fivethirthyeight--2020-06-22--Politics Podcast: Progressives Challenge The Democratic Establishment In New York And Kentucky

The Democratic primaries in New York and Kentucky are shaping up to be a clash between the progressive and establishment @ @ @ @ @ In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew discusses the most notable @ @ @ @ @ s vote .
They also look at the latest trends in the spread of COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ whether the numerous accusations of corruption against President Trump are shaping how voters or Republican @ @ @ @ @ can listen to the episode by clicking the “ play ” button in the audio @ @ @ @ @ it in iTunes , the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform .
If you @ @ @ @ @ learn how to listen .
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays and Thursdays .
Help @ @ @ @ @ by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes .
Have a comment , question @ @ @ @ @ polling vs. bad polling ” ?
Get in touch by email , on Twitter or @ @ @ @

The Democratic primaries in New York and Kentucky are shaping up to be a clash between the progressive and establishment blocs of the party. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew discusses the most notable contests ahead of Tuesday’s vote. They also look at the latest trends in the spread of COVID-19 in the U.S. and ask whether the numerous accusations of corruption against President Trump are shaping how voters or Republican lawmakers view him.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: Progressives challenge the Democratic establishment
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 publishes Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.


fivethirthyeight--2020-06-22--Do You Buy That … Trump Can Win In 2020 By Relying On The Midwest?

Do You Buy That … Trump Can Win In 2020 By Relying On The Midwest ?


fivethirthyeight--2020-06-22--Virtual Church Services Mean More Work For This Audio Engineer

As the nation seeks to rebound from the economic wreckage caused by the novel coronavirus , millions of Americans are looking for jobs .
But some will be trying to maintain the momentum of the extra work they ’ ve picked up over the past few months .
K Yamada , an Atlanta-area audio engineer , is one of those people .
The 31-year-old worked primarily in the music industry as a producer and audio engineer before the pandemic hit .
Lately , though , he has found a number of opportunities helping area churches that suddenly needed to transition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that could be streamed online .
“ The pastors were saying , ‘ We need to do something , ’ ” Yamada said .
“ ‘ To protect people in our congregation , we can ’ t meet in person .
But we still need to have a way to connect with them.
’ ” As decision-makers at churches worked on that transition , they quickly realized the importance of high-quality audio and video during those virtual services .
That ’ s where Yamada comes in .
He makes sure the equipment and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ music and sermons won ’ t be distorted as members follow along on apps like Zoom or Skype .
In some cases , a masked Yamada will sit and handle soundboard responsibilities as musicians or ministers are playing for a congregation in real time .
In others , he will record pastors , vocalists or bands in advance and perfect the recording days before the service airs online .
“ When you ’ re just doing it live , you only get that one shot [ to get it right ] , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re recording something for later , there ’ s a lot less room for stuff to hide.
” Because of that , Yamada said some of the pastors and musicians have been rehearsing more to make sure their sessions — whether recorded or live — are as free of glitches as possible .
Much like the small businesses and companies that have proved vulnerable during the economic crisis , churches have been struggling too .
Not only do they rely heavily on offerings and tithes — particularly during Easter services , which weren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year — but they ’ ve also been challenged by diminishing attendance .
Per a Gallup poll , just half of Americans said they belonged to a church , synagogue or mosque in 2018 , down from 70 percent two decades earlier .
[ Related : The Economy Is A Mess .
So Why Isn ’ t The Stock Market ? ]
So , in a way , it ’ s an odd juxtaposition for Yamada to be experiencing an income boost from churches , given that many American congregations are having a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that his earnings are about 30 percent ahead of where they would normally be at this point in the year .
But by no means is he getting rich with his newfound work : He said his gross income is usually right around $ 60,000 a year , and that once he factors in expenses — mainly for equipment — he takes home closer to $ 40,000 or $ 45,000 annually .
He charges $ 250 for a half-day of work ( five hours ) and $ 500 for a full day ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the economy , Yamada said he recently told a pastor that he ’ d be willing to cut his rates to help alleviate the church ’ s costs .
( Yamada said his offer was rebuffed , largely because of how much he improved the sound quality of the services . )
Yamada ’ s increased workload with area churches has compensated for his loss of business in the music industry , which is where he would normally earn most of his money .
“ If I ’ m working on an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ five-figure endeavor , ” he said .
Some of that money comes from allowing artists to record in the basement of his home , where he and his housemate — who also works in the music industry — have set up a full recording studio .
But because Yamada is concerned about COVID-19 , he hasn ’ t worked with anyone in his studio in the past few months .
( His roommate has , though , which has prompted Yamada to camp out in his room for five or six hours until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s working with one artist on an album remotely , trying his best to smooth out rough versions of songs from a Colorado client that are streamed or recorded with nothing more than a cellphone .
“ It ’ s pretty much a question of , ‘ How do I quality-control this [ recording ] ?
’ ” Yamada said .
He considers his strengths to be producing and mixing — giving suggestions for how to rework the chorus of a song , or identifying where another take might be necessary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involves perfecting the last few tweaks for blend and sound before a project is finalized .
[ Related : How Americans View The Coronavirus Crisis And Trump ’ s Response ] Even as he has more money coming in than he ’ s used to — including a federal stimulus payment — Yamada is playing it safe .
He ’ s held off on buying expensive equipment because he expects his work with churches to fade once the pandemic subsides and virtual services are no longer necessary .
The only thing he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ food .
Since the pandemic began , he ’ s preferred to order in so he can avoid grocery stores .
“ I just haven ’ t wanted to go out in public unless I absolutely have to , ” Yamada said .

As the nation seeks to rebound from the economic wreckage caused by the novel coronavirus, millions of Americans are looking for jobs.
But some will be trying to maintain the momentum of the extra work they’ve picked up over the past few months. K Yamada, an Atlanta-area audio engineer, is one of those people.
The 31-year-old worked primarily in the music industry as a producer and audio engineer before the pandemic hit. Lately, though, he has found a number of opportunities helping area churches that suddenly needed to transition their services from in-person gatherings to ones that could be streamed online.
“The pastors were saying, ‘We need to do something,’” Yamada said. “‘To protect people in our congregation, we can’t meet in person. But we still need to have a way to connect with them.’”
As decision-makers at churches worked on that transition, they quickly realized the importance of high-quality audio and video during those virtual services. That’s where Yamada comes in. He makes sure the equipment and sound levels are set properly so that music and sermons won’t be distorted as members follow along on apps like Zoom or Skype.
In some cases, a masked Yamada will sit and handle soundboard responsibilities as musicians or ministers are playing for a congregation in real time. In others, he will record pastors, vocalists or bands in advance and perfect the recording days before the service airs online.
“When you’re just doing it live, you only get that one shot [to get it right],” he said. “When you’re recording something for later, there’s a lot less room for stuff to hide.” Because of that, Yamada said some of the pastors and musicians have been rehearsing more to make sure their sessions — whether recorded or live — are as free of glitches as possible.
Much like the small businesses and companies that have proved vulnerable during the economic crisis, churches have been struggling too. Not only do they rely heavily on offerings and tithes — particularly during Easter services, which weren’t possible to go to this year — but they’ve also been challenged by diminishing attendance. Per a Gallup poll, just half of Americans said they belonged to a church, synagogue or mosque in 2018, down from 70 percent two decades earlier.
[Related: The Economy Is A Mess. So Why Isn’t The Stock Market?]
So, in a way, it’s an odd juxtaposition for Yamada to be experiencing an income boost from churches, given that many American congregations are having a hard time staying afloat.
Yamada estimated that his earnings are about 30 percent ahead of where they would normally be at this point in the year. But by no means is he getting rich with his newfound work: He said his gross income is usually right around $60,000 a year, and that once he factors in expenses — mainly for equipment — he takes home closer to $40,000 or $45,000 annually.
He charges $250 for a half-day of work (five hours) and $500 for a full day (10 hours). But in light of the economy, Yamada said he recently told a pastor that he’d be willing to cut his rates to help alleviate the church’s costs. (Yamada said his offer was rebuffed, largely because of how much he improved the sound quality of the services.)
Yamada’s increased workload with area churches has compensated for his loss of business in the music industry, which is where he would normally earn most of his money.
“If I’m working on an album, it’s usually a five-figure endeavor,” he said. Some of that money comes from allowing artists to record in the basement of his home, where he and his housemate — who also works in the music industry — have set up a full recording studio.
But because Yamada is concerned about COVID-19, he hasn’t worked with anyone in his studio in the past few months. (His roommate has, though, which has prompted Yamada to camp out in his room for five or six hours until the coast clears.) Instead, he’s working with one artist on an album remotely, trying his best to smooth out rough versions of songs from a Colorado client that are streamed or recorded with nothing more than a cellphone.
“It’s pretty much a question of, ‘How do I quality-control this [recording]?’” Yamada said. He considers his strengths to be producing and mixing — giving suggestions for how to rework the chorus of a song, or identifying where another take might be necessary — as opposed to mastering, which involves perfecting the last few tweaks for blend and sound before a project is finalized.
[Related: How Americans View The Coronavirus Crisis And Trump’s Response]
Even as he has more money coming in than he’s used to — including a federal stimulus payment — Yamada is playing it safe. He’s held off on buying expensive equipment because he expects his work with churches to fade once the pandemic subsides and virtual services are no longer necessary.
The only thing he’s consistently spent more money on is food. Since the pandemic began, he’s preferred to order in so he can avoid grocery stores.
“I just haven’t wanted to go out in public unless I absolutely have to,” Yamada said.
Subscribe to our coronavirus podcast, PODCAST-19


fivethirthyeight--2020-06-22--Is Police Reform A Fundamentally Flawed Idea?

In January , Philip McHarris was driving from New Haven to Boston to visit a friend when he saw a familiar sight in his rearview mirror — flashing police lights .
It was late at night , and McHarris pulled into a gas station and waited , as he had done many times before , for the state trooper to approach his window .
The problem , the trooper said , was the way McHarris had pulled off at an exit .
Then he said that the highway where McHarris had been driving was a drug trafficking route , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for drugs .
McHarris explained that he was a Ph.D. student in sociology and African American Studies at Yale who had just left campus for the weekend .
But while the officer walked away to his car , McHarris quickly took a video of himself and sent it to his mother and sisters .
“ I said , ‘ This cop thinks I ’ m trafficking drugs , ’ ” McHarris said .
“ ‘ I love you and I ’ m trying my best to navigate this.
’ ” Eventually , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It didn ’ t spiral into one of the deadly encounters that make the front pages of newspapers , where a Black man is killed at the hands of a police officer .
The officer had even been relatively courteous , assuring McHarris that the stop wasn ’ t the result of racial profiling .
But that just reinforced for McHarris how poorly the officer understood the racial dynamics of the interaction — much less the fear he felt throughout the encounter , and couldn ’ t shake even after he drove @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if a cop is being nice to me while asking to search the car ?
” he said .
“ What I care about is that I got pulled over in the first place , and I ’ m sitting here thinking maybe this random gas station is the last thing I ’ ll see.
” Years ago , McHarris came to the conclusion that because of interactions like this and his own research on policing , department-level policing reforms aren ’ t enough .
And as a scholar who works alongside the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of a small network of activists who have also spent years working to defund police departments , redistribute the money to other parts of the social safety net , like housing , education and transportation , and create new systems for ensuring public safety .
But now their work is suddenly everywhere .
After the police killing of George Floyd , the Minneapolis City Council voted to dismantle its police department amid growing calls from protesters to “ defund the police.
” And it ’ s not just Minneapolis — officials in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ore. , are mulling similar ideas .
[ Related : The States Taking On Police Reform After The Death Of George Floyd ] The exact meaning of the slogan varies a lot depending on who you ask .
Even the Minneapolis city council members who voted to disband say their move comes with qualifications .
But broadly , it involves a seismic shift in the way we think about public safety — and who is being kept safe .
Some critics of the defunding movement have argued that getting rid of the police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who would keep the streets safe ?
But McHarris said it ’ s time to stop tinkering around the edges of a system that many people in heavily policed communities say is causing more harm than good .
“ These police reforms are implemented over and over again and Black people are still being brutalized and murdered , ” he said .
“ Nobody is saying we can ’ t have mechanisms to promote safety .
It just won ’ t look like the police.
” Defunding the police is a big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen before .
But although there are disagreements between activists and researchers about how sweeping change should be , pretty much everyone we spoke with agrees that the system is broken , efforts to measure it are highly flawed , and now is the moment to think big about how to fix it .
In many ways , the movement to defund the police is exposing gaping holes in how we measure what good police work really is , and how we gauge a reform ’ s success .
Because after decades of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we still don ’ t know that much about what police are doing , how their presence actually affects the people who experience police violence , and what people in those communities want from reform .
On its surface , large majorities of Americans support “ police reform.
” But “ reform ” is vague and gets complicated fast .
For one thing , the police aren ’ t a single entity .
There are more than 15,000 law enforcement agencies scattered throughout the U.S. , which means that any change has to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also hard to figure out what departments are actually doing , or how to compare them .
Within a single metro area , multiple departments could be operating under different rules or different standards of rule enforcement , and even using different definitions of particular buzzword-heavy reforms like “ community policing.
” [ Related : How Americans Feel About ‘ Defunding The Police ’ ] That lack of uniformity makes it difficult to compare police departments that have implemented similar policies .
“ To understand if a police reform is actually working the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be able to see what officers do in the field and figure out whether the reform you ’ re looking at changed that , ” said Emily Owens , a criminology professor at the University of California , Irvine .
“ We don ’ t really have the data or the studies right now for me to say with confidence , ‘ We know that these reforms work and these don ’ t. ’ ” What ’ s more , the data that exists is full of holes — and bias .
Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police are doing a good job or how departments might improve , they ’ re often conducting those studies using metrics that help tell only part of the story .
Policing data is imperfect .
Due to a lack of systematic or reliable data on police misconduct , the fact that the data we do have is mostly from police departments themselves , and an emphasis on crime and police presence , it ’ s liable to miss important variables such as nature of police interactions with the public , or the fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happens in places and populations where police aren ’ t looking for it .
Case in point : The practice of hot spot policing .
This is one of the best researched policing techniques and — after some 40-odd randomized controlled trials , by one expert ’ s count — also the one with the most evidence supporting its effectiveness .
The basic idea is that crime is clustered throughout a city or neighborhood , so police should target those areas that see higher levels of crime .
But there are still a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when scientists identify hot spots and measure whether policing in those locations has been effective , what they ’ re really looking at is crime statistics , said Cody Telep , a criminology professor at Arizona State University .
That isn ’ t necessarily the same thing as measuring safety ( real or perceived ) in a community , he told us .
After all , about half of all violent crimes are never reported to the police at all .
So the appearance of a hot spot in the data doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where the most dangerous criminal activity is actually happening — something Telep ’ s team saw firsthand when it compared the locations of drug-related calls to police in Seattle with drug-related calls to the emergency medical services in the same city .
It turns out there was a lot of drug activity the police were missing entirely .
Crime , then , and particularly crimes reported to police , are not a great metric by which to judge where the most crime in a city is happening and how dangerous that area feels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nor is a reduction in crime the end-all , be-all metric to tell you whether police are doing good work .
“ Certainly reducing crime is a good metric , but I would add to that , at what cost ?
” said Rod Brunson , a professor at Northeastern University ’ s School of Criminology and Criminal Justice .
These statistics also don ’ t tell researchers anything about what police should be doing in a hot spot — or what police do in communities every day .
Researchers have established that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time in certain parts of town … but , Telep said , have offered little guidance on what police should do once they ’ re there .
And even if police were given guidelines on what they should be doing , nobody currently keeps track of metrics that would show what those officers were actually doing .
That ’ s about to change , at least partially — under an executive order issued by President Trump last week , the Department of Justice will begin maintaining an anonymized database of police misconduct .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ : The only time we find out about what police do in their day-to-day work is when someone complains or files a report about it , said Wesley Skogan , professor emeritus of political science at Northwestern University .
That means there ’ s no incentive toward good behavior — even though some research suggests that positive interactions with police can improve public attitudes toward them .
“ The fact about policing is it ’ s two people in a car , in the night .
What we know about what they do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a form , ” Skogan said .
[ Related : Republicans And Democrats Agree On The Protests But Not Why People Are Protesting ] But even in the situations where it is possible to get good data on real-world police behavior , whether a reform has been successful depends a lot on your perspective .
In general , research tends to focus on metrics that are easy to quantify : Did a reform lead to fewer police killings ?
Fewer civilian complaints ?
More fired officers ?
But those measures don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cost of police violence , and they don ’ t tell us much about whether people in overpoliced communities are actually feeling safer .
Part of the problem is that we don ’ t have a good way to measure or track the effects of dealing with the police on an everyday basis .
But qualitative research can give us a window into how a heavy police presence can stoke feelings of deep mistrust .
In a study of young people in Baltimore conducted shortly after the killing of Freddie Gray , Yale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that although the people she was studying were very concerned about violence in their communities , they didn ’ t see police as protectors .
“ It ’ s not just that people are being brutally beaten or shot and killed by police , it ’ s the routine , daily messaging of — they are going to be watching you in your neighborhood , they ’ re going to mace you at your school , ” she said .
“ People will even report that a police officer behaved in the ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away with a deep sense that they ’ ve experienced a broader racism , a broader sense of exclusion that quantitative measures can ’ t easily capture.
” Analysis of conversations with people in heavily policed communities by a group of political scientists found a similar result : To the people in the study , the police seemed like they were everywhere — except when their help was actually needed .
The deep-rooted perception that the police are there to monitor you , not protect you , is hard both to measure and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very strong perception that the police are there to protect and serve the white community on the other side of the city or the suburbs , ” said Gwen Prowse , a Ph.D. candidate in political science and African American studies at Yale and one of the study authors .
“ The idea is — if you only see me as a criminal and you don ’ t see me as a full member of this society , how can you protect me ?
” And without input from the people who actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police reforms can end up reflecting what the researchers — and not the people who are affected — think is important .
“ There ’ s this weird business where people think data can solve everything , but data without thoughtful engagement with the community is actually part of the problem , ” said Bocar Ba , a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Pennsylvania Law School who studies economics and crime .
Use of force is one such example — just as police departments have different definitions of what constitutes “ excessive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For instance , the idea that there is an “ optimal ” or “ reasonable ” use of force may prompt researchers or policymakers to ignore or discount lower-level incidents that were still quite traumatic for the person involved .
“ Who are the people deciding what an ‘ optimal ’ use of force is ?
” said Ba .
“ Are they the people who are experiencing brutality themselves ?
In almost all cases , no.
” Meanwhile , researchers are just starting to scratch the surface of how an uneasy and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aspects of people ’ s lives .
A recent study of students in an urban Southwest school district found that proximity to police shootings harmed high school students ’ performance .
That ’ s in line with other research indicating that having police in schools may actually decrease high school graduation rates .
But these types of social costs aren ’ t easily priced in when researchers evaluate whether a reform succeeded or failed .
It ’ s becoming increasingly clear , too , that the reforms we ’ ve already tried are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , difficult to fix forces , like police culture .
Encounters between police and civilians are often violent because police officers are taught to think of themselves as always being in danger , according to research by sociologist Michael Sierra-Arévalo of the University of Texas .
At the same time , Skogan said , police culture tends to discount things people at community meetings say they are actually interested in — like controlling traffic or reducing public drinking — as boring .
[ Related : How The Police See Issues Of Race And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problems that make activists like Arissa Hall , the director of National Bail Out , argue that simply reducing contact between police and civilians , and replacing the police with other community resources , is a much better way to address police violence .
There might not be many precedents for disbanding police departments , but the positive effect of reducing police presence and investing in housing and education can already be seen in other places .
“ Abolishing police departments might seem impractical , but there aren ’ t police officers on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” she said .
“ We have actual models and examples of what it means to decenter the police and invest in people ’ s quality of life.
” There ’ s a lot of research to support the idea that putting more money into resources that improve people ’ s lives — like health care , housing and education — can reduce crime .
The more nebulous question is how removing funding for police departments will affect public safety .
But Jennifer Doleac , an economics professor at Texas A & @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policymakers and researchers should prioritize listening to the experiences of people who are interacting with police and make sure those are taken into account when deciding which policies are implemented and how to evaluate their success .
“ Clearly , the system that we have now isn ’ t working for a lot of people , ” Doleac said .
“ So can I see risks to significantly rolling back funding for police departments ?
Sure .
But there ’ s also a big , big risk in doing too little right now.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the protests — and why it matters | FiveThirtyEight

In January, Philip McHarris was driving from New Haven to Boston to visit a friend when he saw a familiar sight in his rearview mirror — flashing police lights. It was late at night, and McHarris pulled into a gas station and waited, as he had done many times before, for the state trooper to approach his window. The problem, the trooper said, was the way McHarris had pulled off at an exit. Then he said that the highway where McHarris had been driving was a drug trafficking route, and asked if he could search the car for drugs.
McHarris explained that he was a Ph.D. student in sociology and African American Studies at Yale who had just left campus for the weekend. But while the officer walked away to his car, McHarris quickly took a video of himself and sent it to his mother and sisters. “I said, ‘This cop thinks I’m trafficking drugs,’” McHarris said. “‘I love you and I’m trying my best to navigate this.’”
Eventually, the officer let McHarris go with a warning. It didn’t spiral into one of the deadly encounters that make the front pages of newspapers, where a Black man is killed at the hands of a police officer. The officer had even been relatively courteous, assuring McHarris that the stop wasn’t the result of racial profiling. But that just reinforced for McHarris how poorly the officer understood the racial dynamics of the interaction — much less the fear he felt throughout the encounter, and couldn’t shake even after he drove away. “What good is it if a cop is being nice to me while asking to search the car?” he said. “What I care about is that I got pulled over in the first place, and I’m sitting here thinking maybe this random gas station is the last thing I’ll see.”
Years ago, McHarris came to the conclusion that because of interactions like this and his own research on policing, department-level policing reforms aren’t enough. And as a scholar who works alongside the Movement for Black Lives, McHarris is part of a small network of activists who have also spent years working to defund police departments, redistribute the money to other parts of the social safety net, like housing, education and transportation, and create new systems for ensuring public safety. But now their work is suddenly everywhere. After the police killing of George Floyd, the Minneapolis City Council voted to dismantle its police department amid growing calls from protesters to “defund the police.” And it’s not just Minneapolis — officials in Los Angeles, Denver and Portland, Ore., are mulling similar ideas.
[Related: The States Taking On Police Reform After The Death Of George Floyd]
The exact meaning of the slogan varies a lot depending on who you ask. Even the Minneapolis city council members who voted to disband say their move comes with qualifications. But broadly, it involves a seismic shift in the way we think about public safety — and who is being kept safe. Some critics of the defunding movement have argued that getting rid of the police would be counterproductive — in their absence, who would keep the streets safe? But McHarris said it’s time to stop tinkering around the edges of a system that many people in heavily policed communities say is causing more harm than good. “These police reforms are implemented over and over again and Black people are still being brutalized and murdered,” he said. “Nobody is saying we can’t have mechanisms to promote safety. It just won’t look like the police.”
Defunding the police is a big departure from the reforms we’ve seen before. But although there are disagreements between activists and researchers about how sweeping change should be, pretty much everyone we spoke with agrees that the system is broken, efforts to measure it are highly flawed, and now is the moment to think big about how to fix it. In many ways, the movement to defund the police is exposing gaping holes in how we measure what good police work really is, and how we gauge a reform’s success. Because after decades of research on policing and police reform, we still don’t know that much about what police are doing, how their presence actually affects the people who experience police violence, and what people in those communities want from reform.
On its surface, large majorities of Americans support “police reform.” But “reform” is vague and gets complicated fast. For one thing, the police aren’t a single entity. There are more than 15,000 law enforcement agencies scattered throughout the U.S., which means that any change has to be piecemeal. And it’s also hard to figure out what departments are actually doing, or how to compare them. Within a single metro area, multiple departments could be operating under different rules or different standards of rule enforcement, and even using different definitions of particular buzzword-heavy reforms like “community policing.”
[Related: How Americans Feel About ‘Defunding The Police’]
That lack of uniformity makes it difficult to compare police departments that have implemented similar policies. “To understand if a police reform is actually working the way you want, you need to be able to see what officers do in the field and figure out whether the reform you’re looking at changed that,” said Emily Owens, a criminology professor at the University of California, Irvine. “We don’t really have the data or the studies right now for me to say with confidence, ‘We know that these reforms work and these don’t.’”
What’s more, the data that exists is full of holes — and bias. Even when researchers try to document whether the police are doing a good job or how departments might improve, they’re often conducting those studies using metrics that help tell only part of the story. Policing data is imperfect. Due to a lack of systematic or reliable data on police misconduct, the fact that the data we do have is mostly from police departments themselves, and an emphasis on crime and police presence, it’s liable to miss important variables such as nature of police interactions with the public, or the fact that plenty of illegal or violent behavior happens in places and populations where police aren’t looking for it.
Case in point: The practice of hot spot policing. This is one of the best researched policing techniques and — after some 40-odd randomized controlled trials, by one expert’s count — also the one with the most evidence supporting its effectiveness. The basic idea is that crime is clustered throughout a city or neighborhood, so police should target those areas that see higher levels of crime.
But there are still a lot of unavoidable caveats. For instance, when scientists identify hot spots and measure whether policing in those locations has been effective, what they’re really looking at is crime statistics, said Cody Telep, a criminology professor at Arizona State University. That isn’t necessarily the same thing as measuring safety (real or perceived) in a community, he told us. After all, about half of all violent crimes are never reported to the police at all. So the appearance of a hot spot in the data doesn’t necessarily mean that’s where the most dangerous criminal activity is actually happening — something Telep’s team saw firsthand when it compared the locations of drug-related calls to police in Seattle with drug-related calls to the emergency medical services in the same city. It turns out there was a lot of drug activity the police were missing entirely.
Crime, then, and particularly crimes reported to police, are not a great metric by which to judge where the most crime in a city is happening and how dangerous that area feels to the people who live there. Nor is a reduction in crime the end-all, be-all metric to tell you whether police are doing good work. “Certainly reducing crime is a good metric, but I would add to that, at what cost?” said Rod Brunson, a professor at Northeastern University’s School of Criminology and Criminal Justice.
These statistics also don’t tell researchers anything about what police should be doing in a hot spot — or what police do in communities every day. Researchers have established that it’s effective to spend more time in certain parts of town … but, Telep said, have offered little guidance on what police should do once they’re there.
And even if police were given guidelines on what they should be doing, nobody currently keeps track of metrics that would show what those officers were actually doing. That’s about to change, at least partially — under an executive order issued by President Trump last week, the Department of Justice will begin maintaining an anonymized database of police misconduct. But there’s still a catch: The only time we find out about what police do in their day-to-day work is when someone complains or files a report about it, said Wesley Skogan, professor emeritus of political science at Northwestern University. That means there’s no incentive toward good behavior — even though some research suggests that positive interactions with police can improve public attitudes toward them. “The fact about policing is it’s two people in a car, in the night. What we know about what they do is when they choose to fill out a form,” Skogan said.
[Related: Republicans And Democrats Agree On The Protests But Not Why People Are Protesting]
But even in the situations where it is possible to get good data on real-world police behavior, whether a reform has been successful depends a lot on your perspective. In general, research tends to focus on metrics that are easy to quantify: Did a reform lead to fewer police killings? Fewer civilian complaints? More fired officers? But those measures don’t really account for the human and social cost of police violence, and they don’t tell us much about whether people in overpoliced communities are actually feeling safer.
Part of the problem is that we don’t have a good way to measure or track the effects of dealing with the police on an everyday basis. But qualitative research can give us a window into how a heavy police presence can stoke feelings of deep mistrust. In a study of young people in Baltimore conducted shortly after the killing of Freddie Gray, Yale sociologist and law professor Monica Bell concluded that although the people she was studying were very concerned about violence in their communities, they didn’t see police as protectors. “It’s not just that people are being brutally beaten or shot and killed by police, it’s the routine, daily messaging of — they are going to be watching you in your neighborhood, they’re going to mace you at your school,” she said. “People will even report that a police officer behaved in the ‘correct’ manner but they still walk away with a deep sense that they’ve experienced a broader racism, a broader sense of exclusion that quantitative measures can’t easily capture.”
Analysis of conversations with people in heavily policed communities by a group of political scientists found a similar result: To the people in the study, the police seemed like they were everywhere — except when their help was actually needed. The deep-rooted perception that the police are there to monitor you, not protect you, is hard both to measure and undo. “There’s a very strong perception that the police are there to protect and serve the white community on the other side of the city or the suburbs,” said Gwen Prowse, a Ph.D. candidate in political science and African American studies at Yale and one of the study authors. “The idea is — if you only see me as a criminal and you don’t see me as a full member of this society, how can you protect me?”
And without input from the people who actually experience police violence, attempts to evaluate police reforms can end up reflecting what the researchers — and not the people who are affected — think is important. “There’s this weird business where people think data can solve everything, but data without thoughtful engagement with the community is actually part of the problem,” said Bocar Ba, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Pennsylvania Law School who studies economics and crime.
Use of force is one such example — just as police departments have different definitions of what constitutes “excessive force,” so can researchers. For instance, the idea that there is an “optimal” or “reasonable” use of force may prompt researchers or policymakers to ignore or discount lower-level incidents that were still quite traumatic for the person involved. “Who are the people deciding what an ‘optimal’ use of force is?” said Ba. “Are they the people who are experiencing brutality themselves? In almost all cases, no.”
Meanwhile, researchers are just starting to scratch the surface of how an uneasy and often violent relationship with police shapes other aspects of people’s lives. A recent study of students in an urban Southwest school district found that proximity to police shootings harmed high school students’ performance. That’s in line with other research indicating that having police in schools may actually decrease high school graduation rates. But these types of social costs aren’t easily priced in when researchers evaluate whether a reform succeeded or failed.
It’s becoming increasingly clear, too, that the reforms we’ve already tried are running headlong into other difficult to measure, difficult to fix forces, like police culture. Encounters between police and civilians are often violent because police officers are taught to think of themselves as always being in danger, according to research by sociologist Michael Sierra-Arévalo of the University of Texas. At the same time, Skogan said, police culture tends to discount things people at community meetings say they are actually interested in — like controlling traffic or reducing public drinking — as boring.
[Related: How The Police See Issues Of Race And Policing]
These are the kinds of problems that make activists like Arissa Hall, the director of National Bail Out, argue that simply reducing contact between police and civilians, and replacing the police with other community resources, is a much better way to address police violence. There might not be many precedents for disbanding police departments, but the positive effect of reducing police presence and investing in housing and education can already be seen in other places. “Abolishing police departments might seem impractical, but there aren’t police officers on every street corner in affluent white neighborhoods,” she said. “We have actual models and examples of what it means to decenter the police and invest in people’s quality of life.”
There’s a lot of research to support the idea that putting more money into resources that improve people’s lives — like health care, housing and education — can reduce crime. The more nebulous question is how removing funding for police departments will affect public safety. But Jennifer Doleac, an economics professor at Texas A&M University who studies crime, suggested policymakers and researchers should prioritize listening to the experiences of people who are interacting with police and make sure those are taken into account when deciding which policies are implemented and how to evaluate their success.
“Clearly, the system that we have now isn’t working for a lot of people,” Doleac said. “So can I see risks to significantly rolling back funding for police departments? Sure. But there’s also a big, big risk in doing too little right now.”
How cable news is talking about the protests — and why it matters | FiveThirtyEight


fivethirthyeight--2020-06-21--Trump’s Latest Firing May Have Violated Four Core Values Of American Democracy

President Trump ’ s firing of Geoffrey Berman , the U.S. attorney in charge of investigating major crimes in the influential Southern District of New York , which includes Manhattan , is another move by the Trump administration that , though likely legal and not totally unprecedented , appears to violate core democratic values .
The firing was dramatic , with Attorney General William Barr announcing late on Friday night Berman ’ s resignation and a replacement .
Berman issued a statement roughly an hour later saying that he had not resigned and that Barr personally did not have the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nature of his appointment .
So on Saturday afternoon , Trump himself fired Berman , and Barr designated a different person to replace Berman than the one he had named on Friday .
The firing was also somewhat surprising given that Berman is a longtime Republican who not only donated to Trump ’ s first presidential campaign but also served on his transition team .
Yet underlying all the drama is something we ’ ve gotten used to in the Trump era : the breaking of democratic norms and values , which are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve written about before , values are fundamental principles ( e.g.
, free speech ) , whereas norms are the unwritten rules we abide by ( don ’ t cut in line ) that sometimes reinforce those values ( Supreme Court justices don ’ t endorse political candidates , thereby bolstering the independence of the judicial and executive branches ) but also sometimes don ’ t .
So let ’ s look at Trump ’ s firing of Berman in the context of some of those values .
Under Berman ’ s leadership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump lawyer and ally Rudy Giuliani , including Giuliani ’ s dealings with Ukranian officials that were scrutinized as part of the impeachment inquiry against Trump .
We don ’ t know the status of that investigation , whether Giuliani was likely to face criminal charges or even whether that investigation was a factor in the decision to oust Berman .
There is some logic to the idea that Department of Justice prosecutors should avoid making decisions close to the election that might influence its outcome — indicting the president ’ s attorney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact , Democrats in 2016 criticized then-FBI Director James Comey on these grounds , when he announced less than two weeks before Election Day that he was reviewing new evidence involving Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton ’ s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state .
That said , if Trump and Barr were trying to protect Giuliani ( and therefore Trump ) , it fits a pattern of Barr ’ s Justice Department seeming to extend special treatment to Trump allies .
In February , DOJ officials overruled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lighter sentence for longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone , who was convicted of lying to Congress , witness tampering and obstruction of justice .
All four prosecutors withdrew from the case — and one resigned — in protest of the decision .
Even more unusual was the decision in May by a Barr-appointed U.S. attorney in Washington , D.C. , to drop charges against Trump ’ s first national security adviser , Michael Flynn , even though Flynn had already pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI .
Not only did a career @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but federal appeals judges are considering not allowing the Justice Department to drop the charges .
The democratic value at play here is equal justice under the law — a person should not get unusually lenient treatment by the Justice Department if he or she is an ally of the president ’ s .
Arguably , previous presidents have violated this value — for example , as he was leaving office , Bill Clinton pardoned the ex-husband of a major Democratic Party donor .
The most alarming potential explanation of what happened to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him specifically for investigating Giuliani .
A milder version may be that the Southern District , under Berman ’ s leadership , demonstrated that it did not care about Trump ’ s preferences and would investigate whichever crimes it deemed important , no matter the potential ramifications for Trump .
Two years ago , the Southern District persuaded onetime Trump lawyer Michael Cohen to plead guilty to a number of crimes , including violating campaign finance law , with Cohen suggesting his illegal behavior came at Trump ’ s behest .
( It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ himself from that case . )
So Barr and Trump may consider Berman insufficiently loyal to their interests and fear he would bring charges that would reflect badly on Trump or Republicans , even if Berman didn ’ t bring forward a case clearly linked to the president .
Indeed , the Trump administration has a long record of demoting , reassigning , firing or otherwise sidelining law enforcement officials who show independence from the White House : Comey , former FBI general counsel James Baker , former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump or his allies often hinted that Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller would be fired during their tenures as FBI deputy director and DOJ special counsel , respectively , in a manner seemingly designed to intimidate them .
Trump has also recently complained about current FBI Director Christopher Wray and hinted that he could be fired .
And Barr has implied that the Justice Department will seek to bring charges against those involved with initiating the investigations of the Trump campaign ’ s connections to Russia — in effect , criminalizing efforts that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it is not unprecedented for presidents to replace law enforcement officials .
Presidents in both parties traditionally replace with their own choices all the U.S. attorneys appointed by the previous administration , which often results in a wide partisan swap .
As president , Clinton fired the FBI director , and most notably , in what came to be known as the “ Saturday Night Massacre , ” then-President Richard Nixon purged the senior leadership of the Justice Department for refusing to quash an investigation of him — he was forced to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The democratic value at stake here is the independence of law enforcement .
That ideal , that their decisions should be divorced from politics , is hard to maintain if key law enforcement officials are constantly worried about being fired by the president , attorney general or anyone else for political reasons .
It ’ s worth thinking about the initial bid to fire Berman on Friday night , because that is in part what made this move so problematic at first glance .
It appeared to be an attempt by Barr @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of an important law enforcement agency ( the Southern District of New York ) someone more likely to be friendly to their interests .
Generally , when a political appointee like a U.S. attorney leaves , he or she is replaced by the No .
2 person in that office , usually a career civil service employee not formally aligned with either party .
But on Friday Barr announced that Berman would be temporarily replaced by Craig Carpenito , a U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey , a close ally of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , another Trump loyalist .
This is a pattern for Trump : removing the leaders of various government agencies or departments , ignoring normal succession procedures and passing over the people who would normally step in , and instead replacing them with Trump allies .
The temporary replacement ’ s role is essentially to do Trump ’ s bidding in a way that the removed person would not .
The most prominent example of this was when , after the 2018 midterm elections , Trump replaced Sessions with his chief of staff at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as in the case of Berman , Trump has removed someone appointed in a process he did not totally control ( usually Senate confirmation — in Berman ’ s case , he was installed by the judges of the Southern District ) with someone chosen solely by Trump for that particular role .
Trump ’ s controlling the executive branch in this way — minimizing the oversight of other branches — weakens checks on his executive power .
In this instance , however , Berman ’ s own chief deputy , Audrey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That said , that Carpenito never actually made it into Berman ’ s former position doesn ’ t mean the move wasn ’ t still problematic in terms of oversight .
In indicting one Trump lawyer ( Cohen ) and investigating another ( Giuliani ) , the Southern District under Berman ’ s leadership was effectively conducting oversight of the president , since Giuliani in particular was basically executing Trump ’ s policy goals with Ukraine ( pressuring Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ unhappy with that oversight and wants to limit it .
Trump ’ s attempts to stop oversight of his policy moves is also part of a pattern .
He has essentially refused to comply with any congressional investigations into his administration .
And over the past few months , he has fired a number of the inspectors general at federal agencies , the people formally charged with scrutinizing the executive branch .
The intelligence community inspector general played a key role in bringing forward the whistleblower ’ s complaints about the Trump administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the president ’ s impeachment .
Trump seems to now view all inspectors general as threats to his administration .
The democratic value at play here is oversight of the executive branch .
The Senate ’ s role in confirming executive branch appointees and the presence of inspectors general are ways in which a president in theory is not able to do whatever he wants with the executive branch .
Trump seems unwilling to abide by these constraints .
Having his personal lawyer conduct foreign policy puts that person out of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Firing the U.S. attorney whose office was investigating the president ’ s lawyer signals that the president ’ s lawyer and the sphere of policy he is implementing is off limits .
The Berman firing , like the removals of several inspectors general , was done on a Friday night .
This is not the most important of these violations of democratic values .
Previous presidents — and plenty of other people outside of politics , for that matter — “ dump ” bad news on Friday nights , hoping it will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off for the weekend .
That said , these firings are important for the reasons I have laid out above .
Trump ’ s seeming desire to obscure them suggests he wants to avoid careful examination of decisions that he no doubt is aware will be controversial .
Media and public scrutiny of presidential decisions is a core democratic value as well , even if other presidents have also neglected to maintain it .
And , again , this is a pattern for Trump .
In the past few weeks , he and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to retract — and apologize for — a poll showing Trump trailing Biden and to block the publication of former National Security Adviser John Bolton ’ s book , which is critical of Trump .
Presidents often complain about polls and dislike books critical of them but Trump ’ s actions go beyond those more traditional objections .
We recently wrote about how the administration ’ s decision to use chemical agents and rubber bullets on protesters outside the White House violated several democratic values .
Key officials involved in that incident now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Berman may also backfire on Trump .
It could embolden more people , including some Republicans , to start criticizing the president for politicizing law enforcement decisions .
Berman ’ s decision to resist his firing and administration officials ’ distancing themselves from the White House protest incident suggest something else that should worry Trump : People in his administration may be reading and believing polls showing him trailing Biden , thinking Trump is likely to lose reelection in November and becoming more unwilling to do questionable things to stay in good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be president come January .
CORRECTION ( June 22 , 2020 , 8:37 a.m. ) An earlier version of this article incorrectly described the events that preceded former President Richard Nixon ’ s resignation .
The House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment against Nixon amid the Watergate scandal , but he resigned before the full House held an impeachment vote .
Nixon was not impeached by the full House of Representatives .
Do you buy that Trump can ride a midwest path to victory in 2020 ?

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

President Trump’s firing of Geoffrey Berman, the U.S. attorney in charge of investigating major crimes in the influential Southern District of New York, which includes Manhattan, is another move by the Trump administration that, though likely legal and not totally unprecedented, appears to violate core democratic values.
The firing was dramatic, with Attorney General William Barr announcing late on Friday night Berman’s resignation and a replacement. Berman issued a statement roughly an hour later saying that he had not resigned and that Barr personally did not have the right to fire him due to the nature of his appointment. So on Saturday afternoon, Trump himself fired Berman, and Barr designated a different person to replace Berman than the one he had named on Friday. The firing was also somewhat surprising given that Berman is a longtime Republican who not only donated to Trump’s first presidential campaign but also served on his transition team.
Yet underlying all the drama is something we’ve gotten used to in the Trump era: the breaking of democratic norms and values, which are two distinct concepts. As we’ve written about before, values are fundamental principles (e.g., free speech), whereas norms are the unwritten rules we abide by (don’t cut in line) that sometimes reinforce those values (Supreme Court justices don’t endorse political candidates, thereby bolstering the independence of the judicial and executive branches) but also sometimes don’t. So let’s look at Trump’s firing of Berman in the context of some of those values.
Equal justice under the law
Under Berman’s leadership, the Southern District was reportedly investigating Trump lawyer and ally Rudy Giuliani, including Giuliani’s dealings with Ukranian officials that were scrutinized as part of the impeachment inquiry against Trump. We don’t know the status of that investigation, whether Giuliani was likely to face criminal charges or even whether that investigation was a factor in the decision to oust Berman. There is some logic to the idea that Department of Justice prosecutors should avoid making decisions close to the election that might influence its outcome — indicting the president’s attorney is arguably such an example. In fact, Democrats in 2016 criticized then-FBI Director James Comey on these grounds, when he announced less than two weeks before Election Day that he was reviewing new evidence involving Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.
That said, if Trump and Barr were trying to protect Giuliani (and therefore Trump), it fits a pattern of Barr’s Justice Department seeming to extend special treatment to Trump allies. In February, DOJ officials overruled career prosecutors and asked for a significantly lighter sentence for longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone, who was convicted of lying to Congress, witness tampering and obstruction of justice. All four prosecutors withdrew from the case — and one resigned — in protest of the decision. Even more unusual was the decision in May by a Barr-appointed U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., to drop charges against Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, even though Flynn had already pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. Not only did a career prosecutor quit that case as well, but federal appeals judges are considering not allowing the Justice Department to drop the charges.
The democratic value at play here is equal justice under the law — a person should not get unusually lenient treatment by the Justice Department if he or she is an ally of the president’s. Arguably, previous presidents have violated this value — for example, as he was leaving office, Bill Clinton pardoned the ex-husband of a major Democratic Party donor.
Independence of law enforcement
The most alarming potential explanation of what happened to Berman is that Barr tried to fire him specifically for investigating Giuliani. A milder version may be that the Southern District, under Berman’s leadership, demonstrated that it did not care about Trump’s preferences and would investigate whichever crimes it deemed important, no matter the potential ramifications for Trump. Two years ago, the Southern District persuaded onetime Trump lawyer Michael Cohen to plead guilty to a number of crimes, including violating campaign finance law, with Cohen suggesting his illegal behavior came at Trump’s behest. (It’s worth noting that Berman recused himself from that case.)
So Barr and Trump may consider Berman insufficiently loyal to their interests and fear he would bring charges that would reflect badly on Trump or Republicans, even if Berman didn’t bring forward a case clearly linked to the president.
Indeed, the Trump administration has a long record of demoting, reassigning, firing or otherwise sidelining law enforcement officials who show independence from the White House: Comey, former FBI general counsel James Baker, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Trump or his allies often hinted that Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller would be fired during their tenures as deputy attorney general and DOJ special counsel, respectively, in a manner seemingly designed to intimidate them. Trump has also recently complained about current FBI Director Christopher Wray and hinted that he could be fired.
And Barr has implied that the Justice Department will seek to bring charges against those involved with initiating the investigations of the Trump campaign’s connections to Russia — in effect, criminalizing efforts that bring scrutiny to the president.
Again, it is not unprecedented for presidents to replace law enforcement officials. Presidents in both parties traditionally replace with their own choices all the U.S. attorneys appointed by the previous administration, which often results in a wide partisan swap. As president, Clinton fired the FBI director, and most notably, in what came to be known as the “Saturday Night Massacre,” then-President Richard Nixon purged the senior leadership of the Justice Department for refusing to quash an investigation of him — he was forced to resign in part because of these moves.
The democratic value at stake here is the independence of law enforcement. That ideal, that their decisions should be divorced from politics, is hard to maintain if key law enforcement officials are constantly worried about being fired by the president, attorney general or anyone else for political reasons.
Accountability and oversight
It’s worth thinking about the initial bid to fire Berman on Friday night, because that is in part what made this move so problematic at first glance. It appeared to be an attempt by Barr and Trump to install at the top of an important law enforcement agency (the Southern District of New York) someone more likely to be friendly to their interests. Generally, when a political appointee like a U.S. attorney leaves, he or she is replaced by the No. 2 person in that office, usually a career civil service employee not formally aligned with either party. But on Friday Barr announced that Berman would be temporarily replaced by Craig Carpenito, a U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey, a close ally of former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, another Trump loyalist.
This is a pattern for Trump: removing the leaders of various government agencies or departments, ignoring normal succession procedures and passing over the people who would normally step in, and instead replacing them with Trump allies. The temporary replacement’s role is essentially to do Trump’s bidding in a way that the removed person would not. The most prominent example of this was when, after the 2018 midterm elections, Trump replaced Sessions with his chief of staff at the time, Matt Whitaker. Often, as in the case of Berman, Trump has removed someone appointed in a process he did not totally control (usually Senate confirmation — in Berman’s case, he was installed by the judges of the Southern District) with someone chosen solely by Trump for that particular role.
Trump’s controlling the executive branch in this way — minimizing the oversight of other branches — weakens checks on his executive power. In this instance, however, Berman’s own chief deputy, Audrey Strauss, stepped into the role.
That said, that Carpenito never actually made it into Berman’s former position doesn’t mean the move wasn’t still problematic in terms of oversight. In indicting one Trump lawyer (Cohen) and investigating another (Giuliani), the Southern District under Berman’s leadership was effectively conducting oversight of the president, since Giuliani in particular was basically executing Trump’s policy goals with Ukraine (pressuring Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden). Berman’s firing suggests Trump was unhappy with that oversight and wants to limit it.
Trump’s attempts to stop oversight of his policy moves is also part of a pattern. He has essentially refused to comply with any congressional investigations into his administration. And over the past few months, he has fired a number of the inspectors general at federal agencies, the people formally charged with scrutinizing the executive branch. The intelligence community inspector general played a key role in bringing forward the whistleblower’s complaints about the Trump administration’s dealings with Ukraine, leading to the president’s impeachment. Trump seems to now view all inspectors general as threats to his administration.
The democratic value at play here is oversight of the executive branch. The Senate’s role in confirming executive branch appointees and the presence of inspectors general are ways in which a president in theory is not able to do whatever he wants with the executive branch. Trump seems unwilling to abide by these constraints. Having his personal lawyer conduct foreign policy puts that person out of the purview of the Senate or inspectors general. Firing the U.S. attorney whose office was investigating the president’s lawyer signals that the president’s lawyer and the sphere of policy he is implementing is off limits.
Media and public scrutiny
The Berman firing, like the removals of several inspectors general, was done on a Friday night. This is not the most important of these violations of democratic values. Previous presidents — and plenty of other people outside of politics, for that matter — “dump” bad news on Friday nights, hoping it will get less media coverage as journalists take off for the weekend.
That said, these firings are important for the reasons I have laid out above. Trump’s seeming desire to obscure them suggests he wants to avoid careful examination of decisions that he no doubt is aware will be controversial.
Media and public scrutiny of presidential decisions is a core democratic value as well, even if other presidents have also neglected to maintain it.
And, again, this is a pattern for Trump. In the past few weeks, he and his aides have sought to get CNN to retract — and apologize for — a poll showing Trump trailing Biden and to block the publication of former National Security Adviser John Bolton’s book, which is critical of Trump. Presidents often complain about polls and dislike books critical of them but Trump’s actions go beyond those more traditional objections.
We recently wrote about how the administration’s decision to use chemical agents and rubber bullets on protesters outside the White House violated several democratic values. Key officials involved in that incident now seem to regret it. The firing of Berman may also backfire on Trump. It could embolden more people, including some Republicans, to start criticizing the president for politicizing law enforcement decisions.
Berman’s decision to resist his firing and administration officials’ distancing themselves from the White House protest incident suggest something else that should worry Trump: People in his administration may be reading and believing polls showing him trailing Biden, thinking Trump is likely to lose reelection in November and becoming more unwilling to do questionable things to stay in good standing with a man who may not be president come January.
CORRECTION (June 22, 2020, 8:37 a.m.) An earlier version of this article incorrectly described the events that preceded former President Richard Nixon’s resignation. The House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment against Nixon amid the Watergate scandal, but he resigned before the full House held an impeachment vote. Nixon was not impeached by the full House of Representatives.
CORRECTION (JUNE 23, 2020, 7:05 a.m.) An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that Rod Rosenstein had served as deputy director of the FBI under President Trump. Rosenstein was the deputy attorney general.
Do you buy that Trump can ride a midwest path to victory in 2020?


fivethirthyeight--2020-06-19--Who Will Be First To Get A COVID-19 Vaccine?

Creating a vaccine for COVID-19 is just the first step .
Policy makers and manufacturers then need to make a @ @ @ @ @ week on PODCAST-19 , we ’ re asking who will be first in line for @ @ @ @ @ do we make sure it ’ s eventually available to everyone ?
Don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ of PODCAST-19 , FiveThirtyEight ’ s weekly look at what we know — and what @ @ @ @ @ t know — about COVID-19 ?
Subscribe on your favorite podcasting app !
For example @ @ @ @ @ to do it on Apple Podcasts and Spotify .

Creating a vaccine for COVID-19 is just the first step. Policy makers and manufacturers then need to make a lot of it. This week on PODCAST-19, we’re asking who will be first in line for the immunization. And how do we make sure it’s eventually available to everyone?
Don’t want to miss an episode of PODCAST-19, FiveThirtyEight’s weekly look at what we know — and what we know we don’t know — about COVID-19? Subscribe on your favorite podcasting app! For example, here’s where to do it on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.


fivethirthyeight--2020-06-19--The Economy Is A Mess. So Why Isn’t The Stock Market?

We ’ ve said it before : The stock market is not the economy .
Usually , this simply means that fluctuations in the markets may have little to no real bearing on the underlying realities we think of as making up the economy .
Or that there are many important structural factors that make the markets ’ outlook different from how ordinary citizens view the country ’ s overall economic health .
But now , those usual bromides risk wildly understating the disconnect .
In the time of COVID-19 , the stock market couldn ’ t be more divorced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ situation .
Although the S & P 500 tumbled sharply in March , as the coronavirus shut down large swaths of the economy , it had made back almost all of its losses by the first week of June — before dipping again and then quickly rebounding yet again .
Even beyond the markets , there has been some data to suggest that the worst fears about the economy in late March and April were too pessimistic .
( Take May ’ s jobs report , for instance , which showed a surprising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a classification problem with laid-off workers . )
But the overall state of unemployment is still quite bad by historical standards , which mirrors numerous important economic indicators that are almost uniformly down — to a significant degree — from last summer : Obviously , not every core indicator has dropped off a cliff in the face of this recession .
Inflation , as measured by the sticky-price consumer price index ( excluding ever-volatile food and energy expenditures ) , has dipped some since February — from 2.8 percent year-over-year to 2.1 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ range .
New building permits ( a sign of construction investment and activity ) have rebounded from an initial dip and are almost back at last year ’ s level .
And measures of credit risk , such as the TED spread , have stabilized , indicating a low implied risk of commercial-bank defaults .
But employment rates , oil prices , consumer confidence and many other measures paint a clear recessionary picture .
Even corporate earnings — which in theory help dictate the prices of shares on the market — suffered their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is what has driven forward-looking price-earnings ratio forecasts for the S & P skyward . )
And yet stock indices continue to rebound much faster than the rest of the economy .
Why ?
As is usually the case in economics , it ’ s complicated — and everyone has a pet theory .
A few include the idea that investors are betting on a quick “ V-shaped ” recovery ( rather than the longer , slower “ swoosh ” shape many economists have predicted ) and banking on corporate profits eventually rebounding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( And why not ?
The Federal Reserve ’ s actions have made it clear this is a priority . )
Some prominent tech companies at the top of the market ( such as Microsoft , Apple and Alphabet ) actually have reason to think the pandemic could shift business in their favor , with so much emphasis placed on digital shopping , communication and entertainment .
And the rise of algorithm-based trading has insulated markets somewhat from the shocks that could be created by big news events , such as political developments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sweeping across the country , since dispassionate algorithms don ’ t get worried or scared by the news the way humans do .
But Tara Sinclair , an economics professor at George Washington University and a senior fellow at the Indeed Hiring Lab , told me she thinks the markets are also providing a better place for wealthy people to stash their money than alternatives like bonds or banks .
“ People , particularly the rich , have cut back their spending , so they need to park their funds somewhere like the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are rock bottom ) , ” she said in an email .
“ Inequality can mean that even with millions out of work , there might still be a glut of funds from the high-earning and/or high-wealth individuals.
” As Paul Krugman of The New York Times pointed out relatively early in the crisis , the yield on Treasury bonds is so low ( see the chart above ) that stocks are an attractive option — even in the midst of a recession caused by a once-in-a-generation pandemic .
“ Recent stock market @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a savings glut rather than optimism on the future value of companies , ” Sinclair told me .
“ It may be more about the S & P 500 being better than anywhere else to put funds rather than about actual optimism.
” That doesn ’ t necessarily mean there ’ s no optimism driving investors ’ actions , though .
“ Maybe ( hopefully ? )
people are investing for the longer term and are viewing the current economic situation as substantially temporary , ” Sinclair wrote .
And it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the markets are not totally separate from the virus that continues to afflict every corner of the world .
When news of the coronavirus first hit , the VIX — a measure of market volatility perhaps better known as the “ fear index ” — spiked to 82.7 , its highest level ever .
( The previous high was 80.9 , which it hit in November 2008 , when the Great Recession sparked a massive selloff . )
News of a COVID-19 resurgence earlier this month caused the VIX to surge to 40.8 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of recessions , the VIX usually floats between 10 and 20 .
Despite the rising indices , uncertainty rules the stock market right now .
What that means down the line is anybody ’ s guess .
But for now , Wall Street has shown a shocking amount of resilience even as almost every other economic indicator has tanked .
If nothing else , let this be the final confirmation that , once and for all , the stock market is not the economy .

We’ve said it before: The stock market is not the economy.
Usually, this simply means that fluctuations in the markets may have little to no real bearing on the underlying realities we think of as making up the economy. Or that there are many important structural factors that make the markets’ outlook different from how ordinary citizens view the country’s overall economic health.
But now, those usual bromides risk wildly understating the disconnect. In the time of COVID-19, the stock market couldn’t be more divorced from the United States’ broader economic situation. Although the S&P 500 tumbled sharply in March, as the coronavirus shut down large swaths of the economy, it had made back almost all of its losses by the first week of June — before dipping again and then quickly rebounding yet again.
Even beyond the markets, there has been some data to suggest that the worst fears about the economy in late March and April were too pessimistic. (Take May’s jobs report, for instance, which showed a surprising decline in unemployment even after accounting for a classification problem with laid-off workers.) But the overall state of unemployment is still quite bad by historical standards, which mirrors numerous important economic indicators that are almost uniformly down — to a significant degree — from last summer:
Obviously, not every core indicator has dropped off a cliff in the face of this recession. Inflation, as measured by the sticky-price consumer price index (excluding ever-volatile food and energy expenditures), has dipped some since February — from 2.8 percent year-over-year to 2.1 percent — but remains in a relatively normal range. New building permits (a sign of construction investment and activity) have rebounded from an initial dip and are almost back at last year’s level. And measures of credit risk, such as the TED spread, have stabilized, indicating a low implied risk of commercial-bank defaults.
But employment rates, oil prices, consumer confidence and many other measures paint a clear recessionary picture. Even corporate earnings — which in theory help dictate the prices of shares on the market — suffered their worst quarter since 2008. (This is what has driven forward-looking price-earnings ratio forecasts for the S&P skyward.)
And yet stock indices continue to rebound much faster than the rest of the economy.
Why? As is usually the case in economics, it’s complicated — and everyone has a pet theory. A few include the idea that investors are betting on a quick “V-shaped” recovery (rather than the longer, slower “swoosh” shape many economists have predicted) and banking on corporate profits eventually rebounding in the medium and long run. (And why not? The Federal Reserve’s actions have made it clear this is a priority.)
Some prominent tech companies at the top of the market (such as Microsoft, Apple and Alphabet) actually have reason to think the pandemic could shift business in their favor, with so much emphasis placed on digital shopping, communication and entertainment. And the rise of algorithm-based trading has insulated markets somewhat from the shocks that could be created by big news events, such as political developments or the protests against racial injustice currently sweeping across the country, since dispassionate algorithms don’t get worried or scared by the news the way humans do.
But Tara Sinclair, an economics professor at George Washington University and a senior fellow at the Indeed Hiring Lab, told me she thinks the markets are also providing a better place for wealthy people to stash their money than alternatives like bonds or banks.
“People, particularly the rich, have cut back their spending, so they need to park their funds somewhere like the stock market (especially since interest rates are rock bottom),” she said in an email. “Inequality can mean that even with millions out of work, there might still be a glut of funds from the high-earning and/or high-wealth individuals.”
As Paul Krugman of The New York Times pointed out relatively early in the crisis, the yield on Treasury bonds is so low (see the chart above) that stocks are an attractive option — even in the midst of a recession caused by a once-in-a-generation pandemic.
“Recent stock market performance could be more about something like a savings glut rather than optimism on the future value of companies,” Sinclair told me. “It may be more about the S&P 500 being better than anywhere else to put funds rather than about actual optimism.”
That doesn’t necessarily mean there’s no optimism driving investors’ actions, though. “Maybe (hopefully?) people are investing for the longer term and are viewing the current economic situation as substantially temporary,” Sinclair wrote.
And it’s worth noting that, despite everything, the markets are not totally separate from the virus that continues to afflict every corner of the world.
When news of the coronavirus first hit, the VIX — a measure of market volatility perhaps better known as the “fear index” — spiked to 82.7, its highest level ever. (The previous high was 80.9, which it hit in November 2008, when the Great Recession sparked a massive selloff.) News of a COVID-19 resurgence earlier this month caused the VIX to surge to 40.8, another abnormally high number — outside of recessions, the VIX usually floats between 10 and 20. Despite the rising indices, uncertainty rules the stock market right now.
What that means down the line is anybody’s guess. But for now, Wall Street has shown a shocking amount of resilience even as almost every other economic indicator has tanked. If nothing else, let this be the final confirmation that, once and for all, the stock market is not the economy.
Subscribe to our coronavirus podcast, PODCAST-19


fivethirthyeight--2020-06-19--More People Are Recognizing Juneteenth In 2020

During this summer of protests over police violence against Black people , more Americans are commemorating Juneteenth .
In this @ @ @ @ @ America , ” learn about what this day represents , and which states and companies @ @ @ @ @ paid holiday .

During this summer of protests over police violence against Black people, more Americans are commemorating Juneteenth. In this video from “Good Morning America,” learn about what this day represents, and which states and companies are recognizing it as a paid holiday.