaw shrugged off his past failures to give the team a solid 5⅔ innings in Game 5 , allowing just two runs and setting up the Dodger bullpen to close the door late .
On a night he set the new all-time postseason strikeout record , L.A. ’ s ace outdueled Glasnow for the second time in the series .
Meanwhile , the Dodgers ’ relievers found redemption 24 hours after a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ runs in four innings ( including one unearned during the comedy of errors at the end ) .
Tampa Bay had its chances , particularly with runners on the corners and no outs against Kershaw in the fourth ( which ultimately yielded no runs after Manuel Margot was tagged out when trying to steal home ) , and when Randy Arozarena , the new single-postseason home run king , came up as the potential go-ahead run against lefty Victor González in the eighth ( he harmlessly flied out to center ) .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ runs from the fourth inning onward .
And so , the Dodgers now have a chance to clinch their long-awaited championship in Game 6 on Tuesday .
Our prediction model gives them a 59 percent chance of wrapping things up then and an 83 percent chance overall .
L.A. is up 3-2 and , statistically , it has done a thorough job of outclassing the Rays across pretty much every key metric during the series so far : Of course , lest we coronate the Dodgers too early , Game 4 reminded us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instant , on the wildest of plays .
But at the same time , it also proved that those are the kinds of improbable plays it will take to beat a team as deep and talented as the one Los Angeles has assembled this season .

The Los Angeles Dodgers could have imploded after a historic series of miscues allowed the opposing Tampa Bay Rays to tie the World Series at two games apiece Saturday night. Game 5 starter Clayton Kershaw could have lived down to his less-than-perfect postseason reputation, and the Dodgers could have let yet another title shot slip away. Instead, though, they got back to work and produced a businesslike 4-2 victory Sunday night, showcasing all of the myriad reasons why Los Angeles is just one win away from its first championship in 32 years.
Tampa Bay’s win in Game 4 was an all-timer — and an all-time gut-punch of a loss for the Dodgers, who had fought hard to stake themselves to a 7-6 lead with two outs in the bottom of the ninth before all hell broke loose. According to win probability added (WPA), the single by backup Rays outfielder Brett Phillips (and the two Dodger errors that followed) swung the odds of Game 4 by 81 percentage points, making it one of the most game-changing plays ever in a World Series. And if we take into account the leverage of the game itself, that play lowered Los Angeles’s championship odds by 29.7 percentage points, making it probably the costliest set of errors in baseball history.
The Dodgers’ Game 4 blunders made history Costliest World Series plays that contained at least one error, according to championship win probability added (cWPA) Teams Year Game No. Inning Outs Batting Pitching Error(s) Walk-Off cWPA 2020 4 Bot 9 2 TBR LAD CF, C ✓ -29.7 1912 8 Top 10 1 NYG BOS CF -29.2 1923 6 Top 8 2 NYY NYG CF -26.9 1912 8 Bot 10 0 BOS NYG CF -24.4 1986 6 Bot 10 2 NYM BOS 1B ✓ -21.5 1997 7 Bot 11 1 FLA CLE 2B -19.0 2001 7 Bot 9 0 ARI NYY P -18.2 1952 7 Bot 5 1 BRO NYY LF -15.7 1909 6 Top 9 0 PIT DET 1B -14.7 2002 6 Bot 8 0 ANA SFG LF -14.7 1912 2 Bot 10 1 BOS NYG C -14.6 1982 7 Top 6 0 MIL STL P -14.4 1907 1 Top 8 1 DET CHC C -13.4 1924 7 Top 6 1 NYG WSH SS -13.0 1940 7 Top 3 2 DET CIN 3B -12.3 Championship WPA measures the change in each team’s odds of winning the World Series between the start and end of each play. Source: Baseball-Reference.com
Again, you might have thought the way that game went down would weigh heavily on the Dodgers going forward. But all L.A. had to do was glance at the stat sheet to realize the balance of the series was still tipped in its favor. Entering Sunday’s game, the Dodgers had a 158-point advantage in OPS during the World Series, a 1.20-run advantage in fielding independent pitching and a 6.2-point advantage in defensive efficiency ratio. That it took a historic sequence of events for Tampa Bay to even tie things up also spoke to how well Los Angeles had played for the vast majority of the series.
And the Dodgers got back to that formula in Game 5. Though they were held to just six hits — after banging out 25 in Games 3 and 4 combined — three went for extra bases (including two home runs), and they managed five walks. L.A. jumped out to an early lead, scoring first for the fourth time in five games, further adding to Tampa Bay starter Tyler Glasnow’s postseason frustrations. After allowing four earned runs in five innings Sunday, Glasnow has a 6.28 postseason ERA (including a 9.64 mark in this World Series). As is customary at this point, L.A.’s deep lineup also delivered RBIs from the Nos. 2 (Corey Seager), 4 (Max Muncy), 6 (Cody Bellinger) and 8 (Joc Pederson) slots in the batting order.
But the biggest factor to turn the tide of the series back toward the Dodgers was their pitching. Kershaw shrugged off his past failures to give the team a solid 5⅔ innings in Game 5, allowing just two runs and setting up the Dodger bullpen to close the door late. On a night he set the new all-time postseason strikeout record, L.A.’s ace outdueled Glasnow for the second time in the series. Meanwhile, the Dodgers’ relievers found redemption 24 hours after a disastrous performance in which they allowed six runs in four innings (including one unearned during the comedy of errors at the end).
Tampa Bay had its chances, particularly with runners on the corners and no outs against Kershaw in the fourth (which ultimately yielded no runs after Manuel Margot was tagged out when trying to steal home), and when Randy Arozarena, the new single-postseason home run king, came up as the potential go-ahead run against lefty Victor González in the eighth (he harmlessly flied out to center). But the Rays were unable to muster any runs from the fourth inning onward.
And so, the Dodgers now have a chance to clinch their long-awaited championship in Game 6 on Tuesday. Our prediction model gives them a 59 percent chance of wrapping things up then and an 83 percent chance overall. L.A. is up 3-2 and, statistically, it has done a thorough job of outclassing the Rays across pretty much every key metric during the series so far:
The Dodgers have dominated statistically Head-to-head comparison in key metrics for the 2020 World Series Los Angeles Category Tampa Bay .264 Batting average .228 .354 On-base % .288 .506 Slugging % .420 .859 On-base plus slugging .708 4.03 Earned run average 5.93 4.06 Fielding-independent pitching 5.83 71.3 Defensive efficiency % 69.3 75.4 Left-on-base %* 75.1 *Measures the rate at which a team’s pitchers have stranded opposing base-runners. Source: ESPN STATS & INFORMATION GROUP
Of course, lest we coronate the Dodgers too early, Game 4 reminded us that baseball fortunes can turn in an instant, on the wildest of plays. But at the same time, it also proved that those are the kinds of improbable plays it will take to beat a team as deep and talented as the one Los Angeles has assembled this season.
Check out our latest MLB predictions.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-27--Is Joe Biden Toast If He Loses Pennsylvania?

Michigan and Wisconsin have been the focus of a lot of attention from nervous Democrats for the past four years , in part because Hillary Clinton spent relatively little time there and lost both states in 2016 .
So if you told Democrats that Joe Biden would be up by 7 points in Wisconsin and 8 points in Michigan in polls with a week to go , they ’ d feel … Actually , who are we kidding .
They ’ d still feel pretty nervous since the polls underestimated Donald Trump in these states four years ago !
With @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Biden could withstand 2016-style polling errors in those states and still win .
( Clinton led by 4 points in Michigan and 5 points in Wisconsin in our final polling averages in those states in 2016 , and then lost both states by less than one point .
But Biden ’ s extra cushion means he could survive a 2016-magnitude miss . )
The polls have been tighter in Pennsylvania , though .
Biden ’ s current lead is just 5.1 points , and in 2016 , polls were off by 4.4 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won it by 0.7 points after trailing in our final polling average by 3.7 points there .
So with a 2016-style polling error in Pennsylvania , Biden would be cutting it awfully close , perhaps even so close that court rulings on factors like “ naked ballots ” could swing the outcome .
Whether it makes sense that Biden is polling worse in Pennsylvania than in Michigan and Wisconsin is a fair question .
Biden was born in Scranton , and it ’ s the most urban and the most racially diverse of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Michigan are traditionally more Democratic ; Barack Obama won them by larger margins than Pennsylvania in 2012 , for instance .
So maybe there ’ s been some reversion to the mean here .
In any event , the polling has been consistent enough in showing Pennsylvania tighter than Michigan and Wisconsin that we probably need to take it at face value at this stage .
So here ’ s a question we can ask with our nifty scenario generator .
Is Pennsylvania a must-win for Biden ?
No , not quite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must-win for Trump , who has only a 2 percent chance of winning the Electoral College if he loses Pennsylvania .
Biden , however , has a bit more margin for error .
He ’ d have a 30 percent chance if he lost Pennsylvania , which isn ’ t great but is also higher than , say , Trump ’ s overall chances on Election Day 2016 .
The reason losing Pennsylvania wouldn ’ t necessarily doom Biden is because he could still hold those other Midwestern/Rust Belt states .
Pennsylvania is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but not that similar .
As I mentioned , it ’ s denser and more racially diverse .
It may or may not be in the Midwest .
It ’ s traditionally a bit more purple .
So if Biden is doing better than Clinton with rural whites but worse with Black voters — as a lot of polling shows — he might gain ground in Wisconsin but lose in Pennsylvania .
Say , then , that Biden loses Pennsylvania but wins Michigan and Wisconsin .
For good measure , we ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his chances look like then ?
Biden ’ s actually a slight favorite ( 55 percent ) in this scenario .
This map has a lot of interesting aspects that give you some hints about how our model works behind the scenes .
Here , for instance , are Biden ’ s chances of winning other swing states if he loses Pennsylvania but wins the other three Midwestern states : The biggest decline to Biden ’ s chances comes in Ohio .
That makes sense .
It ’ s not an easy state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it should be highly correlated with Pennsylvania , so if he can ’ t win in Pennsylvania , it ’ s very hard to imagine him winning there .
Iowa is a bit more viable for Biden because it ’ s more similar to Wisconsin and Minnesota than to Pennsylvania , but it would still be a long shot .
The model also thinks New Hampshire and Maine could be problems for Biden if he loses Pennsylvania , although he ’ d still be favored in those states .
Demographically , Maine is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Pennsylvania — it ’ s white and rural .
But geographically , it ’ s closer to Pennsylvania .
Our model considers both factors , as geography can often be a proxy for lots of hidden factors that cause correlated outcomes between states but are otherwise hard to detect .
Conversely , what happens in the Rust Belt doesn ’ t tell us much about what will happen in Nevada , Colorado or New Mexico — those groups of states just aren ’ t that similar .
Biden ’ s chances would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Carolina , Georgia and Texas , however .
Part of that is because these states just aren ’ t that easy for a Democrat to win , period .
So if Biden is having a mixed night — as evidenced by his losing Pennsylvania even if he wins Wisconsin and Michigan — they could be fairly heavy lifts .
In addition , these states do have some things in common with Pennsylvania .
Florida , like Pennsylvania , has a fairly old electorate .
North Carolina has a similar racial mix to Pennsylvania @ @ @ @ @ @ @ middle-income with many transplants from Pennsylvania and the Midwest .
Still , Biden would be slightly favored to eke out a win in this scenario by winning one more more of those Sunbelt states .
The most likely would be Arizona , which has less in common with Pennsylvania than the others .
Biden ’ s work wouldn ’ t quite be done if he won Arizona , though .
Rather , his chances would be 85 percent , with a 5 percent chance of a 269-269 tie .
But he ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could hold the other states Clinton won in 2016 and then flip either Iowa or a congressional district in either Maine or Nebraska , which award one electoral vote each .
Alternatively , he could even lose another state Clinton won , like Maine or New Hampshire , if he carried a second Sunbelt state such as Georgia .
We ’ re getting into the weeds .
But here ’ s the thing : Yes , Biden and Democrats should be nervous that he has only about a 5-point lead in Pennsylvania , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Five points is more than a normal-sized polling error , but not that much more .
And Biden does have some backup plans .
A regional polling error in the Midwest or the Northeast wouldn ’ t necessarily doom his chances in states like Arizona , for instance .
It wouldn ’ t be the blowout that Democrats hope for , but Biden would still retain an edge in the Electoral College even without winning his birth state .

Michigan and Wisconsin have been the focus of a lot of attention from nervous Democrats for the past four years, in part because Hillary Clinton spent relatively little time there and lost both states in 2016. So if you told Democrats that Joe Biden would be up by 7 points in Wisconsin and 8 points in Michigan in polls with a week to go, they’d feel …
Actually, who are we kidding? They’d still feel pretty nervous since the polls underestimated Donald Trump in these states four years ago! With that said, one key observation is that Biden could withstand 2016-style polling errors in those states and still win. (Clinton led by 4 points in Michigan and 5 points in Wisconsin in our final polling averages in those states in 2016, and then lost both states by less than one point. But Biden’s extra cushion means he could survive a 2016-magnitude miss.)
Fewer undecided voters is good news for Biden in the Midwest| FiveThirtyEight
The polls have been tighter in Pennsylvania, though. Biden’s current lead is just 5.1 points, and in 2016, polls were off by 4.4 points in the Keystone State — Trump won it by 0.7 points after trailing in our final polling average by 3.7 points there. So with a 2016-style polling error in Pennsylvania, Biden would be cutting it awfully close, perhaps even so close that court rulings on factors like “naked ballots” could swing the outcome.
[Live Updates: We’re Tracking The Vote And Voting Problems]
Whether it makes sense that Biden is polling worse in Pennsylvania than in Michigan and Wisconsin is a fair question. Biden was born in Scranton, and it’s the most urban and racially diverse of the three states. Still, Wisconsin and Michigan are traditionally more Democratic; Barack Obama won them by larger margins than Pennsylvania in 2012, for instance. So maybe there’s been some reversion to the mean here. In any event, the polling has been consistent enough in showing Pennsylvania tighter than Michigan and Wisconsin that we probably need to take it at face value at this stage.
So here’s a question we can ask with our nifty scenario generator. Is Pennsylvania a must-win for Biden?
No, not quite. It is close to being a must-win for Trump, who has only a 2 percent chance of winning the Electoral College if he loses Pennsylvania. Biden, however, has a bit more margin for error. He’d have a 30 percent chance if he lost Pennsylvania, which isn’t great but is also higher than, say, Trump’s overall chances on Election Day 2016.
The reason losing Pennsylvania wouldn’t necessarily doom Biden is because he could still hold those other Midwestern/Rust Belt states. Pennsylvania is fairly similar to Michigan and Wisconsin, but not that similar. As I mentioned, it’s denser and more racially diverse. It may or may not be in the Midwest. It’s traditionally a bit more purple. So if Biden is doing better than Clinton with rural whites but worse with Black voters — as a lot of polling shows — he might gain ground in Wisconsin but lose in Pennsylvania.
Say, then, that Biden loses Pennsylvania but wins Michigan and Wisconsin. For good measure, we’ll also give Minnesota to Biden. What do his chances look like then? Biden’s actually a slight favorite (55 percent) in this scenario.
This map has a lot of interesting aspects that give you some hints about how our model works behind the scenes. Here, for instance, are Biden’s chances of winning other swing states if he loses Pennsylvania but wins the other three Midwestern states:
What Biden’s chances would look like after a Rust Belt split Biden’s chances of winning each swing state in FiveThirtyEight’s presidential forecast, as of 5:30 a.m. on Oct. 27 Biden chances of victory State Initial
chances PA Loss,
WI, MI, MN Win Virginia 99% 99% New Mexico 97 96 Colorado 96 95 Nevada 91 86 Maine 90 73 New Hampshire 87 65 Arizona 66 49 Florida 66 37 North Carolina 65 24 Georgia 46 22 Iowa 50 16 Ohio 42 3 Texas 33 10
The biggest decline to Biden’s chances comes in Ohio. That makes sense. It’s not an easy state for him to win anyway, and it should be highly correlated with Pennsylvania, so if he can’t win in Pennsylvania, it’s very hard to imagine him winning there. Iowa is a bit more viable for Biden because it’s more similar to Wisconsin and Minnesota than to Pennsylvania, but it would still be a long shot.
The model also thinks New Hampshire and Maine could be problems for Biden if he loses Pennsylvania, although he’d still be favored in those states. Demographically, Maine is more similar to Wisconsin than it is to Pennsylvania — it’s white and rural. But geographically, it’s closer to Pennsylvania. Our model considers both factors, as geography can often be a proxy for lots of hidden factors that cause correlated outcomes between states but are otherwise hard to detect.
Conversely, what happens in the Rust Belt doesn’t tell us much about what will happen in Nevada, Colorado or New Mexico — those groups of states just aren’t that similar.
Biden’s chances would decline in Florida, Arizona, North Carolina, Georgia and Texas, however. Part of that is because these states just aren’t that easy for a Democrat to win, period. So if Biden is having a mixed night — as evidenced by his losing Pennsylvania even if he wins Wisconsin and Michigan — they could be fairly heavy lifts.
How the media projects the winner of an election | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast
In addition, these states do have some things in common with Pennsylvania. Florida, like Pennsylvania, has a fairly old electorate. North Carolina has a similar racial mix to Pennsylvania. And all of these states are middle-income with many transplants from Pennsylvania and the Midwest.
Still, Biden would be slightly favored to eke out a win in this scenario by winning one more of those Sunbelt states. The most likely would be Arizona, which has less in common with Pennsylvania than the others.
Biden’s work wouldn’t quite be done if he won Arizona, though. Rather, his chances would be 85 percent, with a 5 percent chance of a 269-269 tie. But he’d be in pretty good shape. He could hold the other states Clinton won in 2016 and then flip either Iowa or a congressional district in either Maine or Nebraska, which award one electoral vote each. Alternatively, he could even lose another state Clinton won, like Maine or New Hampshire, if he carried a second Sunbelt state such as Georgia.
We’re getting into the weeds. But here’s the thing: Yes, Biden and Democrats should be nervous that he has only about a 5-point lead in Pennsylvania, the most likely tipping point state. Five points is more than a normal-sized polling error, but not that much more. And Biden does have some backup plans. A regional polling error in the Midwest or the Northeast wouldn’t necessarily doom his chances in states like Arizona, for instance. It wouldn’t be the blowout that Democrats hope for, but Biden would still retain an edge in the Electoral College even without winning his birth state.
Nate Silver on how 6 key states could impact election results


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-27--Control Of Redistricting Is Up For Grabs In 2020. Here Are The Races To Watch.

Most of the attention on the 2020 election is focused on who will sit in the White House for the next four years .
But the 2020 election could also help decide who controls the House of Representatives for the next decade .
This is the last election before data from the census is released , so whoever emerges from this year holding power on the state level will have the power to redraw their state ’ s congressional maps — and maybe even give their side an unfair advantage in future elections .
( Although this is not true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or bipartisan commissions draw their maps . )
Gerrymandering , or the act of purposefully drawing a map to advantage one political party or group , has a long history in this country — and politicians of all persuasions have been guilty of it .
But the red wave election of 2010 upped the ante by giving Republicans lopsided control of the 2011 redistricting process .
Thanks in large part to the 21 state legislatures and six governorships they picked up , Republicans were able to draw 55 percent of congressional districts , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As a result , in both 2012 and 2016 , the House map was more biased toward Republicans than it had been at any point since the 1970s .
Republicans even won 33 more House seats than Democrats in the 2012 election despite Democrats winning the House popular vote by 1.3 percentage points .
And even as courts ruled some states ’ maps unconstitutional and Democrats were able to flip the House in 2018 , the median seat remained 4.4 points more Republican-leaning than the nation as a whole .
Going into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inside track over Democrats in the 2021 redistricting process .
We determined this by using Election Data Services estimates of how many congressional districts each state will have after the 2020 census , looking at which party currently controls the levers of redistricting in those states and assessing ( based on partisanship data , expert opinions and local media reports ) whether the 2020 elections could change that .
Our analysis found that 117 congressional districts ( 27 percent of the entire House ) are likely to be drawn by Republicans , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be drawn by Democrats .
Another 132 ( 30 percent ) will be drawn by independent commissions or by both Republicans and Democrats working together .
And seven districts ( 2 percent ) are at-large districts that cover their entire state ( thus , there are no lines to draw ) .
That leaves 10 states worth 132 congressional districts ( 30 percent of the House ) where control of redistricting is up for grabs in the current election .
However , not all of the redistricting-relevant elections in these states are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the best one party can hope for is simply to block the other from gaining full control .
For example , Republicans could win the ability to draw 71 new districts without Democratic input — but the best they can do with the remaining 61 is to ensure they have a seat at the table so they can force Democrats to compromise .
Still , under this best-case scenario for Republicans , they would have redistricting control over 188 seats in total ( 43 percent ) — almost as many as after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another blue wave election on the horizon , Democrats can probably prevent that from happening .
In the best-case Democratic scenario , the party would gain control over drawing 77 more seats and would share redistricting control over the other 55 with Republicans .
That would give them redistricting control over 124 seats in total ( 29 percent ) — slightly more than Republicans .
Of course , the final redistricting landscape will probably be somewhere in between these two extremes .
To see which party will have the eventual advantage — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here are the states and elections to watch .
• Without question , Texas is the biggest redistricting prize up for grabs this year ; accounting for population growth , it is expected to have 39 congressional districts next decade .
While Republicans currently control all three stakeholders in the congressional redistricting process — the state Senate , state House and governorship — the state House is competitive this year .
Democrats need a net gain of just nine seats to take control of the chamber — and there are 22 districts that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including nine that Democratic Senate candidate Beto O ’ Rourke carried in 2018 .
If Democrats flip the House , they would gain the ability to block GOP-proposed maps , forcing either Republicans to compromise or a court to draw the lines .
• New York is projected to have 26 House seats next decade , but it has relatively new and complex redistricting rules under which a bipartisan commission proposes maps , but the state legislature and governor decide whether to approve them .
However , if they reject the commission ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effectively draw its own .
Only one wrinkle : If the same party controls both chambers of the legislature ( as Democrats currently do ) , a two-thirds majority is required to pass a new congressional map .
That means Democrats need to win a supermajority in the state Senate ( they already have one in the state Assembly ) in 2020 if they want to be able to impose a map without any Republican votes .
And with 10 Republican senators retiring , including many from competitive seats , Democrats have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ additional seats they need .
• In Pennsylvania ( likely home to 17 congressional districts ) , Democrats are guaranteed a seat at the table in redistricting thanks to Democratic Gov .
Tom Wolf , who was reelected in 2018 .
If they flip both the state Senate and state House this year , they could draw congressional lines however they want .
However , Democrats would need a net gain of nine seats to take the state House ( despite having plenty of vulnerable members of their own ) and sweep every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most likely outcome may be that Wolf will share redistricting power with Republican legislators .
• North Carolina ’ s House and Senate will draw the state ’ s projected 14 congressional districts ; the governor doesn ’ t get a say .
Both chambers are competitive in this year ’ s elections , meaning either party could have full control of redistricting ( divided control is very possible as well ) .
Right now Republicans have majorities in both chambers , but Democrats could change that by flipping five seats in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House .
• By contrast , the fate of Virginia ’ s 11 congressional districts will be decided by Amendment # 1 , a ballot measure to reform redistricting .
( Control of state government in Virginia is decided in odd years and so isn ’ t in play this year . )
Amendment # 1 would set up a bipartisan commission of state legislators and ordinary citizens to draw Virginia ’ s new congressional map .
The state legislature would still have to approve it , but if they don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its own map .
Polling so far shows that Amendment # 1 will probably pass , but if not , Virginia ’ s Democratic-controlled state government would draw the lines .
• Republicans currently control all three redistricting entities — the state Senate , state House and governorship — in Missouri , worth eight congressional seats .
But Democrats have an outside shot at breaking up that monopoly if two things go right for them .
First , Democrat Nicole Galloway would need to overcome her polling deficit to defeat Republican Gov .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ also have to break up the Republican supermajority in the state Senate , which they could do by flipping two seats — perhaps vulnerable Senate districts 15 and 19 .
Otherwise , Republicans could simply override Galloway ’ s veto of their maps .
• The power to draw Minnesota ’ s projected seven congressional districts is currently divided : Democrats control the governorship and state House , while Republicans control the state Senate .
The question of redistricting control will boil down to whether Democrats can flip the state Senate ( the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this year ) .
Democrats have six viable pickup opportunities but only need to net two seats to attain a majority , giving them a good shot of drawing the maps alone next year .
• Iowa will use a unique process to redraw its four House districts .
The nonpartisan Legislative Services Agency draws a map , and the legislature gives it an up-or-down vote .
If the legislature rejects two of the LSA ’ s maps , though , they can amend the third or draw their own , putting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Right now , that means in Republican hands — the GOP controls the state Senate , state House and governorship .
However , Democrats need to net only four seats to take control of the state House , which would probably make it more likely that one of the LSA ’ s maps is accepted .
• At first glance , control of redrawing Kansas ’ s four congressional districts appears to be split between Democratic Gov .
Laura Kelly and the Republican legislature .
However , the GOP currently has veto-proof majorities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House , meaning they could enact a new map without Kelly ’ s input .
Those supermajorities are very much at risk in the 2020 elections , though .
If Democrats net three Senate seats or even just one House seat this year , they ’ ll ensure a new map can only pass if Democrats approve .
• Finally , only two congressional districts are at stake in New Hampshire , but almost every possible scenario is on the table .
All three redistricting stakeholders ( the state Senate , state House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and all three are competitive .
If polling showing Republicans close to flipping both chambers of the legislature is correct , Republicans could gain total control of redistricting .
If Democrats pull an upset and defeat Republican Gov .
Chris Sununu , they would .
However , the status quo ( shared control between Sununu and a Democratic legislature ) may be the most likely outcome .

Most of the attention on the 2020 election is focused on who will sit in the White House for the next four years. But the 2020 election could also help decide who controls the House of Representatives for the next decade.
This is the last election before data from the census is released, so whoever emerges from this year holding power on the state level will have the power to redraw their state’s congressional maps — and maybe even give their side an unfair advantage in future elections. (Although this is not true everywhere, as some states have independent or bipartisan commissions draw their maps.)
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: How the electorate will be different in 2020
Gerrymandering, or the act of purposefully drawing a map to advantage one political party or group, has a long history in this country — and politicians of all persuasions have been guilty of it. But the red wave election of 2010 upped the ante by giving Republicans lopsided control of the 2011 redistricting process. Thanks in large part to the 21 state legislatures and six governorships they picked up, Republicans were able to draw 55 percent of congressional districts, while Democrats drew just 10 percent.
[Live Updates: We’re Tracking The Vote And Voting Problems]
As a result, in both 2012 and 2016, the House map was more biased toward Republicans than it had been at any point since the 1970s. Republicans even won 33 more House seats than Democrats in the 2012 election despite Democrats winning the House popular vote by 1.3 percentage points. And even as courts ruled some states’ maps unconstitutional and Democrats were able to flip the House in 2018, the median seat remained 4.4 points more Republican-leaning than the nation as a whole.
Going into the 2020 elections, Republicans still have the inside track over Democrats in the 2021 redistricting process. We determined this by using Election Data Services estimates of how many congressional districts each state will have after the 2020 census, looking at which party currently controls the levers of redistricting in those states and assessing (based on partisanship data, expert opinions and local media reports) whether the 2020 elections could change that.
Our analysis found that 117 congressional districts (27 percent of the entire House) are likely to be drawn by Republicans, while 47 (11 percent) are likely to be drawn by Democrats. Another 132 (30 percent) will be drawn by independent commissions or by both Republicans and Democrats working together. And seven districts (2 percent) are at-large districts that cover their entire state (thus, there are no lines to draw).
That leaves 10 states worth 132 congressional districts (30 percent of the House) where control of redistricting is up for grabs in the current election. However, not all of the redistricting-relevant elections in these states are winnable by both parties; in some, the best one party can hope for is simply to block the other from gaining full control.
For example, Republicans could win the ability to draw 71 new districts without Democratic input — but the best they can do with the remaining 61 is to ensure they have a seat at the table so they can force Democrats to compromise. Still, under this best-case scenario for Republicans, they would have redistricting control over 188 seats in total (43 percent) — almost as many as after 2010.
But with the possibility of another blue wave election on the horizon, Democrats can probably prevent that from happening. In the best-case Democratic scenario, the party would gain control over drawing 77 more seats and would share redistricting control over the other 55 with Republicans. That would give them redistricting control over 124 seats in total (29 percent) — slightly more than Republicans.
Of course, the final redistricting landscape will probably be somewhere in between these two extremes. To see which party will have the eventual advantage — and how big that advantage will be — here are the states and elections to watch.
Without question, Texas is the biggest redistricting prize up for grabs this year; accounting for population growth, it is expected to have 39 congressional districts next decade. While Republicans currently control all three stakeholders in the congressional redistricting process — the state Senate, state House and governorship — the state House is competitive this year. Democrats need a net gain of just nine seats to take control of the chamber — and there are 22 districts that the party thinks it can flip, including nine that Democratic Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke carried in 2018. If Democrats flip the House, they would gain the ability to block GOP-proposed maps, forcing either Republicans to compromise or a court to draw the lines.
is the biggest redistricting prize up for grabs this year; accounting for population growth, it is expected to have 39 congressional districts next decade. While Republicans currently control all three stakeholders in the congressional redistricting process — the state Senate, state House and governorship — the state House is competitive this year. Democrats need a net gain of just nine seats to take control of the chamber — and there are 22 districts that the party thinks it can flip, including nine that Democratic Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke carried in 2018. If Democrats flip the House, they would gain the ability to block GOP-proposed maps, forcing either Republicans to compromise or a court to draw the lines. New York is projected to have 26 House seats next decade, but it has relatively new and complex redistricting rules under which a bipartisan commission proposes maps, but the state legislature and governor decide whether to approve them. However, if they reject the commission’s maps twice, the legislature can effectively draw its own. Only one wrinkle: If the same party controls both chambers of the legislature (as Democrats currently do), a two-thirds majority is required to pass a new congressional map. That means Democrats need to win a supermajority in the state Senate (they already have one in the state Assembly) in 2020 if they want to be able to impose a map without any Republican votes. And with 10 Republican senators retiring, including many from competitive seats, Democrats have a good chance of picking up the two additional seats they need.
is projected to have 26 House seats next decade, but it has relatively new and complex redistricting rules under which a bipartisan commission proposes maps, but the state legislature and governor decide whether to approve them. However, if they reject the commission’s maps twice, the legislature can effectively draw its own. Only one wrinkle: If the same party controls both chambers of the legislature (as Democrats currently do), a two-thirds majority is required to pass a new congressional map. That means Democrats need to win a supermajority in the state Senate (they already have one in the state Assembly) in 2020 if they want to be able to impose a map without any Republican votes. And with 10 Republican senators retiring, including many from competitive seats, Democrats have a good chance of picking up the two additional seats they need. In Pennsylvania (likely home to 17 congressional districts), Democrats are guaranteed a seat at the table in redistricting thanks to Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf, who was reelected in 2018. If they flip both the state Senate and state House this year, they could draw congressional lines however they want. However, Democrats would need a net gain of nine seats to take the state House (despite having plenty of vulnerable members of their own) and sweep every competitive district in the Senate. So the most likely outcome may be that Wolf will share redistricting power with Republican legislators.
(likely home to 17 congressional districts), Democrats are guaranteed a seat at the table in redistricting thanks to Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf, who was reelected in 2018. If they flip both the state Senate and state House this year, they could draw congressional lines however they want. However, Democrats would need a net gain of nine seats to take the state House (despite having plenty of vulnerable members of their own) and sweep every competitive district in the Senate. So the most likely outcome may be that Wolf will share redistricting power with Republican legislators. North Carolina ’s House and Senate will draw the state’s projected 14 congressional districts; the governor doesn’t get a say. Both chambers are competitive in this year’s elections, meaning either party could have full control of redistricting (divided control is very possible as well). Right now Republicans have majorities in both chambers, but Democrats could change that by flipping five seats in the Senate and/or six seats in the House.
’s House and Senate will draw the state’s projected 14 congressional districts; the governor doesn’t get a say. Both chambers are competitive in this year’s elections, meaning either party could have full control of redistricting (divided control is very possible as well). Right now Republicans have majorities in both chambers, but Democrats could change that by flipping five seats in the Senate and/or six seats in the House. By contrast, the fate of Virginia ’s 11 congressional districts will be decided by Amendment #1, a ballot measure to reform redistricting. (Control of state government in Virginia is decided in odd years and so isn’t in play this year.) Amendment #1 would set up a bipartisan commission of state legislators and ordinary citizens to draw Virginia’s new congressional map. The state legislature would still have to approve it, but if they don’t, the state Supreme Court would create its own map. Polling so far shows that Amendment #1 will probably pass, but if not, Virginia’s Democratic-controlled state government would draw the lines.
’s 11 congressional districts will be decided by Amendment #1, a ballot measure to reform redistricting. (Control of state government in Virginia is decided in odd years and so isn’t in play this year.) Amendment #1 would set up a bipartisan commission of state legislators and ordinary citizens to draw Virginia’s new congressional map. The state legislature would still have to approve it, but if they don’t, the state Supreme Court would create its own map. Polling so far shows that Amendment #1 will probably pass, but if not, Virginia’s Democratic-controlled state government would draw the lines. Republicans currently control all three redistricting entities — the state Senate, state House and governorship — in Missouri , worth eight congressional seats. But Democrats have an outside shot at breaking up that monopoly if two things go right for them. First, Democrat Nicole Galloway would need to overcome her polling deficit to defeat Republican Gov. Mike Parson. Then, Democrats would also have to break up the Republican supermajority in the state Senate, which they could do by flipping two seats — perhaps vulnerable Senate districts 15 and 19. Otherwise, Republicans could simply override Galloway’s veto of their maps.
, worth eight congressional seats. But Democrats have an outside shot at breaking up that monopoly if two things go right for them. First, Democrat Nicole Galloway would need to overcome her polling deficit to defeat Republican Gov. Mike Parson. Then, Democrats would have to break up the Republican supermajority in the state Senate, which they could do by flipping two seats — perhaps vulnerable Senate districts 15 and 19. Otherwise, Republicans could simply override Galloway’s veto of their maps. The power to draw Minnesota ’s projected seven congressional districts is currently divided: Democrats control the governorship and state House, while Republicans control the state Senate. The question of redistricting control will boil down to whether Democrats can flip the state Senate (the governor isn’t up for reelection this year). Democrats have six viable pickup opportunities but only need to net two seats to attain a majority, giving them a good shot of drawing the maps alone next year.
’s projected seven congressional districts is currently divided: Democrats control the governorship and state House, while Republicans control the state Senate. The question of redistricting control will boil down to whether Democrats can flip the state Senate (the governor isn’t up for reelection this year). Democrats have six viable pickup opportunities but only need to net two seats to attain a majority, giving them a good shot of drawing the maps alone next year. Iowa will use a unique process to redraw its four House districts. The nonpartisan Legislative Services Agency draws a map, and the legislature gives it an up-or-down vote. If the legislature rejects two of the LSA’s maps, though, they can amend the third or draw their own, putting the ultimate power in politicians’ hands. Right now, that means in Republican hands — the GOP controls the state Senate, state House and governorship. However, Democrats need to net only four seats to take control of the state House, which would probably make it more likely that one of the LSA’s maps is accepted.
will use a unique process to redraw its four House districts. The nonpartisan Legislative Services Agency draws a map, and the legislature gives it an up-or-down vote. If the legislature rejects two of the LSA’s maps, though, they can amend the third or draw their own, putting the ultimate power in politicians’ hands. Right now, that means in Republican hands — the GOP controls the state Senate, state House and governorship. However, Democrats need to net only four seats to take control of the state House, which would probably make it more likely that one of the LSA’s maps is accepted. At first glance, control of redrawing Kansas ’s four congressional districts appears to be split between Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly and the Republican legislature. However, the GOP currently has veto-proof majorities in both the state Senate and state House, meaning they could enact a new map without Kelly’s input. Those supermajorities are very much at risk in the 2020 elections, though. If Democrats net three Senate seats or even just one House seat this year, they’ll ensure a new map can only pass if Democrats approve.
’s four congressional districts appears to be split between Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly and the Republican legislature. However, the GOP currently has veto-proof majorities in both the state Senate and state House, meaning they could enact a new map without Kelly’s input. Those supermajorities are very much at risk in the 2020 elections, though. If Democrats net three Senate seats or even just one House seat this year, they’ll ensure a new map can only pass if Democrats approve. Finally, only two congressional districts are at stake in New Hampshire, but almost every possible scenario is on the table. All three redistricting stakeholders (the state Senate, state House and governorship) are on the ballot, and all three are competitive. If polling showing Republicans close to flipping both chambers of the legislature is correct, Republicans could gain total control of redistricting. If Democrats pull an upset and defeat Republican Gov. Chris Sununu, they would. However, the status quo (shared control between Sununu and a Democratic legislature) may be the most likely outcome.
How the media projects the winner of an election | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-27--Election Day Technical Difficulties Won’t Mean Democracy Is Over

The 2020 election season kicked off with a technological mishap ( remember the broken Iowa caucuses app ?
? )
, and it will likely end with at least a few more .
But that doesn ’ t mean we ’ re facing a new , unprecedented crisis of democracy .
Understandably , a lot of concern this year has been focused on potential issues with mail-in voting .
But the Rube Goldberg machine of our election system involves a number of independent pieces of technology , as well , including servers that host voter-registration websites and ballot-scanning devices that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the system , there is an opportunity for glitches that can slow things down , and experts say we should expect some technical difficulties on Election Day .
“ I guarantee that something will happen on Election Day , ” said David Becker , the executive director and founder of the Center for Election Innovation & Research .
“ Election Day is the culmination of a process in which 150 million Americans are doing the same thing in a process run by about 1 million volunteers .
There are going to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve seen a glimpse of what hiccups can occur .
The voter registration portals in both Virginia and Florida were knocked offline on the last day to register — thanks to an accidentally severed fiber optic cable in Virginia and an overwhelming rush of traffic to Florida ’ s site .
Both states extended the deadlines to register to make up for the outages .
In Georgia , voter sign-in tablets generate a card that voters then use in conjunction with a touchscreen device .
But on the first day of early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the largest voting centers in Atlanta , the cards caused an “ invalid ” error when inserted into the touchscreens .
Eventually , poll workers fixed the problem by rebooting all of the machines .
( The answer , even in democracy , is almost always to turn it off and on again . )
On Election Day , any number of glitches could slow things down at a given site , as we ’ ve seen in years past , including electronic pollbooks crashing , touchscreens registering the wrong vote , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used to tally votes — dropping ballots .
While the vast majority of polling sites will likely have no issues , it ’ s inevitable that some things can go wrong , sometimes causing massive delays that risk voters not being able to cast their ballot .
Election security experts often refer to a tradeoff between security and convenience .
Touchscreen machines that record a digital ballot , for example , may be simple , but they are not considered as secure because they do not create a paper trail .
In recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ switch to more secure systems , such as hand-marked paper ballots , or ballot-marking devices , which use a touchscreen machine to mark a paper ballot that can then be scanned with the paper trail retained .
More Americans will use a paper ballot this year than any time since voting first started to go digital , according to the Brennan Center , which estimates less than 4 percent of voters will cast a ballot on a paperless machine .
But while the switch to paper is good from a security standpoint , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to mishaps , according to Mark Lindeman , the co-director of Verified Voting , an election security organization .
“ It ’ s pretty common for a certain percentage of machines to fail .
It ’ s also true that when poll workers are unfamiliar with the systems , they sometimes have trouble getting them started in the morning , ” Lindeman said , noting that the pandemic has made it difficult to do further pilot tests of new equipment .
“ We ’ re really excited about the move to paper but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for any kind of technological transition.
” Of particular concern are jurisdictions that have introduced new technology recently , which include several swing states .
Georgia replaced all of its direct-reporting machines with ballot-marking devices last year .
Voters in six counties used the machines during local elections last fall , and the state used the machines for its primaries , but both of those pilots had some equipment malfunctions , and many Georgians have yet to use the machines .
The same is true for Pennsylvania in many regions , including Philadelphia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new ballot marking devices .
Technical troubles can cause real harm , including disenfranchising voters : if lines are seven hours long and you ’ re trying to vote on your 20-minute lunch break , there ’ s a chance you might not vote at all .
But it ’ s also not necessarily evidence of a deliberate attack or an undermined election , despite president Trump ’ s near-constant portending of election malfeasance .
“ I do think because we ’ re in this environment , ordinary problems that of course we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election get blown out of proportion , ” said Lawrence Norden , director of the election reform program at New York University ’ s Brennan Center for Justice .
“ They ’ re easy to use for disinformation , [ to suggest ] that there ’ s some bigger problem with the system or that the system has been hacked .
But these problems are just going to happen when you ’ ve got 10,000 separate election jurisdictions , all with different technology.
” In other words , one isolated incident does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to think of it , that ’ s advice for the next couple of months , in general .

The 2020 election season kicked off with a technological mishap (remember the broken Iowa caucuses app??), and it will likely end with at least a few more. But that doesn’t mean we’re facing a new, unprecedented crisis of democracy.
[Live Updates: We’re Tracking The Vote And Voting Problems]
Understandably, a lot of concern this year has been focused on potential issues with mail-in voting. But the Rube Goldberg machine of our election system involves a number of independent pieces of technology, as well, including servers that host voter-registration websites and ballot-scanning devices that count our votes. At each point in the system, there is an opportunity for glitches that can slow things down, and experts say we should expect some technical difficulties on Election Day.
Nate Silver on how 6 key states could impact election results
“I guarantee that something will happen on Election Day,” said David Becker, the executive director and founder of the Center for Election Innovation & Research. “Election Day is the culmination of a process in which 150 million Americans are doing the same thing in a process run by about 1 million volunteers. There are going to be problems and mistakes.”
Already, we’ve seen a glimpse of what hiccups can occur. The voter registration portals in both Virginia and Florida were knocked offline on the last day to register — thanks to an accidentally severed fiber optic cable in Virginia and an overwhelming rush of traffic to Florida’s site. Both states extended the deadlines to register to make up for the outages. In Georgia, voter sign-in tablets generate a card that voters then use in conjunction with a touchscreen device. But on the first day of early voting at State Farm Arena, one of the largest voting centers in Atlanta, the cards caused an “invalid” error when inserted into the touchscreens. Eventually, poll workers fixed the problem by rebooting all of the machines. (The answer, even in democracy, is almost always to turn it off and on again.)
On Election Day, any number of glitches could slow things down at a given site, as we’ve seen in years past, including electronic pollbooks crashing, touchscreens registering the wrong vote, or optical scan devices — which are used to tally votes — dropping ballots. While the vast majority of polling sites will likely have no issues, it’s inevitable that some things can go wrong, sometimes causing massive delays that risk voters not being able to cast their ballot.
Election security experts often refer to a tradeoff between security and convenience. Touchscreen machines that record a digital ballot, for example, may be simple, but they are not considered as secure because they do not create a paper trail. In recent years, many jurisdictions have made the switch to more secure systems, such as hand-marked paper ballots, or ballot-marking devices, which use a touchscreen machine to mark a paper ballot that can then be scanned with the paper trail retained.
More Americans will use a paper ballot this year than any time since voting first started to go digital, according to the Brennan Center, which estimates less than 4 percent of voters will cast a ballot on a paperless machine. But while the switch to paper is good from a security standpoint, any new change in technology can lead to mishaps, according to Mark Lindeman, the co-director of Verified Voting, an election security organization.
“It’s pretty common for a certain percentage of machines to fail. It’s also true that when poll workers are unfamiliar with the systems, they sometimes have trouble getting them started in the morning,” Lindeman said, noting that the pandemic has made it difficult to do further pilot tests of new equipment. “We’re really excited about the move to paper but this has not been a terrific year for any kind of technological transition.”
Of particular concern are jurisdictions that have introduced new technology recently, which include several swing states. Georgia replaced all of its direct-reporting machines with ballot-marking devices last year. Voters in six counties used the machines during local elections last fall, and the state used the machines for its primaries, but both of those pilots had some equipment malfunctions, and many Georgians have yet to use the machines. The same is true for Pennsylvania in many regions, including Philadelphia, after a rocky rollout of its new ballot marking devices.
Technical troubles can cause real harm, including disenfranchising voters: if lines are seven hours long and you’re trying to vote on your 20-minute lunch break, there’s a chance you might not vote at all. But it’s also not necessarily evidence of a deliberate attack or an undermined election, despite president Trump’s near-constant portending of election malfeasance.
“I do think because we’re in this environment, ordinary problems that of course we’re going to see in every election get blown out of proportion,” said Lawrence Norden, director of the election reform program at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice. “They’re easy to use for disinformation, [to suggest] that there’s some bigger problem with the system or that the system has been hacked. But these problems are just going to happen when you’ve got 10,000 separate election jurisdictions, all with different technology.”
In other words, one isolated incident does not necessarily indicate an existential crisis. Come to think of it, that’s advice for the next couple of months, in general.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: How the electorate will be different in 2020


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-27--Who’s The Nerdiest Team In Sports?

Who’s The Nerdiest Team In Sports?

We start with the World Series , which is the Los Angeles Dodgers ’ to lose despite the Tampa Bay Rays pulling off some wild surprises , especially in Game 4 .
But all our hosts approve of the Rays ’ aggressive play .
It ’ s exciting to watch , and with a pitching staff as stacked as L.A. ’ s , the Florida team needs to force key players like Walker Buehler and Julio Urías to pay if they ’ re not perfect all the time .
This leads to a discussion of who the nerdiest team in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rays are up there , perhaps only surpassed by the Houston Rockets , but as we talked about on the show last week , sabermetric geekery has triumphed in every corner of sports .
The Dodgers are an incredibly nerdy team : They just also happen to be super rich .
Next we turn our attention to the NFL , and in particular to the struggles of the New England Patriots .
A lot of the Pats ’ problems do center on how out of step ( if still fashion-forward ) quarterback Cam @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lack of offensive weapons and the complete erosion of the Pats ’ defense are the root of the problem — a fact made all the more clear by how Tom Brady is thriving on the Tampa Bay Buccaneers .
It ’ s not that Brady has some secret elixir of youth ( probably ) — he has Mike Evans , Chris Godwin , a resurgent Rob Gronkowski , a functional defense and an offensive line that hasn ’ t been horribly battered .
The real question is : Can Bill Belichick turn things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him out , but given how Newton seems to be playing , we struggle to see which assets he could activate or what he could change .
Finally , in the Rabbit Hole , FiveThirtyEight designer Emily Scherer brings her expert eye to helping us evaluate championship patches across sports .
From the delightful to the experimental to the just plain boring , she and Neil evaluate how the major leagues handle the extra flare of marking championship teams ’ jerseys .
The NFL and NBA are pretty uninspired , all things considered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done some interesting things , and the NHL makes up for its laser focus on the Stanley Cup with the sheer volume of patches you can put on hockey jerseys .
What we ’ re looking at this week : • The Dodgers responded to a stunning loss with a businesslike win .
• The New York Times on what went wrong for the Patriots .

We start with the World Series, which is the Los Angeles Dodgers’ to lose despite the Tampa Bay Rays pulling off some wild surprises, especially in Game 4. But all our hosts approve of the Rays’ aggressive play. It’s exciting to watch, and with a pitching staff as stacked as L.A.’s, the Florida team needs to force key players like Walker Buehler and Julio Urías to pay if they’re not perfect all the time. This leads to a discussion of who the nerdiest team in professional sports is, currently. The Rays are up there, perhaps only surpassed by the Houston Rockets, but as we talked about on the show last week, sabermetric geekery has triumphed in every corner of sports. The Dodgers are an incredibly nerdy team: They just also happen to be super rich.
Next we turn our attention to the NFL, and in particular to the struggles of the New England Patriots. A lot of the Pats’ problems do center on how out of step (if still fashion-forward) quarterback Cam Newton looks. But Newton’s lack of offensive weapons and the complete erosion of the Pats’ defense are the root of the problem — a fact made all the more clear by how Tom Brady is thriving on the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. It’s not that Brady has some secret elixir of youth (probably) — he has Mike Evans, Chris Godwin, a resurgent Rob Gronkowski, a functional defense and an offensive line that hasn’t been horribly battered. The real question is: Can Bill Belichick turn things around? We’d never count him out, but given how Newton seems to be playing, we struggle to see which assets he could activate or what he could change.
Finally, in the Rabbit Hole, FiveThirtyEight designer Emily Scherer brings her expert eye to helping us evaluate championship patches across sports. From the delightful to the experimental to the just plain boring, she and Neil evaluate how the major leagues handle the extra flare of marking championship teams’ jerseys. The NFL and NBA are pretty uninspired, all things considered, but MLB and the WNBA have done some interesting things, and the NHL makes up for its laser focus on the Stanley Cup with the sheer volume of patches you can put on hockey jerseys.
What we’re looking at this week:


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-27--The Decision Desk Won’t Project The Winner Of A State Until It’s 99.5% Sure

In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , Galen Druke speaks with Dan Merkle , executive director of elections @ @ @ @ @ projecting the winner of individual states and the overall presidential race , as well as @ @ @ @ @ projections .

In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, Galen Druke speaks with Dan Merkle, executive director of elections at ABC News, about projecting the winner of individual states and the overall presidential race, as well as when we might expect those projections.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-27--The Senate Races Where Democrats Have An Edge In The Polls

Democrats are favored to take back the Senate this year , according to our forecast .
And that ’ s true , regardless of which of the three versions of the forecast you look at .
In fact , the Lite ( polls only ) , Classic ( polls and fundamentals ) , and Deluxe ( polls , fundamentals and expert race ratings ) don ’ t currently show that much difference .
In our Deluxe version of the forecast , which is the default version , Democrats have a 74 in 100 chance of winning a majority , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Democrats have at least a 77 in 100 shot .
This reflects the fact that both the polling and fundamentals contain good news for Democrats .
If we dig deeper into the different versions of our forecast , we can see whether polls show more or less competitive races than the fundamentals and election handicappers ’ ratings suggest .
Here ’ s a look at just how much different versions of our forecast differ in the 19 contests that aren ’ t considered “ safe ” ( meaning that no party has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of winning ) in both the Deluxe and Lite versions of our forecast , based on the Democratic chances of victory in each contest : Topline take away : In these competitive races , Democrats have a greater than 1 in 2 shot in winning in 9 of these races , according to the Deluxe version of our forecast .
And in many of them , Democrats ’ odds might be even higher based on the latest polls .
Georgia ’ s special election is a weird exception , since there are more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Georgia ’ s other Senate race plus the contests in Maine and North Carolina show that Democrats have gotten some really good polls recently .
This is notable because all three are Republican-held seats where Democratic victories could be enough to spell a Democratic majority in the Senate — depending on the presidential race — as the GOP currently has a 53 to 47 majority .
Let ’ s start with Georgia ’ s other Senate race ( the one that isn ’ t a special election ) .
This race , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrat Jon Ossoff , falls in the “ toss-up ” zone in the Lite edition of our forecast — where neither party has a 60 percent chance or better of winning — while it leans toward the GOP in the Deluxe version .
That difference comes down to Georgia ’ s traditional Republican lean , which is at odds with some polls that show Ossoff leading Perdue , but it ’ s possible that these polls are picking up on a move away from the fundamentals in Georgia .
According to our adjusted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Perdue only leads by 0.7 points .
In Maine and North Carolina , meanwhile , the different versions of the forecast agree that Democrats have an advantage , but in both states the polls point to a much stronger edge .
Take Maine .
If we look just at the polls-version of our forecast , Democrat Sara Gideon ’ s odds jump from around 6 in 10 to about 3 in 4 thanks to Gideon ’ s 6-point lead in our adjusted average of Senate polls .
This could prove important for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s ranked-choice voting rules , which reallocate votes based on voters ’ second choice ( or third choice , etc . )
until one candidate has a majority .
The bigger the lead for Gideon , the harder it will be for Sen. Susan Collins to catch up , even if the incumbent is the second-choice candidate for many third-party voters .
( Of course , this assumes no one wins a majority of first-choice votes , which could happen ) .
And in North Carolina , it ’ s a similar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polls : Democrat Cal Cunningham ’ s odds jump from around 3 in 5 to almost 3 in 4 .
He was involved in a sexting scandal in early October , but that doesn ’ t seem to have greatly altered the trajectory of the race .
Some other contests also see meaningful Democratic improvement in the Lite version of our forecast , albeit not as much as in those other three states .
In Arizona , Democrat Mark Kelly has long outpaced appointed Republican Sen. Martha McSally in the polls , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better in the polls version of our forecast , even though the Deluxe version takes into account his incredible fundraising edge .
And in Michigan , the polls give Democratic Sen. Gary Peters a slightly cushier edge against Republican John James , who has managed to run nearly even with Peters in fundraising .
In the GOP-held seats in Alaska and Kansas , the Democratic candidates are pretty clear underdogs , but their chances do tick upward in the polls-only version of the forecast .
But the polls don ’ t give Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Importantly , the Lite version of our forecast points to Alabama Democratic Sen. Doug Jones being even more of a goner than the Deluxe version .
Jones was always going to have a difficult time in a state that President Trump might win by 20 points at the top of the ticket , and his 11-point deficit against Republican Tommy Tuberville in our adjusted average of Senate polls in this race looks like too much to overcome .
A GOP pickup in Alabama will force Democrats to have to pick up a fourth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to have a shot at the majority , too .
Beyond Alabama , the polls also give Republicans a slightly better shot in two more peripheral races : Minnesota and New Mexico , seats currently held by Democrats .
In Minnesota , Democratic Sen. Tina Smith won a special election in 2018 but is now competing for a full term , and she faces former Rep. Jason Lewis .
Smith has a clear fundraising edge , but she leads by a little less than 8 points in our adjusted polling average of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t view her as quite so sure a bet .
The same is true of Democratic Rep. Ben Ray Luján in New Mexico , where he ’ s favored against Republican Mark Ronchetti .
With Democratic Sen. Tom Udall ’ s retirement , the lack of an Democratic incumbent defending the seat should help Republican chances , but even with that , the polls think it ’ s a more competitive race than either the fundamentals or experts .
All in all , though , the polls-only Lite version of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ winning many critical seats in the battle for Senate control .
And that has an impact not only on their overall chances of winning the Senate , but also on just how big of a majority they might be able to win .
Whereas the Deluxe version gives Democrats an 80 percent chance of winning between 48 to 55 seats , the Lite version gives them an 80 percent chance of capturing 48 to 57 seats .
In other words , if the polls are a better predictor than the fundamentals and experts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to win a bigger majority than we might otherwise expect .

Democrats are favored to take back the Senate this year, according to our forecast. And that’s true, regardless of which of the three versions of the forecast you look at.
In fact, the Lite (polls only), Classic (polls and fundamentals), and Deluxe (polls, fundamentals and expert race ratings) don’t currently show that much difference. In our Deluxe version of the forecast, which is the default version, Democrats have a 74 in 100 chance of winning a majority, and in both the Classic and Lite versions, Democrats have at least a 77 in 100 shot.
How the media projects the winner of an election | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast
This reflects the fact that both the polling and fundamentals contain good news for Democrats. If we dig deeper into the different versions of our forecast, we can see whether polls show more or less competitive races than the fundamentals and election handicappers’ ratings suggest.
[Live Updates: We’re Tracking The Vote And Voting Problems]
Here’s a look at just how much different versions of our forecast differ in the 19 contests that aren’t considered “safe” (meaning that no party has a 95 in 100 chance or better of winning) in both the Deluxe and Lite versions of our forecast, based on the Democratic chances of victory in each contest:
Difference in the Democratic win probability between the Deluxe and Lite versions of FiveThirtyEight’s Senate forecast, as of Oct. 27 at 4:50 p.m. State Inc. party Deluxe Lite Diff. GA* R 55% 73% +18 ME R 63 77 +14 GA R 32 42 +10 NC R 63 72 +9 MS R 11 20 +9 KS R 25 33 +8 AK R 21 28 +7 AZ* R 78 85 +7 MI D 80 86 +5 KY R 4 8 +4 MT R 32 36 +4 CO R 83 87 +3 LA R 3 6 +3 IA R 56 58 +2 SC R 21 23 +2 TX R 12 13 +2 MN D 93 86 -7 AL D 19 7 -12 NM D 94 82 -12 *Special election. Excludes races that each version of the forecast considers safe for one party (a 95 in 100 chance or better of winning the race).
Topline take away: In these competitive races, Democrats have a greater than 1 in 2 shot in winning in 9 of these races, according to the Deluxe version of our forecast. And in many of them, Democrats’ odds might be even higher based on the latest polls. Georgia’s special election is a weird exception, since there are more than two major-party candidates running, but Georgia’s other Senate race plus the contests in Maine and North Carolina show that Democrats have gotten some really good polls recently. This is notable because all three are Republican-held seats where Democratic victories could be enough to spell a Democratic majority in the Senate — depending on the presidential race — as the GOP currently has a 53 to 47 majority.
Let’s start with Georgia’s other Senate race (the one that isn’t a special election). This race, which pits incumbent Republican Sen. David Perdue against Democrat Jon Ossoff, falls in the “toss-up” zone in the Lite edition of our forecast — where neither party has a 60 percent chance or better of winning — while it leans toward the GOP in the Deluxe version. That difference comes down to Georgia’s traditional Republican lean, which is at odds with some polls that show Ossoff leading Perdue, but it’s possible that these polls are picking up on a move away from the fundamentals in Georgia. According to our adjusted average of Senate polls in this race, Perdue only leads by 0.7 points.
In Maine and North Carolina, meanwhile, the different versions of the forecast agree that Democrats have an advantage, but in both states the polls point to a much stronger edge. Take Maine. If we look just at the polls-version of our forecast, Democrat Sara Gideon’s odds jump from around 6 in 10 to about 3 in 4 thanks to Gideon’s 6-point lead in our adjusted average of Senate polls. This could prove important for Gideon, too, because of Maine’s ranked-choice voting rules, which reallocate votes based on voters’ second choice (or third choice, etc.) until one candidate has a majority. The bigger the lead for Gideon, the harder it will be for Sen. Susan Collins to catch up, even if the incumbent is the second-choice candidate for many third-party voters. (Of course, this assumes no one wins a majority of first-choice votes, which could happen). And in North Carolina, it’s a similar story if we look at just the polls: Democrat Cal Cunningham’s odds jump from around 3 in 5 to almost 3 in 4. He was involved in a sexting scandal in early October, but that doesn’t seem to have greatly altered the trajectory of the race.
Some other contests also see meaningful Democratic improvement in the Lite version of our forecast, albeit not as much as in those other three states. In Arizona, Democrat Mark Kelly has long outpaced appointed Republican Sen. Martha McSally in the polls, and as such, his chances get only better in the polls version of our forecast, even though the Deluxe version takes into account his incredible fundraising edge. And in Michigan, the polls give Democratic Sen. Gary Peters a slightly cushier edge against Republican John James, who has managed to run nearly even with Peters in fundraising. In the GOP-held seats in Alaska and Kansas, the Democratic candidates are pretty clear underdogs, but their chances do tick upward in the polls-only version of the forecast.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: How the electorate will be different in 2020
But the polls don’t give Democrats a better shot at winning everywhere. Importantly, the Lite version of our forecast points to Alabama Democratic Sen. Doug Jones being even more of a goner than the Deluxe version. Jones was always going to have a difficult time in a state that President Trump might win by 20 points at the top of the ticket, and his 11-point deficit against Republican Tommy Tuberville in our adjusted average of Senate polls in this race looks like too much to overcome. A GOP pickup in Alabama will force Democrats to have to pick up a fourth seat the GOP currently holds if they want to have a shot at the majority, too.
Beyond Alabama, the polls also give Republicans a slightly better shot in two more peripheral races: Minnesota and New Mexico, seats currently held by Democrats. In Minnesota, Democratic Sen. Tina Smith won a special election in 2018 but is now competing for a full term, and she faces former Rep. Jason Lewis. Smith has a clear fundraising edge, but she leads by a little less than 8 points in our adjusted polling average of the race, so the Lite version doesn’t view her as quite so sure a bet. The same is true of Democratic Rep. Ben Ray Luján in New Mexico, where he’s favored against Republican Mark Ronchetti. With Democratic Sen. Tom Udall’s retirement, the lack of an Democratic incumbent defending the seat should help Republican chances, but even with that, the polls think it’s a more competitive race than either the fundamentals or experts.
All in all, though, the polls-only Lite version of the forecast gives Democrats a better shot at winning many critical seats in the battle for Senate control. And that has an impact not only on their overall chances of winning the Senate, but also on just how big of a majority they might be able to win. Whereas the Deluxe version gives Democrats an 80 percent chance of winning between 48 to 55 seats, the Lite version gives them an 80 percent chance of capturing 48 to 57 seats. In other words, if the polls are a better predictor than the fundamentals and experts this year, Democrats may be able to win a bigger majority than we might otherwise expect.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-27--Politics Podcast: How The Media Projects The Winner Of An Election

As we head toward Election Day , one of the big questions this year is not just who will win , but when we will know who the winner is .
States have changed their voting rules in response to the coronavirus pandemic , and more people are voting by mail than ever before .
Counting all those mail ballots will be a new task for many states , and that could take time .
Unlike in past elections — when we expected to know the results by the end of election night — Americans are being cautioned that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results this year .
In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , Galen Druke speaks with the executive director of elections at ABC News , Dan Merkle , who oversees the network ’ s Decision Desk .
Merkle explains how ABC News will go about projecting the winner of individual states and the overall presidential race , as well as when we might be able to expect those projections .
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “ play ” button in the audio player above or by downloading it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

As we head toward Election Day, one of the big questions this year is not just who will win, but when we will know who the winner is. States have changed their voting rules in response to the coronavirus pandemic, and more people are voting by mail than ever before. Counting all those mail ballots will be a new task for many states, and that could take time.
Unlike in past elections — when we expected to know the results by the end of election night — Americans are being cautioned that it could take days or longer to get results this year.
In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, Galen Druke speaks with the executive director of elections at ABC News, Dan Merkle, who oversees the network’s Decision Desk. Merkle explains how ABC News will go about projecting the winner of individual states and the overall presidential race, as well as when we might be able to expect those projections.
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.