fivethirthyeight--2020-08-17--Why Conventions Still Matter

Why Conventions Still Matter

With both the Democratic National Convention and Republican National Convention going virtual this year , there are once again questions about what it is exactly that the national party conventions do .
For instance , conventions haven ’ t really picked the nominees for president and vice president since party reforms in the 1970s — arguably it ’ s been even longer than that — so it raises the question : At this point , are they just really expensive events with lots of balloons and TV cameras ?
If we look at the history of modern conventions , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in-person gatherings of power players from around the country as pageantry .
But if you look closer , you ’ ll notice that conventions have played an important role for some wings of the party , who may disagree with party leadership and want to attract media attention for themselves .
Granted , this has become harder to do over the years , especially as conventions have become more TV-centric and prepackaged .
And that will likely be particularly true this year given the pandemic .
But that doesn ’ t mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if nothing is actually decided at the conventions , they still shine a spotlight on the parties , illuminating emerging factions and up-and-coming politicians , setting the stage for — and creating — the future of each party .
That ’ s why it ’ s unfortunate that this year ’ s format has to be virtual , and why one should hope that it won ’ t be the new normal .
It ’ s hard to imagine that we ’ ll see big internal clashes in the parties this year given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s worth noting that the physical environment of the conventions has , at times , created memorable confrontations between conflicting wings of the party .
Take the 1948 “ Dixiecrat walkout , ” in which delegates from Mississippi and Alabama walked out of the Democratic convention in protest of the party ’ s embrace of the civil rights movement in both its platform and floor speeches .
The delegates didn ’ t just walk out either .
Several members of the party broke away and formed the States ’ Rights Party , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Now , it ’ s true that this infighting didn ’ t actually affect the convention all that much .
For instance , it didn ’ t stop Democrats from including language supporting civil rights in their platform .
Nor did it prevent the nominee , Harry Truman , from winning the actual election .
But it did foreshadow the gradual loss of power of the Southern faction within the Democratic Party .
Similarly , in 1964 , the Republicans went into their convention deeply divided , with moderate and liberal Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservative faction that supported Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater on the other .
When New York Gov .
Nelson Rockefeller , one of the liberal old guard , spoke on the floor against extremism , convention delegates booed .
Historian Geoffrey Kabaservice reports the impressions of those who had been on the floor : One moderate Republican activist , Tanya Melich , said it “ felt like I was in Nazi Germany , ” while former president Dwight Eisenhower commented on the anti-democratic spirit of the moment .
Of course , Goldwater was resoundingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impact of the 1964 convention was an emphasis on party unity in post-election discussions , and in the selection of the next RNC chair .
( This clash also foreshadowed the party ’ s movement in a more Goldwater-esque direction . )
Over time , conventions have become more scripted and less spontaneous , making it harder to produce unexpected moments like the memorable events of 1948 and 1964 .
But that doesn ’ t mean that dissension is completely hidden now .
The 2016 Democratic convention had some tense moments between Sen. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for example , with Sanders supporters chanting and booing during speeches on the convention ’ s first night .
Of course , this didn ’ t change the result of the already-determined floor vote — Clinton still walked away the nominee — but it did serve as a vivid reminder of the fissures within the party .
And after Clinton ’ s loss in November , the idea that the party lacked cohesion became part of the explanation for why she lost .
This engendered some resentment among Clinton supporters , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concessions to the Sanders faction .
Party leaders , for instance , recommended limiting the role of superdelegates in the conventions , a change Sanders supporters had long advocated , and which the party adopted in 2018 .
Fights over convention rules can be more than just procedural Although fights over convention rules might seem arcane , they are often motivated by larger , and more meaningful , party disagreements .
Let ’ s go back to 1964 for a moment .
The Democratic Party was in a moment of great upheaval over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states , like Mississippi , actively fighting the movement .
In fact , Mississippi ’ s state party had banned African Americans from party meetings , and thus its delegation lacked any Black members .
This angered some Democrats in the state , and so as a way of protesting segregation and the years of intimidation and disenfranchisement that Black voters had faced , a group of activists organized the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party .
Their intention was to highlight the injustice and illegitimacy of the official delegation , and they hoped to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Party leadership offered the group two nonvoting delegate seats , but a compromise could not be reached .
Instead , the MFDP occupied empty seats on the convention floor and sang freedom songs in protest when the chairs were removed .
As historian Sam Rosenfeld writes in “ The Polarizers , ” the MFDP actually had a pretty weak case under convention rules , but the moral force of their stance left a lasting mark on the party .
The national party moved to ban racial discrimination among state delegations , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were seated at the convention in 1968 .
Fast forward to 2012 , when the Republicans had their own — albeit very different — skirmish over rules .
Then-Rep. Ron Paul hadn ’ t won a single primary , but thanks to states that choose delegates through caucuses and conventions , his supporters were able to take over several state delegations .
Although the nomination of Mitt Romney was not in question , there was still some conflict on the floor — fights over the seating of Paul delegates and a push to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nomination , which would have given him a speaking slot at the convention .
Party leaders , however , wanted to present a unified party and direct media attention toward Romney .
So they changed the rules to thwart the Paul movement to prevent something like this from happening again : In order to be eligible to be nominated at the convention , a candidate needed to win the majority of delegates in at least eight states .
This was a substantial change — previously , a candidate needed only a plurality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it had unintended consequences .
One of which , political scientist Caitlin Jewitt argues in her book on primary rules , was that the new rule would have prevented party leaders dissatisfied with the possibility of a Trump nomination from entering any other names into consideration .
Accordingly , the party changed the rule , again — back to a candidate needing only a plurality of delegates in five states — and leaders talked about whether it could be changed for 2016 so that it could place a more mainstream Republican , like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contention .
But ultimately , this didn ’ t matter , as Trump ended up securing the nomination before the convention anyway .
Convention speeches can also shape our politics Let ’ s face it , convention speeches can be a little stilted .
They ’ re usually pretty safe and predictable .
But a few have proven memorable — maybe even influential .
Former New York Gov .
Mario Cuomo ’ s 1984 convention speech certainly deserves at least a brief mention here .
It tackled economic inequality and challenged incumbent President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individualism .
In the words of historian Jeff Shesol , “ It was all the things that Democrats wished themselves to be but no longer felt they were as a party.
” And when Cuomo died in 2015 , some commentators connected his legacy , including the ideas expressed in this speech , to reemerging progressive politics in the Democratic Party , and to figures like Sen. Elizabeth Warren .
Eight years later , Pat Buchanan , a former aide to President Richard Nixon and Reagan and a political commentator , made his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after his somewhat successful challenge to incumbent President George H.W .
Bush .
As part of the socially conservative and more populist wing of the party , Buchanan had long had reservations about Bush , so he used his speaking slot at the convention to talk about the impending “ culture wars.
” His line , “ This election is about more than who gets what .
It is about who we are , ” helped usher in a new form of politics , in which compromise was deemed outdated and outrage became @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perhaps the most consequential convention speech of the modern era was delivered by an Illinois state senator in 2004 .
Delivering his remarks in Boston , Barack Obama famously said , “ There is not a liberal America and a conservative America , there is the United States of America.
” By emphasizing the common ties and values across a divided nation , Obama became , if not a household name , a national political figure .
His bid for the presidency four years later still required several hard-fought campaigns , but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaders alike take notice .
Live conventions do not necessarily result in a new platform or nominee .
They may not even persuade very many people .
But in-person proceedings , and the ability to disrupt them , offer an opportunity for voices within the party that are not easily amplified on Zoom .
The story of jeers , walkouts and credential fights is also the story of how the parties have transformed themselves and sorted out their distinct and sometimes competing ideological identities .
The television era , the end of contested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emphasis on party unity have all changed this , but conventions are still a place to resolve conflict within parties .
And in an era with no shortage of political conflict — whether over race , class , gender or public health — losing conventions means we have one less venue where conflict can play out in public view .
Conventions may not be worth the cost or the time , and during a pandemic they ’ re certainly too risky , but moving to a virtual format forever would involve risks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @

With both the Democratic National Convention and Republican National Convention going virtual this year, there are once again questions about what it is exactly that the national party conventions do.
For instance, conventions haven’t really picked the nominees for president and vice president since party reforms in the 1970s — arguably it’s been even longer than that — so it raises the question: At this point, are they just really expensive events with lots of balloons and TV cameras?
If we look at the history of modern conventions, it’s tempting to dismiss the large, in-person gatherings of power players from around the country as pageantry. But if you look closer, you’ll notice that conventions have played an important role for some wings of the party, who may disagree with party leadership and want to attract media attention for themselves.
Granted, this has become harder to do over the years, especially as conventions have become more TV-centric and prepackaged. And that will likely be particularly true this year given the pandemic. But that doesn’t mean conventions have lost all meaning. Even if nothing is actually decided at the conventions, they still shine a spotlight on the parties, illuminating emerging factions and up-and-coming politicians, setting the stage for — and creating — the future of each party. That’s why it’s unfortunate that this year’s format has to be virtual, and why one should hope that it won’t be the new normal.
Convention clashes often underscore big party divisions
It’s hard to imagine that we’ll see big internal clashes in the parties this year given the virtual conventions, but it’s worth noting that the physical environment of the conventions has, at times, created memorable confrontations between conflicting wings of the party.
Take the 1948 “Dixiecrat walkout,” in which delegates from Mississippi and Alabama walked out of the Democratic convention in protest of the party’s embrace of the civil rights movement in both its platform and floor speeches. The delegates didn’t just walk out either. Several members of the party broke away and formed the States’ Rights Party, which ran its own presidential ticket that year.
Now, it’s true that this infighting didn’t actually affect the convention all that much. For instance, it didn’t stop Democrats from including language supporting civil rights in their platform. Nor did it prevent the nominee, Harry Truman, from winning the actual election. But it did foreshadow the gradual loss of power of the Southern faction within the Democratic Party.
Similarly, in 1964, the Republicans went into their convention deeply divided, with moderate and liberal Republicans on the one hand and a growing conservative faction that supported Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater on the other. When New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, one of the liberal old guard, spoke on the floor against extremism, convention delegates booed.
Historian Geoffrey Kabaservice reports the impressions of those who had been on the floor: One moderate Republican activist, Tanya Melich, said it “felt like I was in Nazi Germany,” while former president Dwight Eisenhower commented on the anti-democratic spirit of the moment. Of course, Goldwater was resoundingly defeated in November, but the lasting impact of the 1964 convention was an emphasis on party unity in post-election discussions, and in the selection of the next RNC chair. (This clash also foreshadowed the party’s movement in a more Goldwater-esque direction.)
Over time, conventions have become more scripted and less spontaneous, making it harder to produce unexpected moments like the memorable events of 1948 and 1964. But that doesn’t mean that dissension is completely hidden now. The 2016 Democratic convention had some tense moments between Sen. Bernie Sanders supporters and Hillary Clinton supporters, for example, with Sanders supporters chanting and booing during speeches on the convention’s first night.
Of course, this didn’t change the result of the already-determined floor vote — Clinton still walked away the nominee — but it did serve as a vivid reminder of the fissures within the party. And after Clinton’s loss in November, the idea that the party lacked cohesion became part of the explanation for why she lost. This engendered some resentment among Clinton supporters, but it also led to some fairly large concessions to the Sanders faction. Party leaders, for instance, recommended limiting the role of superdelegates in the conventions, a change Sanders supporters had long advocated, and which the party adopted in 2018.
Fights over convention rules can be more than just procedural
Although fights over convention rules might seem arcane, they are often motivated by larger, and more meaningful, party disagreements.
Let’s go back to 1964 for a moment. The Democratic Party was in a moment of great upheaval over civil rights, with members from some states, like Mississippi, actively fighting the movement. In fact, Mississippi’s state party had banned African Americans from party meetings, and thus its delegation lacked any Black members. This angered some Democrats in the state, and so as a way of protesting segregation and the years of intimidation and disenfranchisement that Black voters had faced, a group of activists organized the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party. Their intention was to highlight the injustice and illegitimacy of the official delegation, and they hoped to take their places on the convention floor.
Party leadership offered the group two nonvoting delegate seats, but a compromise could not be reached. Instead, the MFDP occupied empty seats on the convention floor and sang freedom songs in protest when the chairs were removed. As historian Sam Rosenfeld writes in “The Polarizers,” the MFDP actually had a pretty weak case under convention rules, but the moral force of their stance left a lasting mark on the party. The national party moved to ban racial discrimination among state delegations, and some of the members of the MFDP were seated at the convention in 1968.
Fast forward to 2012, when the Republicans had their own — albeit very different — skirmish over rules. Then-Rep. Ron Paul hadn’t won a single primary, but thanks to states that choose delegates through caucuses and conventions, his supporters were able to take over several state delegations. Although the nomination of Mitt Romney was not in question, there was still some conflict on the floor — fights over the seating of Paul delegates and a push to place his name officially in contention for the nomination, which would have given him a speaking slot at the convention.
Party leaders, however, wanted to present a unified party and direct media attention toward Romney. So they changed the rules to thwart the Paul movement to prevent something like this from happening again: In order to be eligible to be nominated at the convention, a candidate needed to win the majority of delegates in at least eight states.
[newsletter-politics]
This was a substantial change — previously, a candidate needed only a plurality of delegates in five states — and it had unintended consequences. One of which, political scientist Caitlin Jewitt argues in her book on primary rules, was that the new rule would have prevented party leaders dissatisfied with the possibility of a Trump nomination from entering any other names into consideration. Accordingly, the party changed the rule, again — back to a candidate needing only a plurality of delegates in five states — and leaders talked about whether it could be changed for 2016 so that it could place a more mainstream Republican, like Ted Cruz or John Kasich, into contention. But ultimately, this didn’t matter, as Trump ended up securing the nomination before the convention anyway.
Convention speeches can also shape our politics
Let’s face it, convention speeches can be a little stilted. They’re usually pretty safe and predictable. But a few have proven memorable — maybe even influential. Former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo’s 1984 convention speech certainly deserves at least a brief mention here. It tackled economic inequality and challenged incumbent President Ronald Reagan’s rhetoric about American individualism. In the words of historian Jeff Shesol, “It was all the things that Democrats wished themselves to be but no longer felt they were as a party.” And when Cuomo died in 2015, some commentators connected his legacy, including the ideas expressed in this speech, to reemerging progressive politics in the Democratic Party, and to figures like Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
Eight years later, Pat Buchanan, a former aide to President Richard Nixon and Reagan and a political commentator, made his own splash at the 1992 GOP convention after his somewhat successful challenge to incumbent President George H.W. Bush. As part of the socially conservative and more populist wing of the party, Buchanan had long had reservations about Bush, so he used his speaking slot at the convention to talk about the impending “culture wars.” His line, “This election is about more than who gets what. It is about who we are,” helped usher in a new form of politics, in which compromise was deemed outdated and outrage became the dominant mode of discourse.
But perhaps the most consequential convention speech of the modern era was delivered by an Illinois state senator in 2004. Delivering his remarks in Boston, Barack Obama famously said,“There is not a liberal America and a conservative America, there is the United States of America.” By emphasizing the common ties and values across a divided nation, Obama became, if not a household name, a national political figure. His bid for the presidency four years later still required several hard-fought campaigns, but the speech certainly made Democratic voters and party leaders alike take notice.
Live conventions do not necessarily result in a new platform or nominee. They may not even persuade very many people. But in-person proceedings, and the ability to disrupt them, offer an opportunity for voices within the party that are not easily amplified on Zoom. The story of jeers, walkouts and credential fights is also the story of how the parties have transformed themselves and sorted out their distinct and sometimes competing ideological identities.
The television era, the end of contested nominations at the convention, and the emphasis on party unity have all changed this, but conventions are still a place to resolve conflict within parties. And in an era with no shortage of political conflict — whether over race, class, gender or public health — losing conventions means we have one less venue where conflict can play out in public view.
Conventions may not be worth the cost or the time, and during a pandemic they’re certainly too risky, but moving to a virtual format forever would involve risks, and losses, of its own.


fivethirthyeight--2020-08-19--Women Won The Right To Vote 100 Years Ago. They Didn’t Start Voting Differently From Men Until 1980.

Women officially won the right to vote just a few months before the 1920 presidential election , and as soon as the 19th Amendment was ratified , suffragists were predicting a sea change in American politics .
One activist even proclaimed that “ the women ’ s vote is going to be a tremendous factor in this election.
” And that did happen , eventually .
In the century since women ’ s suffrage , women have transformed our politics — in particular , they ’ ve become a force to be reckoned with inside the Democratic Party .
Of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women — still vote Republican , but in election after election , it is the Democratic Party that has added more women to its ranks .
It was a “ women ’ s wave , ” after all , that swept Democrats into the House in 2018 , including a record number of female Democratic lawmakers .
And this week , Democrats will officially nominate Sen. Kamala Harris as their vice presidential candidate , just the fourth woman to ever be on a major party ’ s presidential ticket .
But it took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become the electoral force that suffragists predicted .
After the passage of the amendment , women were not broadly mobilized , and in many places , women of color continued to face barriers to voting .
This meant that the first women to vote were largely white , wealthy or living in states that made it easier for women to vote .
It wasn ’ t until 1980 , for instance , that equal shares of men and women cast a ballot .
That was also the first election where there was an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
According to exit polls , that year less than half ( 47 percent ) of women voted for Ronald Reagan compared to 55 percent of men .
And since then , the gap has largely expanded , with women becoming an increasingly large and influential base for Democratic candidates .
“ It ’ s a pretty stunning effect , ” said Elizabeth U. Cascio , an economist at Dartmouth and the co-author of a recent paper on the gender gap .
In her research , she and colleague Na ’ ama Shenhav @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , finding women went from being 10 percentage points less likely to vote than men in the 1940s to being about 4 points more likely to vote in 2016 .
At the same time , she added , women became increasingly likely to identify as Democrats , compared to men .
So what happened to make women turn out at a higher rate than men — and stick with the Democrats while many men have abandoned the party for the Republicans ?
The first question is easier to answer .
It took several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same rate as men , but once they did , they actually became more engaged voters .
Now , it ’ s routine for women to turn out at substantially higher rates than men .
“ It ’ s a story of generational replacement and change , ” said Christina Wolbrecht , a political science professor at the University of Notre Dame and the co-author of “ A Century of Votes for Women : American Elections Since Suffrage.
” Before 1920 , women hadn ’ t just been denied the right to vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and over that voting and politics were for men .
Reliable data about women ’ s voting patterns in the 1920s and 1930s is scarce , but according to Wolbrecht , some women in the years after suffrage never stopped believing that voting simply wasn ’ t their job .
That wasn ’ t how later generations of women saw the world , though .
To most women born in the mid-20th century , voting seemed like an entirely natural thing to do .
By the 1980s , it was so natural , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting at higher rates than men .
That shift was driven in part by Black women : Despite facing systemic barriers to voting through the mid-1960s , they turned out at rates similar to white men — and only slightly lower than white women — by the mid-1990s .
But that story of generational replacement doesn ’ t explain why women became an increasingly important fixture of the Democratic base , starting with the 1980 election .
Before that year , men ’ s and women ’ s voting patterns looked pretty similar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rates for the Republican and Democratic candidates in the 1972 and 1976 presidential elections , for instance .
That ’ s why it was so shocking when in 1980 , an 8-point gender gap emerged between the share of men and women who voted for Reagan , with 55 percent of men backing him but just 47 percent of women .
So what happened ?
Simply put , prior to 1980 , it hadn ’ t been as clear which party was more naturally aligned with most women ’ s views on policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Republican Party took a sharp right turn on a number of issues that mattered to women , including issues like spending on the social safety net , the environment , and the role of government .
( The GOP also opposed the Equal Rights Amendment for the first time that year in its party platform . )
And while a majority of men , who had been increasingly drawn toward the Republicans as the Democrats grew more liberal on issues of race , ended up in Reagan ’ s column , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As the parties became more and more polarized over the next few decades , this gap grew larger too , as women and men ’ s political allegiances continued to drift apart .
“ The issues that women tend to care about have largely been embraced by the Democratic Party , ” Cascio said .
Other factors may have also helped drive this shift .
For starters , several experts told us , women were increasingly likely to join the workforce , particularly in public sector jobs like teaching , which may have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safety net .
At the same time , rising divorce rates , declining marriage rates and changing eligibility requirements for social welfare programs like Medicaid made many women more dependent on government support , which may have also drawn them to the Democratic Party , the party increasingly branded as supportive of big government .
And according to a 2017 study , single women are more likely than married women to see themselves as connected to other women , which in turn predicts a more liberal ideology , especially for white and Latina @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be liberal regardless of their marital status . )
Black women ’ s support for Democratic candidates was also a crucial part of this shift .
“ Black women have consistently and strongly supported the Democratic Party for decades now , ” said Chaya Crowder , a political science professor at Loyola Marymount University .
But that ’ s not because the Democrats have done a particularly good job of engaging with Black women , or worked to win their votes .
Instead , according to research by Crowder and her co-authors , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting itself as an important and urgent act .
One reason they ’ ve continued to vote Democratic , despite the party ’ s long history of lackluster outreach , is that their policy goals are almost always more aligned with those of the Democrats .
Over the past few years , there ’ s evidence of yet another crucial shift in women ’ s political allegiances too : More white women are moving toward the Democratic Party .
The gender gap in 2018 was the largest in at least two decades , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of white women voting for Democrats than in 2016 .
This year , that trend could accelerate even further , thanks to President Trump ’ s presence on the ballot , the COVID-19 pandemic and the Black Lives Matter protests continuing to unfold around the country .
According to an analysis of likely voters in Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape surveys conducted from July 23 through August 12 , women are much likelier to support Biden over Trump , while men are fairly evenly divided between the two candidates .
Biden is also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — which is noteworthy , because a majority of white women supported Trump in 2016 .
Of course , we ’ re still several months away from the election , and these numbers could change .
But even before the pandemic hit , Trump ’ s lagging support among women sparked speculation that Republicans face a tough road with female voters .
For instance , Trump ’ s favorability among women overall is very low , according to the Nationscape data .
Of likely voters , only 37 percent of women said they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while 56 percent said they have a favorable view of Biden .
Likely male voters , on the other hand , tend to have a rosier view of Trump — 46 percent of men said they have a favorable view of the president — and a less positive impression of Biden .
Just 51 percent of men said they had a favorable view of Biden .
Additionally , several experts told us that there are good reasons to believe that Biden is on track to see record high support among women , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a political science professor at Augusta University who studies the gender gap , told us that for many women , the fallout from the pandemic could underscore their support for a strong government safety net and draw them toward Biden .
Faced with school closures and a historically high unemployment rate , Lizotte said , many women could feel especially inclined to support a party that promises significant government support .
Meanwhile , Erin Cassese , a political science professor at the University of Delaware , said that with Harris on the ballot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prominent issue , as it was in 2016 — which could help widen the gender gap even further .
The Black Lives Matter protests could also galvanize more women to turn out for Biden , according to Lizotte and Crowder , because women have been active in the protests and tend to score lower in racial resentment — a widely used measure in political science to capture racist attitudes — and tend to have more liberal perspectives on issues around race .
One big question , though , is whether women will turn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with their kids out of school and the ordinary rhythms of life and work in disarray .
Lizotte said she thinks it ’ s possible that these barriers might deter some women from voting .
But it ’ s even likelier , she said , that women might be more motivated than usual to turn out .
“ These issues are so personal and so dramatic and so likely to affect women , ” she said .
“ Some of those people who haven ’ t been consistent voters might feel like it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And if that happens , women will do a lot to determine the fate of the 2020 election , just a few months into their second century of suffrage .

Women officially won the right to vote just a few months before the 1920 presidential election, and as soon as the 19th Amendment was ratified, suffragists were predicting a sea change in American politics. One activist even proclaimed that “the women’s vote is going to be a tremendous factor in this election.”
And that did happen, eventually. In the century since women’s suffrage, women have transformed our politics — in particular, they’ve become a force to be reckoned with inside the Democratic Party. Of course, many women — especially white women — still vote Republican, but in election after election, it is the Democratic Party that has added more women to its ranks.
It was a “women’s wave,” after all, that swept Democrats into the House in 2018, including a record number of female Democratic lawmakers. And this week, Democrats will officially nominate Sen. Kamala Harris as their vice presidential candidate, just the fourth woman to ever be on a major party’s presidential ticket.
But it took a surprisingly long time for women to become the electoral force that suffragists predicted. After the passage of the amendment, women were not broadly mobilized, and in many places, women of color continued to face barriers to voting. This meant that the first women to vote were largely white, wealthy or living in states that made it easier for women to vote. It wasn’t until 1980, for instance, that equal shares of men and women cast a ballot. That was also the first election where there was an observable gender gap in the presidential vote. According to exit polls, that year less than half (47 percent) of women voted for Ronald Reagan compared to 55 percent of men. And since then, the gap has largely expanded, with women becoming an increasingly large and influential base for Democratic candidates.
“It’s a pretty stunning effect,” said Elizabeth U. Cascio, an economist at Dartmouth and the co-author of a recent paper on the gender gap. In her research, she and colleague Na’ama Shenhav gathered voter turnout data in presidential elections, finding women went from being 10 percentage points less likely to vote than men in the 1940s to being about 4 points more likely to vote in 2016. At the same time, she added, women became increasingly likely to identify as Democrats, compared to men.
So what happened to make women turn out at a higher rate than men — and stick with the Democrats while many men have abandoned the party for the Republicans?
The first question is easier to answer. It took several decades for women to vote at the same rate as men, but once they did, they actually became more engaged voters. Now, it’s routine for women to turn out at substantially higher rates than men.
“It’s a story of generational replacement and change,” said Christina Wolbrecht, a political science professor at the University of Notre Dame and the co-author of “A Century of Votes for Women: American Elections Since Suffrage.” Before 1920, women hadn’t just been denied the right to vote — they had also been told over and over that voting and politics were for men. Reliable data about women’s voting patterns in the 1920s and 1930s is scarce, but according to Wolbrecht, some women in the years after suffrage never stopped believing that voting simply wasn’t their job.
That wasn’t how later generations of women saw the world, though. To most women born in the mid-20th century, voting seemed like an entirely natural thing to do. By the 1980s, it was so natural, in fact, that women were consistently voting at higher rates than men. That shift was driven in part by Black women: Despite facing systemic barriers to voting through the mid-1960s, they turned out at rates similar to white men — and only slightly lower than white women — by the mid-1990s.
But that story of generational replacement doesn’t explain why women became an increasingly important fixture of the Democratic base, starting with the 1980 election. Before that year, men’s and women’s voting patterns looked pretty similar — they voted at almost exactly equal rates for the Republican and Democratic candidates in the 1972 and 1976 presidential elections, for instance. That’s why it was so shocking when in 1980, an 8-point gender gap emerged between the share of men and women who voted for Reagan, with 55 percent of men backing him but just 47 percent of women.
So what happened? Simply put, prior to 1980, it hadn’t been as clear which party was more naturally aligned with most women’s views on policy issues. But in that election cycle, the Republican Party took a sharp right turn on a number of issues that mattered to women, including issues like spending on the social safety net, the environment, and the role of government. (The GOP also opposed the Equal Rights Amendment for the first time that year in its party platform.) And while a majority of men, who had been increasingly drawn toward the Republicans as the Democrats grew more liberal on issues of race, ended up in Reagan’s column, a majority of women did not.
As the parties became more and more polarized over the next few decades, this gap grew larger too, as women and men’s political allegiances continued to drift apart. “The issues that women tend to care about have largely been embraced by the Democratic Party,” Cascio said.
Other factors may have also helped drive this shift. For starters, several experts told us, women were increasingly likely to join the workforce, particularly in public sector jobs like teaching, which may have reinforced their support for a robust government safety net. At the same time, rising divorce rates, declining marriage rates and changing eligibility requirements for social welfare programs like Medicaid made many women more dependent on government support, which may have also drawn them to the Democratic Party, the party increasingly branded as supportive of big government. And according to a 2017 study, single women are more likely than married women to see themselves as connected to other women, which in turn predicts a more liberal ideology, especially for white and Latina women. (Black women tend to be liberal regardless of their marital status.)
Black women’s support for Democratic candidates was also a crucial part of this shift. “Black women have consistently and strongly supported the Democratic Party for decades now,” said Chaya Crowder, a political science professor at Loyola Marymount University. But that’s not because the Democrats have done a particularly good job of engaging with Black women, or worked to win their votes. Instead, according to research by Crowder and her co-authors, Black women are especially likely to see voting itself as an important and urgent act. One reason they’ve continued to vote Democratic, despite the party’s long history of lackluster outreach, is that their policy goals are almost always more aligned with those of the Democrats.
Over the past few years, there’s evidence of yet another crucial shift in women’s political allegiances too: More white women are moving toward the Democratic Party. The gender gap in 2018 was the largest in at least two decades, for instance, with a bigger share of white women voting for Democrats than in 2016.
This year, that trend could accelerate even further, thanks to President Trump’s presence on the ballot, the COVID-19 pandemic and the Black Lives Matter protests continuing to unfold around the country. According to an analysis of likely voters in Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape surveys conducted from July 23 through August 12, women are much likelier to support Biden over Trump, while men are fairly evenly divided between the two candidates. Biden is also slightly ahead of Trump among white women — which is noteworthy, because a majority of white women supported Trump in 2016.
There’s a big gender gap for Biden — and Trump Share of male and female likely voters who are supporting Biden and Trump, according to surveys conducted July 23-Aug. 12 Biden Trump race Female Male margin Female Male margin Asian/Pacific Islander 67.3% 62.0% +5.3 24.7% 30.7% -5.9 Black 86.8 76.9 +10.0 6.5 16.7 -10.2 Hispanic 57.8 58.0 -0.2 31.1 35.8 -4.7 White 49.3 40.7 +8.6 45.0 54.7 -9.7 All 56.8 47.9 +8.8 36.3 46.8 -10.5 Source: Democracy fund + UCLA Nationscape
Of course, we’re still several months away from the election, and these numbers could change. But even before the pandemic hit, Trump’s lagging support among women sparked speculation that Republicans face a tough road with female voters. For instance, Trump’s favorability among women overall is very low, according to the Nationscape data. Of likely voters, only 37 percent of women said they had a favorable view of the president, while 56 percent said they have a favorable view of Biden. Likely male voters, on the other hand, tend to have a rosier view of Trump — 46 percent of men said they have a favorable view of the president — and a less positive impression of Biden. Just 51 percent of men said they had a favorable view of Biden.
Additionally, several experts told us that there are good reasons to believe that Biden is on track to see record high support among women, including white women. Mary-Kate Lizotte, a political science professor at Augusta University who studies the gender gap, told us that for many women, the fallout from the pandemic could underscore their support for a strong government safety net and draw them toward Biden. Faced with school closures and a historically high unemployment rate, Lizotte said, many women could feel especially inclined to support a party that promises significant government support. Meanwhile, Erin Cassese, a political science professor at the University of Delaware, said that with Harris on the ballot, sexism is likely to be a prominent issue, as it was in 2016 — which could help widen the gender gap even further.
The Black Lives Matter protests could also galvanize more women to turn out for Biden, according to Lizotte and Crowder, because women have been active in the protests and tend to score lower in racial resentment — a widely used measure in political science to capture racist attitudes — and tend to have more liberal perspectives on issues around race.
One big question, though, is whether women will turn out at high rates this year, with their kids out of school and the ordinary rhythms of life and work in disarray. Lizotte said she thinks it’s possible that these barriers might deter some women from voting.
But it’s even likelier, she said, that women might be more motivated than usual to turn out. “These issues are so personal and so dramatic and so likely to affect women,” she said. “Some of those people who haven’t been consistent voters might feel like it’s actually worth their time.”
And if that happens, women will do a lot to determine the fate of the 2020 election, just a few months into their second century of suffrage.


fivethirthyeight--2020-08-19--When Can Schools Safely Reopen? The Answer Is Part Science, Part Guesswork.

For months , school officials across the nation have deliberated over not just whether to reopen — but how to make the decision in the first place .
In New York state , Governor Andrew Cuomo said schools could reopen if no more than 5 percent of local COVID-19 tests were coming back positive .
But in New York City , Mayor Bill de Blasio and Schools Chancellor Richard Carranza said schools couldn ’ t reopen unless the positivity rate was below 3 percent .
In Arizona , it ’ s 7 percent ; in Minnesota , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Iowa , schools won ’ t be allowed to close for anything less than a 15 percent positivity rate .
This wide array of thresholds makes clear that , as with everything else related to COVID-19 , there ’ s no one right answer .
Scientists and school administrators agree that school-reopening guidelines require a combination of science and , well , a bit of guesswork .
One of the first decisions a jurisdiction has to make is which metric it should base its decision on in the first place .
Many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country ’ s largest school district — are using the rate of tests that come back with a positive result as a proxy for the spread of the virus in the community .
“ The percent-positive rate is one of the better metrics because it helps us understand not only the case count but also whether there ’ s enough testing , ” said Gypsyamber D ’ Souza , an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health .
If you have a high positivity rate , it usually means one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explained , and neither of them is good .
Either your community has a very high prevalence of COVID-19 , so the odds are greater that someone coming in for a test has the disease , or your community is not testing nearly enough , so only people with severe infections are coming in for tests while those who are asymptomatic or have mild symptoms aren ’ t being diagnosed .
So it makes sense that positivity rate is a useful benchmark when trying to understand community spread .
But how do jurisdictions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to allow for schools to reopen ?
“ The actual metrics represent expert opinion and modeling data , ” said Dr. Thomas Tsai , a surgeon and health policy researcher at Harvard T.H .
Chan School of Public Health .
In setting thresholds , the science — disease modeling and data from earlier in the pandemic — can help narrow the window .
Many researchers agree , for example , that when the positivity rate in a community climbs higher than 10 percent , or prevalence increases higher than 25 new cases daily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sign that testing might not be enough to curb the spread .
At that point , cases could start to climb exponentially , faster than they can be caught , and schools would be a natural hotbed for an outbreak with so many people gathering in close quarters every day and then returning to the community in the evening and on weekends .
It ’ s a bit of a snowball effect ; the higher the prevalence of disease , the harder it is to track and isolate new cases , leading to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is how a community responds once a threshold is breached , no matter what the threshold is .
“ It ’ s not so much the number , it ’ s what the corresponding action is , ” Tsai said .
Tsai and a team of researchers at Harvard published guidelines for reopening schools in the U.S. , and settled on a recommendation that community positivity rates should be below 3 percent before kids and teachers go back to school .
The level of community spread is a key metric for deciding whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know , schools .
“ If you think about schools , it ’ s even more of a bubble than reopening a restaurant or reopening a business , ” said Dr. Tina Tan , an infectious-disease pediatrician at Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine .
“ Schools really are their own microcosm where you have a lot of individuals from different areas in the community coming in.
” If a disease is prevalent in an area , it ’ s almost inevitable that schools would soon become breeding grounds for outbreaks .
But when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can take us only so far .
What ’ s the difference between a 10 percent positivity rate and a 9 percent one ?
Enough to close schools in one scenario but open them in another ?
At some point , it becomes a judgment call , which is why jurisdictions ’ rules vary so much .
“ The test positive rate is sort of just common sense , ” Tsai said .
“ It ’ s not like there ’ s a magic level for it , it ’ s directional .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which is better than 10 percent.
” That guesswork has prompted some jurisdictions to seek out more than just one metric .
In Arizona , the state Department of Health Services published guidelines for reopening schools that take into account not only test positivity rate but also case prevalence and the number of hospital visits for COVID-like illnesses .
For a community ’ s schools to reopen , there must be two consecutive weeks when the positivity rate is below 7 percent , the case prevalence is below 100 per 100,000 people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are under 10 percent .
Dr. Cara Christ , director of the Arizona Department of Health Services , said she and her team considered other states ’ metrics as well as the guidelines from Harvard , the White House coronavirus task force , the World Health Organization and the state ’ s own local data from earlier in the spread .
But while all that research helped them establish the ranges for each metric , eventually they had to just pick a number .
“ We just wanted to make sure that somebody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 9 percent and then all of a sudden they ’ re back at a substantial level of spread , ” said Christ .
“ There were some discussions like , ‘ Why not 8 ?
Why not 6 ?
’ We were trying to find something that was relatively reasonable and based on our previous data.
” Looking to other countries that have successfully reopened schools reinforces those thresholds .
Both Denmark and Finland were able to reopen schools without seeing a substantial spike in cases , but first they waited until local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Finland reopened when there was a 3 percent positivity rate nationwide .
In Denmark the positivity rate was at 6 percent when primary schools reopened , and under 1 percent when high schools reopened a month later .
So while your local guidelines may differ from the next community ’ s , Tsai said as long as they ’ re based on data that ’ s consistent and accountable , the difference between reopening when cases are at 3 percent positivity versus 2 percent is nothing to lose sleep over .
“ There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Tsai said .
“ But I think that ’ s OK as long as you ’ re transparent about the rationale for it and are accountable to it .
”

For months, school officials across the nation have deliberated over not just whether to reopen — but how to make the decision in the first place.
In New York state, Governor Andrew Cuomo said schools could reopen if no more than 5 percent of local COVID-19 tests were coming back positive. But in New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio and Schools Chancellor Richard Carranza said schools couldn’t reopen unless the positivity rate was below 3 percent. In Arizona, it’s 7 percent; in Minnesota, it’s 10 cases per 10,000 residents. And in Iowa, schools won’t be allowed to close for anything less than a 15 percent positivity rate.
This wide array of thresholds makes clear that, as with everything else related to COVID-19, there’s no one right answer. Scientists and school administrators agree that school-reopening guidelines require a combination of science and, well, a bit of guesswork.
One of the first decisions a jurisdiction has to make is which metric it should base its decision on in the first place. Many places — including New York City, the country’s largest school district — are using the rate of tests that come back with a positive result as a proxy for the spread of the virus in the community.
“The percent-positive rate is one of the better metrics because it helps us understand not only the case count but also whether there’s enough testing,” said Gypsyamber D’Souza, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
If you have a high positivity rate, it usually means one of two things, D’Souza explained, and neither of them is good. Either your community has a very high prevalence of COVID-19, so the odds are greater that someone coming in for a test has the disease, or your community is not testing nearly enough, so only people with severe infections are coming in for tests while those who are asymptomatic or have mild symptoms aren’t being diagnosed.
So it makes sense that positivity rate is a useful benchmark when trying to understand community spread. But how do jurisdictions decide what positivity rate is too high to allow for schools to reopen?
“The actual metrics represent expert opinion and modeling data,” said Dr. Thomas Tsai, a surgeon and health policy researcher at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
In setting thresholds, the science — disease modeling and data from earlier in the pandemic — can help narrow the window. Many researchers agree, for example, that when the positivity rate in a community climbs higher than 10 percent, or prevalence increases higher than 25 new cases daily per 100,000, it’s a sign that testing might not be enough to curb the spread. At that point, cases could start to climb exponentially, faster than they can be caught, and schools would be a natural hotbed for an outbreak with so many people gathering in close quarters every day and then returning to the community in the evening and on weekends.
It’s a bit of a snowball effect; the higher the prevalence of disease, the harder it is to track and isolate new cases, leading to further spread. But what matters most is how a community responds once a threshold is breached, no matter what the threshold is. “It’s not so much the number, it’s what the corresponding action is,” Tsai said.
Tsai and a team of researchers at Harvard published guidelines for reopening schools in the U.S., and settled on a recommendation that community positivity rates should be below 3 percent before kids and teachers go back to school.
The level of community spread is a key metric for deciding whether to reopen since schools are, you know, schools. “If you think about schools, it’s even more of a bubble than reopening a restaurant or reopening a business,” said Dr. Tina Tan, an infectious-disease pediatrician at Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine. “Schools really are their own microcosm where you have a lot of individuals from different areas in the community coming in.”
If a disease is prevalent in an area, it’s almost inevitable that schools would soon become breeding grounds for outbreaks.
But when it comes to establishing guidelines, science can take us only so far. What’s the difference between a 10 percent positivity rate and a 9 percent one? Enough to close schools in one scenario but open them in another? At some point, it becomes a judgment call, which is why jurisdictions’ rules vary so much.
“The test positive rate is sort of just common sense,” Tsai said. “It’s not like there’s a magic level for it, it’s directional. Three percent is better than 5 percent, which is better than 10 percent.”
That guesswork has prompted some jurisdictions to seek out more than just one metric. In Arizona, the state Department of Health Services published guidelines for reopening schools that take into account not only test positivity rate but also case prevalence and the number of hospital visits for COVID-like illnesses. For a community’s schools to reopen, there must be two consecutive weeks when the positivity rate is below 7 percent, the case prevalence is below 100 per 100,000 people, and hospital visits for COVID-like illness are under 10 percent.
Dr. Cara Christ, director of the Arizona Department of Health Services, said she and her team considered other states’ metrics as well as the guidelines from Harvard, the White House coronavirus task force, the World Health Organization and the state’s own local data from earlier in the spread. But while all that research helped them establish the ranges for each metric, eventually they had to just pick a number.
“We just wanted to make sure that somebody didn’t reopen at 9.5 or 9 percent and then all of a sudden they’re back at a substantial level of spread,” said Christ. “There were some discussions like, ‘Why not 8? Why not 6?’ We were trying to find something that was relatively reasonable and based on our previous data.”
Looking to other countries that have successfully reopened schools reinforces those thresholds. Both Denmark and Finland were able to reopen schools without seeing a substantial spike in cases, but first they waited until local community spread was low. Schools in Finland reopened when there was a 3 percent positivity rate nationwide. In Denmark the positivity rate was at 6 percent when primary schools reopened, and under 1 percent when high schools reopened a month later.
So while your local guidelines may differ from the next community’s, Tsai said as long as they’re based on data that’s consistent and accountable, the difference between reopening when cases are at 3 percent positivity versus 2 percent is nothing to lose sleep over.
“There is some level of arbitrariness to it,” Tsai said. “But I think that’s OK as long as you’re transparent about the rationale for it and are accountable to it.”


fivethirthyeight--2020-08-17--What Went Down On The Second Night Of The Democratic National Convention

Search
No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.


fivethirthyeight--2020-08-19--The Democratic Party Wants You To Think It Has 17 Rising Stars

In this episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew reacts to the second night of the 2020 Democratic @ @ @ @ @ the keynote speeches from the rising stars in the party and the virtual roll call @ @ @ @ @ states and territories .

The Democratic Party Wants You To Think It Has 17 Rising Stars
In this episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew reacts to the second night of the 2020 Democratic National Convention. Highlights include the keynote speeches from the rising stars in the party and the virtual roll call of delegates across the 57 states and territories.


fivethirthyeight--2020-08-19--Support For Black Lives Matter Surged During Protests, But Is Waning Among White Americans

The recent protests against police brutality are some of the largest and most widespread in American history .
An estimated 15 million to 26 million Americans have taken to the streets to protest police violence and advocate for Black lives .
The remarkable size and scope of these demonstrations has translated into real policy gains , too .
Dozens of state and local police reforms have been enacted since the protests started .
And at the federal level , President Trump signed an executive order that outlines his administration ’ s priorities for police reform , including creating a national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House of Representatives passed an even more ambitious piece of legislation that proposes a series of reforms , like tying federal funding to bans on chokeholds and setting up a task force to address excessive police force , but the GOP-controlled Senate hasn ’ t taken it up .
Arguably , though , the protests ’ impact on public opinion has been even more immediate and wide-ranging .
Unfavorable views of the police , acknowledgement of widespread discrimination against African Americans and support for Black Lives Matter all jumped up by at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polls conducted shortly before and after the protests by both Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape and Civiqs .
These changes in public opinion are being driven in large part by white Americans , who for years have been much less likely than Black Americans to acknowledge that racial inequality remains a real problem .
Since the first wave of large-scale Black Lives Matter protests in 2014 , white Americans ’ racial attitudes have gradually become more liberalized while Black Americans ’ views have remained relatively steady .
Trump ’ s many offensive statements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as they seem to be driving Democrats , particularly white Democrats , to adopt more liberal views on race in response .
That ’ s one reason so many white Democrats showed up at the most recent protests .
But the protests ’ impact on public opinion appears to be fading — particularly among white Americans , as you can see in the chart below .
Black Americans ’ opinions have stayed much steadier , as they have in the past .
Drawing on data from the Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that unfavorable views of the police are trending back down toward their pre-protest levels among white Americans and have dipped among Black Americans .
White respondents are also becoming somewhat less likely to say that African Americans face “ a lot ” or “ a great deal ” of discrimination , though those numbers remain higher than they were before before George Floyd was killed in May .
Black Americans ’ views on the discrimination they face have remained essentially unchanged .
The same patterns are evident in tracking surveys from Civiqs and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , white respondents ’ net support ( support minus opposition ) for the Black Lives Matter movement surged from -4 shortly before the protests to +10 in early June , but has since dropped to 6 points underwater .
Meanwhile , Black Americans ’ net support went from +76 in early May to +85 in early June and has remained within a point of that mark ever since .
And in the YouGov/The Economist surveys , the share of white Americans who said racism is a big problem decreased from 45 percent in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was last asked in early August .
Three-quarters of Black Americans , on the other hand , said racism was a big problem in both surveys .
Why , then , do white Americans ’ views on racism and the police seem to be returning to their baseline , but Black Americans ’ views remain steady ?
Well , as media attention turns away from the protests , it may simply be easier for white people to forget about the issue , while the stakes were always greater for Black Americans .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cable news broadcasts from the TV News Archive , we found a huge spike in the number of clips that mentioned “ racism ” or “ Black Lives Matter ” as the protests raged during the first two weeks of June .
But , as you can see in the chart below , the amount of attention cable news paid to racism and the Black Lives Matter movement has dropped as we ’ ve moved farther away from peak protest activity .
( Coverage of these two issues is still higher than it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however . )
This surge and decline in media attention clearly corresponds to changes in public opinion among white Americans , and it ’ s possible that some of the historic gains we ’ ve seen in white views of the Black Lives Matter movement might not last .
This drop is not surprising , since we ’ ve seen it before in how public opinion changes on school shootings , for example .
Because media attention on even the most high-profile mass shootings tends to be fleeting , so are these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And now , white Americans ’ opinion of the Black Lives Matter movement may be following the same trajectory .
That ’ s driving a decline in overall public support even as Black Americans continue to back the movement at very high rates .
This decline in public opinion is consistent with a long line of political science research that tells us that the effects of events on public opinion tend to last only for as long as they are at the forefront of the country ’ s — or , in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collective consciousness .
That also means that without prolonged activism and sustained media attention , the impact of this year ’ s protests on white public opinion could evaporate entirely .

The recent protests against police brutality are some of the largest and most widespread in American history. An estimated 15 million to 26 million Americans have taken to the streets to protest police violence and advocate for Black lives.
The remarkable size and scope of these demonstrations has translated into real policy gains, too. Dozens of state and local police reforms have been enacted since the protests started. And at the federal level, President Trump signed an executive order that outlines his administration’s priorities for police reform, including creating a national database that catalogues police misconduct. The House of Representatives passed an even more ambitious piece of legislation that proposes a series of reforms, like tying federal funding to bans on chokeholds and setting up a task force to address excessive police force, but the GOP-controlled Senate hasn’t taken it up.
Arguably, though, the protests’ impact on public opinion has been even more immediate and wide-ranging. Unfavorable views of the police, acknowledgement of widespread discrimination against African Americans and support for Black Lives Matter all jumped up by at least 10 percentage points, according to tracking polls conducted shortly before and after the protests by both Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape and Civiqs.
These changes in public opinion are being driven in large part by white Americans, who for years have been much less likely than Black Americans to acknowledge that racial inequality remains a real problem. Since the first wave of large-scale Black Lives Matter protests in 2014, white Americans’ racial attitudes have gradually become more liberalized while Black Americans’ views have remained relatively steady.
Trump’s many offensive statements may be contributing to this trend, as they seem to be driving Democrats, particularly white Democrats, to adopt more liberal views on race in response. That’s one reason so many white Democrats showed up at the most recent protests.
But the protests’ impact on public opinion appears to be fading — particularly among white Americans, as you can see in the chart below. Black Americans’ opinions have stayed much steadier, as they have in the past.
Drawing on data from the Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape’s weekly tracking surveys, I found that unfavorable views of the police are trending back down toward their pre-protest levels among white Americans and have dipped among Black Americans. White respondents are also becoming somewhat less likely to say that African Americans face “a lot” or “a great deal” of discrimination, though those numbers remain higher than they were before before George Floyd was killed in May. Black Americans’ views on the discrimination they face have remained essentially unchanged.
The same patterns are evident in tracking surveys from Civiqs and YouGov/The Economist. In the Civiqs data, white respondents’ net support (support minus opposition) for the Black Lives Matter movement surged from -4 shortly before the protests to +10 in early June, but has since dropped to 6 points underwater. Meanwhile, Black Americans’ net support went from +76 in early May to +85 in early June and has remained within a point of that mark ever since. And in the YouGov/The Economist surveys, the share of white Americans who said racism is a big problem decreased from 45 percent in June to 33 percent when the question was last asked in early August. Three-quarters of Black Americans, on the other hand, said racism was a big problem in both surveys.
Why, then, do white Americans’ views on racism and the police seem to be returning to their baseline, but Black Americans’ views remain steady? Well, as media attention turns away from the protests, it may simply be easier for white people to forget about the issue, while the stakes were always greater for Black Americans.
In an analysis of closed captioning data of cable news broadcasts from the TV News Archive, we found a huge spike in the number of clips that mentioned “racism” or “Black Lives Matter” as the protests raged during the first two weeks of June. But, as you can see in the chart below, the amount of attention cable news paid to racism and the Black Lives Matter movement has dropped as we’ve moved farther away from peak protest activity. (Coverage of these two issues is still higher than it was prior to Floyd’s death, however.)
This surge and decline in media attention clearly corresponds to changes in public opinion among white Americans, and it’s possible that some of the historic gains we’ve seen in white views of the Black Lives Matter movement might not last.
This drop is not surprising, since we’ve seen it before in how public opinion changes on school shootings, for example. Because media attention on even the most high-profile mass shootings tends to be fleeting, so are these shootings’ effects on public opinion. And now, white Americans’ opinion of the Black Lives Matter movement may be following the same trajectory. That’s driving a decline in overall public support even as Black Americans continue to back the movement at very high rates.
This decline in public opinion is consistent with a long line of political science research that tells us that the effects of events on public opinion tend to last only for as long as they are at the forefront of the country’s — or, in this case, one group’s — collective consciousness. That also means that without prolonged activism and sustained media attention, the impact of this year’s protests on white public opinion could evaporate entirely.


fivethirthyeight--2020-08-19--Why Are The WNBA’s ‘Home’ Teams Feeling So At Home In The Bubble?

As has become the standard , home teams in the WNBA wiped the floor with their visiting counterparts Tuesday night .
The Sun crushed the Fever .
The Storm routed the Liberty .
And the Sky edged the Aces .
WNBA home teams are now 41-25 this season .
If that ’ s puzzling to you , since the WNBA is playing in a bubble in Bradenton , Florida — where “ home ” and “ away ” have nothing to do with travel — you ’ re not alone .
“ I personally don ’ t really feel a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guard Jordin Canada .
“ We ’ re in the bubble , so it really doesn ’ t have an effect on me.
” And yet , Canada is shooting 46.8 percent in Storm home games but 41 percent on the road .
All of her made threes have come at home as well .
Still , the Storm are pretty dominant everywhere this season — Seattle is 7-0 at home , 4-1 on the road .
And their win over the Liberty represented continued futility for New York , which is winless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The other 10 teams , though ?
They ’ re 34-20 at home , with nine of them posting better home than road records so far .
In total , WNBA teams are winning their home games at a 62.1 percent clip in 2020 , ahead of their 60.8 winning percentage in home games last season , when they played those games , you know , at home .
Theories abound as to why , with players and coaches acknowledging they ’ ve taken notice of the gap .
“ I mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Mystics forward Myisha Hines-Allen said , noting the home team gets that extra push of adrenaline .
“ I like how they did it , the music , and how the whole thing is made up.
” Still , pressed on the issue , she insisted , “ I don ’ t see a difference.
” The numbers , though ?
They do .
Hines-Allen is averaging 16.2 points per game and shooting 55.6 percent from the field in the friendly confines of Bradenton , while scoring just 12.2 points per game @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the road trip to … Bradenton .
For Seattle forward Alysha Clark , the difference she sees is spiritual , rather than purely emotional .
She noted that customarily , teams have had pregame chapel services together .
But as part of mitigation efforts , the teams have separate chapel services pregame , with road teams going at 70 minutes prior to tip , home teams at 60 .
( During normal WNBA seasons , both teams get together 60 minutes before the game . )
“ For me personally , faith plays @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Clark said .
“ So I ’ ve started leaving the court after we do our shooting stuff as if I was going to chapel , and I just go to the locker room , read my own devotional and pray.
” You can ’ t argue with the results of her effort at standardized pregame : Clark is shooting north of 50 percent overall and better than 40 percent from three in both home and road contests .
There are other differences to account for the home-court advantage beyond God and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choose their uniform color .
Home teams get to select their bench .
Home teams have the right to pick music .
And an effort was made to get Western Conference teams later start times , so any carryover internal clock harmony could play a part as well , even though players have been in the Eastern time zone for well over a month now .
“ I saw those numbers early on , ” Minnesota Lynx head coach Cheryl Reeve — 5-0 at home , 2-3 on the road — said about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chuckled about home and road records .
The only thing I can think of is maybe the introductions , and what each team is able to do , that you feel a little different.
” And this isn ’ t a WNBA-only phenomenon : During the NBA ’ s resumed regular season in its Orlando bubble , home teams finished 49-39 there .
What about the reverse of home cooking ?
The Diana Taurasi Effect — or the determination by a visiting player to destroy the will to live of home fans — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bubble .
Taurasi is 13-1 in her career in road elimination playoff games and is noticeably animated in those instances when she can shut down a road crowd .
But without that motivation , the Mercury star is shooting just 38.2 percent from the field and 30.4 percent from three in road games , compared with 43.8 and 36.7 percent , respectively , in home contests .
“ I mean , there ’ s really no energy to feed off of , ” Taurasi said .
“ It ’ s just a different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the gym , and then you randomly hear a whistle from the other game going on at the same time .
… This really feels like AAU basketball , where you all go to one city and play for two weeks.
” At this point , with the season now halfway over , players and coaches haven ’ t necessarily settled on why it is happening .
Nor have coaches made any alterations in their team strategies .
“ I don ’ t have any good answer for that , ” Reeve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coach who is known for studying the statistical minutiae for any tactical advantage .
“ I ’ m pretty confident that we ’ re going to be able to win some road games.
” As for some other coaches , even if they can ’ t explain it , they have chosen their reasons for believing in the Bradenton home-court advantage .
“ This is gon na be an interesting case study to understand , ” said Los Angeles Sparks coach Derek Fisher .
“ I think at that point , it proves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anything .
Or maybe jersey colors as well .
I personally think that we ’ re better in purple .
”

Why Are The WNBA’s ‘Home’ Teams Feeling So At Home In The Bubble?
As has become the standard, home teams in the WNBA wiped the floor with their visiting counterparts Tuesday night. The Sun crushed the Fever. The Storm routed the Liberty. And the Sky edged the Aces. WNBA home teams are now 41-25 this season.
If that’s puzzling to you, since the WNBA is playing in a bubble in Bradenton, Florida — where “home” and “away” have nothing to do with travel — you’re not alone.
“I personally don’t really feel a home-court advantage,” said Seattle Storm guard Jordin Canada. “We’re in the bubble, so it really doesn’t have an effect on me.”
And yet, Canada is shooting 46.8 percent in Storm home games but 41 percent on the road. All of her made threes have come at home as well.
Still, the Storm are pretty dominant everywhere this season — Seattle is 7-0 at home, 4-1 on the road. And their win over the Liberty represented continued futility for New York, which is winless at home, 1-5 on the road.
The other 10 teams, though? They’re 34-20 at home, with nine of them posting better home than road records so far. In total, WNBA teams are winning their home games at a 62.1 percent clip in 2020, ahead of their 60.8 winning percentage in home games last season, when they played those games, you know, at home.
Theories abound as to why, with players and coaches acknowledging they’ve taken notice of the gap.
“I mean, the hype video is nice,” Mystics forward Myisha Hines-Allen said, noting the home team gets that extra push of adrenaline. “I like how they did it, the music, and how the whole thing is made up.”
Still, pressed on the issue, she insisted, “I don’t see a difference.” The numbers, though? They do. Hines-Allen is averaging 16.2 points per game and shooting 55.6 percent from the field in the friendly confines of Bradenton, while scoring just 12.2 points per game and shooting 44.4 percent when she makes the road trip to … Bradenton.
For Seattle forward Alysha Clark, the difference she sees is spiritual, rather than purely emotional. She noted that customarily, teams have had pregame chapel services together. But as part of mitigation efforts, the teams have separate chapel services pregame, with road teams going at 70 minutes prior to tip, home teams at 60. (During normal WNBA seasons, both teams get together 60 minutes before the game.)
“For me personally, faith plays a big part in my life,” Clark said. “So I’ve started leaving the court after we do our shooting stuff as if I was going to chapel, and I just go to the locker room, read my own devotional and pray.”
You can’t argue with the results of her effort at standardized pregame: Clark is shooting north of 50 percent overall and better than 40 percent from three in both home and road contests.
There are other differences to account for the home-court advantage beyond God and hype videos. Home teams get to choose their uniform color. Home teams get to select their bench. Home teams have the right to pick music. And an effort was made to get Western Conference teams later start times, so any carryover internal clock harmony could play a part as well, even though players have been in the Eastern time zone for well over a month now.
“I saw those numbers early on,” Minnesota Lynx head coach Cheryl Reeve — 5-0 at home, 2-3 on the road — said about the split. “We kind of chuckled about home and road records. The only thing I can think of is maybe the introductions, and what each team is able to do, that you feel a little different.”
And this isn’t a WNBA-only phenomenon: During the NBA’s resumed regular season in its Orlando bubble, home teams finished 49-39 there.
What about the reverse of home cooking? The Diana Taurasi Effect — or the determination by a visiting player to destroy the will to live of home fans — does not seem to hold in the bubble.
Taurasi is 13-1 in her career in road elimination playoff games and is noticeably animated in those instances when she can shut down a road crowd. But without that motivation, the Mercury star is shooting just 38.2 percent from the field and 30.4 percent from three in road games, compared with 43.8 and 36.7 percent, respectively, in home contests.
“I mean, there’s really no energy to feed off of,” Taurasi said. “It’s just a different setting. There’s no one in the gym, and then you randomly hear a whistle from the other game going on at the same time. … This really feels like AAU basketball, where you all go to one city and play for two weeks.”
At this point, with the season now halfway over, players and coaches haven’t necessarily settled on why it is happening. Nor have coaches made any alterations in their team strategies.
“I don’t have any good answer for that,” Reeve said, a startling admission from a coach who is known for studying the statistical minutiae for any tactical advantage. “I’m pretty confident that we’re going to be able to win some road games.”
As for some other coaches, even if they can’t explain it, they have chosen their reasons for believing in the Bradenton home-court advantage.
“This is gonna be an interesting case study to understand,” said Los Angeles Sparks coach Derek Fisher. “I think at that point, it proves it’s probably more mental than anything. Or maybe jersey colors as well. I personally think that we’re better in purple.”


fivethirthyeight--2020-08-19--Democrats Weren’t Sure Who They Are On DNC Night 2

Instead of choosing a single rising star to deliver the keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention Tuesday night , @ @ @ @ @ politicians .
In this reaction to Night 2 of the convention , the FiveThirtyEight Politics @ @ @ @ @ Democrats are trying to appeal to and how .

Instead of choosing a single rising star to deliver the keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention Tuesday night, the party highlighted 17 up-and-coming politicians. In this reaction to Night 2 of the convention, the FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast crew discusses who the Democrats are trying to appeal to and how.