fivethirthyeight--2020-11-12--Americans Were Primed To Believe The Current Onslaught Of Disinformation

It started with a drizzle but quickly turned into a downpour : Disinformation about the election , and in particular unfounded claims of election fraud , has flooded the internet over the past week .
And Americans were primed to believe it .
Dozens of false claims shared on social media have kept fact-checkers busy and partisans energized .
Pro-Trump Facebook groups that dispute the election results have attracted tens of thousands of users and become a lively marketplace for exchanging disinformation ( until the social media network shuts them down ) .
And President Trump ’ s supporters have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rail against what they perceive to be election fraud .
Meanwhile , polls show a substantial percentage of the population , particularly Republicans , believe ( without evidence ) that voter fraud has occurred .
According to a poll from YouGov and The Economist conducted Nov. 8-10 among registered voters , 82 percent of Republicans said they did not believe that Joe Biden had legitimately won the presidential election , even though he has .
This followed a Nov. 7 YouGov poll among registered voters that found 79 percent of Republicans believed voter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the election .
Similarly , in a Politico/Morning Consult poll conducted Nov. 6-9 among registered voters , 70 percent of Republicans said they didn ’ t believe the 2020 election was free and fair — double the 35 percent of Republicans who answered that way in a poll conducted before the election .
To a certain extent , disinformation about the results of the election was expected .
Experts have been warning about it for weeks .
“ But I do think the volume of the garbage and the inability of social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stop the undermining of results of the election is really concerning , ” said Craig Silverman , a journalist at BuzzFeed News who has been tracking disinformation throughout the election .
“ When it became very clear that Trump wasn ’ t going to concede , the machinery of justifying that decision has really kicked into high gear .
I feel like today it was as bad as it was leading up to Election Day.
” A number of factors may have primed the American public to seek out , believe and share @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s monthslong allegations of impending fraud , the collective stress and anxiety caused by the pandemic , and the rare delay in learning election results all combined to create a perfect storm of disinformation .
Even before he was president , Trump was alleging election fraud without producing evidence .
During his 2016 campaign he claimed the election was “ rigged ” in favor of Clinton , predicted widespread voter fraud and announced he would accept the results of the election only if he won .
Over the past year , he has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , seizing in particular on mail-in voting , which he maintained ( again without evidence ) would lead to fraud .
Whether Trump realized it or not , he was engaging in something academics call priming .
“ Priming is where an external source , a sender of information , is trying to prime people to think a certain way , ” said Mark Whitmore , a professor of management and information systems at Kent State University who has studied misinformation and cognitive bias .
“ One of the ways in which priming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happens , people have a greater tendency to think along the lines of whatever party they feel they belong to.
” When people are already primed to think about a topic in a certain way , it can lead them to seek out information that confirms their existing beliefs .
A study published in 2016 , for example , primed participants to consider either their political views or personal views on health care before evaluating factual statements about the Affordable Care Act , or “ Obamacare.
” The researchers found that when participants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leanings , Democrats were more likely to evaluate positive outcomes of the ACA as based on strong evidence , and Republicans were more likely to evaluate those same outcomes as based on weak evidence .
But when primed to consider their personal views on health care , the gulf between the two groups narrowed .
There ’ s also the illusory truth effect : a phenomenon in which the more times people are exposed to an idea , the more likely they are to perceive it as true , regardless of political leanings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the University of Regina in Saskatchewan , has found the illusory truth effect can lead people to be more likely to believe disinformation .
That said , this is probably not the only thing influencing so many people to seek out disinformation around the election , according to Pennycook .
“ I don ’ t think you need to know about illusory truth to be able to explain that the things Trump has said made people ready to accept that fraud was going to happen in the election , ” Pennycook said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that , but for some people , if they only heard Trump say it once , that would probably be enough.
” 2020 has not been a year filled with certainty .
The COVID-19 pandemic upended our way of life , not to mention the economy , and shifted the way the election was executed .
All these factors have contributed to a heightened level of stress and anxiety about the direction of the country in the lead-up to the election .
Some of this anxiety was captured in polling : In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mid-October , 57 percent of likely voters said they were “ very concerned ” that the next generation would be worse off than their own , and 54 percent said they were “ very concerned ” that America would “ no longer [ be ] a democracy.
” When Trump lost , his supporters likely grew more anxious .
“ People are anxious , and so they ’ re looking for answers — and some of those answers [ in this case ] are provided by disinformation , ” said Oliver Robinson , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mental Health Group ’ s Anxiety Lab at University College London .
It ’ s natural to want to seek out more information when facing uncertainty .
( I ’ m assuming that ’ s why many of you have been keeping up with our live blogs . )
But when you combine that uncertainty and quest for answers with another cognitive bias , confirmation bias , you create an opportunity for disinformation to seep in , according to Kathleen Hall Jamieson , a professor at the University of Pennsylvania ’ s Annenberg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve been primed to believe the election was going to be riddled with fraud , and are anxious about the uncertainty of the results , you might seek out information confirming that belief .
So far , all of that information has turned out to be meritless , but there ’ s plenty of it , and a lot of it is very persuasive .
Take a viral video shared by the president ’ s son Eric Trump that purportedly showed someone burning ballots marked for his father .
The video has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proven to be sample ballots , as they lacked the bar code that official ballots have along the edge — but people continue to share it online as “ evidence ” of supposed voter fraud .
“ Different forms of misinformation have different kinds of effects , ” said Jamieson .
“ The video of the supposed burned ballots has a persuasive power that a simple verbal assertion would not have because we tend to trust what we see.
” But because of a growing distrust of the media , people often dismiss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many of the experts I spoke to said some voters will not see through the disinformation until Trump and other leading Republicans accept the election results .
Until then , the deluge is likely to continue .
Said BuzzFeed ’ s Silverman , “ The results aren ’ t going to be certified in a lot of the key states until later in November , so we could really continue to have weeks of complete ridiculousness and dangerous , democracy-undermining disinformation.
” Biden is set to be president .
What comes next ?
@ @ @ @

It started with a drizzle but quickly turned into a downpour: Disinformation about the election, and in particular unfounded claims of election fraud, has flooded the internet over the past week. And Americans were primed to believe it.
Dozens of false claims shared on social media have kept fact-checkers busy and partisans energized. Pro-Trump Facebook groups that dispute the election results have attracted tens of thousands of users and become a lively marketplace for exchanging disinformation (until the social media network shuts them down). And President Trump’s supporters have shown up in person as well to rail against what they perceive to be election fraud.
What Trump revealed about America | FiveThirtyEight
Meanwhile, polls show a substantial percentage of the population, particularly Republicans, believe (without evidence) that voter fraud has occurred. According to a poll from YouGov and The Economist conducted Nov. 8-10 among registered voters, 82 percent of Republicans said they did not believe that Joe Biden had legitimately won the presidential election, even though he has. This followed a Nov. 7 YouGov poll among registered voters that found 79 percent of Republicans believed voter fraud had occurred and affected the outcome of the election. Similarly, in a Politico/Morning Consult poll conducted Nov. 6-9 among registered voters, 70 percent of Republicans said they didn’t believe the 2020 election was free and fair — double the 35 percent of Republicans who answered that way in a poll conducted before the election.
[Related: How Trump Changed America ]
To a certain extent, disinformation about the results of the election was expected. Experts have been warning about it for weeks. “But I do think the volume of the garbage and the inability of social media platforms to have effective means to stop the undermining of results of the election is really concerning,” said Craig Silverman, a journalist at BuzzFeed News who has been tracking disinformation throughout the election. “When it became very clear that Trump wasn’t going to concede, the machinery of justifying that decision has really kicked into high gear. I feel like today it was as bad as it was leading up to Election Day.”
A number of factors may have primed the American public to seek out, believe and share disinformation since Election Day. Trump’s monthslong allegations of impending fraud, the collective stress and anxiety caused by the pandemic, and the rare delay in learning election results all combined to create a perfect storm of disinformation.
Trump set the stage
Even before he was president, Trump was alleging election fraud without producing evidence. During his 2016 campaign he claimed the election was “rigged” in favor of Clinton, predicted widespread voter fraud and announced he would accept the results of the election only if he won. Over the past year, he has reiterated many of the same baseless assertions, seizing in particular on mail-in voting, which he maintained (again without evidence) would lead to fraud.
Whether Trump realized it or not, he was engaging in something academics call priming.
“Priming is where an external source, a sender of information, is trying to prime people to think a certain way,” said Mark Whitmore, a professor of management and information systems at Kent State University who has studied misinformation and cognitive bias. “One of the ways in which priming occurs is through partisanship. When that happens, people have a greater tendency to think along the lines of whatever party they feel they belong to.”
When people are already primed to think about a topic in a certain way, it can lead them to seek out information that confirms their existing beliefs. A study published in 2016, for example, primed participants to consider either their political views or personal views on health care before evaluating factual statements about the Affordable Care Act, or “Obamacare.” The researchers found that when participants were primed to think about their partisan leanings, Democrats were more likely to evaluate positive outcomes of the ACA as based on strong evidence, and Republicans were more likely to evaluate those same outcomes as based on weak evidence. But when primed to consider their personal views on health care, the gulf between the two groups narrowed.
There’s also the illusory truth effect: a phenomenon in which the more times people are exposed to an idea, the more likely they are to perceive it as true, regardless of political leanings. Gordon Pennycook, a behavioral scientist at the University of Regina in Saskatchewan, has found the illusory truth effect can lead people to be more likely to believe disinformation. That said, this is probably not the only thing influencing so many people to seek out disinformation around the election, according to Pennycook.
“I don’t think you need to know about illusory truth to be able to explain that the things Trump has said made people ready to accept that fraud was going to happen in the election,” Pennycook said. “Illusory truth is one aspect of that, but for some people, if they only heard Trump say it once, that would probably be enough.”
The pandemic cranked up anxiety levels
2020 has not been a year filled with certainty. The COVID-19 pandemic upended our way of life, not to mention the economy, and shifted the way the election was executed. All these factors have contributed to a heightened level of stress and anxiety about the direction of the country in the lead-up to the election. Some of this anxiety was captured in polling: In a New York Times/Siena College poll from mid-October, 57 percent of likely voters said they were “very concerned” that the next generation would be worse off than their own, and 54 percent said they were “very concerned” that America would “no longer [be] a democracy.” When Trump lost, his supporters likely grew more anxious.
“People are anxious, and so they’re looking for answers — and some of those answers [in this case] are provided by disinformation,” said Oliver Robinson, a neuroscientist who runs the Neuroscience and Mental Health Group’s Anxiety Lab at University College London.
It’s natural to want to seek out more information when facing uncertainty. (I’m assuming that’s why many of you have been keeping up with our live blogs.) But when you combine that uncertainty and quest for answers with another cognitive bias, confirmation bias, you create an opportunity for disinformation to seep in, according to Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication. If you’ve been primed to believe the election was going to be riddled with fraud, and are anxious about the uncertainty of the results, you might seek out information confirming that belief. So far, all of that information has turned out to be meritless, but there’s plenty of it, and a lot of it is very persuasive.
[What To Make Of Pfizer’s Big Vaccine Announcement]
Take a viral video shared by the president’s son Eric Trump that purportedly showed someone burning ballots marked for his father. The video has been debunked — the papers in question were proven to be sample ballots, as they lacked the bar code that official ballots have along the edge — but people continue to share it online as “evidence” of supposed voter fraud.
“Different forms of misinformation have different kinds of effects,” said Jamieson. “The video of the supposed burned ballots has a persuasive power that a simple verbal assertion would not have because we tend to trust what we see.”
But because of a growing distrust of the media, people often dismiss fact-checks as well. In fact, many of the experts I spoke to said some voters will not see through the disinformation until Trump and other leading Republicans accept the election results. Until then, the deluge is likely to continue.
Said BuzzFeed’s Silverman, “The results aren’t going to be certified in a lot of the key states until later in November, so we could really continue to have weeks of complete ridiculousness and dangerous, democracy-undermining disinformation.”
Biden is set to be president. What comes next? | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast


fivethirthyeight--2020-11-12--The Steelers And Bills Have Been Historically Lucky So Far. The Chargers … Have Not.

Halfway through the 2020 NFL season , we have a decent idea about who the best and worst teams are — even if most of this year ’ s contenders have flaws that could keep them from reaching their full potential in the playoffs .
But not everything is always what it seems in a half-season of football .
Some of this year ’ s teams are winning a lot more ( or less ) than their underlying numbers say they should , which could give us clues about what the rest of the season may hold .
One way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been is to compare its record to what we would predict based on its points scored and allowed — also known as the Pythagorean expectation .
Some teams , like this year ’ s Ravens , have won exactly as many games as we would expect from their point differential .
But when a team wins more than the formula says it “ should have , ” that usually means it won an unusual number of toss-up games , which may not be sustainable going forward .
So far in 2020 , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in terms of team wins and losses being out of sync with Pythagorean records .
On the high side , the Pittsburgh Steelers are a perfect 8-0 despite a .710 Pythagorean mark — which would translate to only 5.7 wins instead of eight .
Among all 31 teams to have started 8-0 since 1960 , the 2020 Steelers have the fourth-worst Pythagorean record , ahead of only the 2006 Indianapolis Colts , 2015 Carolina Panthers and 1990 San Francisco 49ers : Obviously , you ’ d rather be one of the worst 8-0 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say , 4-4 teams .
On a certain level , it doesn ’ t matter how you get those eight wins , just that you got them .
But that 2.3-win gap between Pittsburgh ’ s actual and expected wins is the seventh-biggest gap through eight games for any team since 1960 .
And 2020 ’ s second-luckiest team by Pythagorean record is only fractionally behind : The Buffalo Bills rank ninth on the post-1960 list through nine games , with a gap of 2.3 wins between their actual 7-2 record and expected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Bills are winning more than their scoring margins would predict doesn ’ t mean that they ’ re destined to collapse in the second half of the season .
Indeed , our forecast thinks both teams are more than 90 percent likely to make the playoffs , ranking both among the top eight Super Bowl contenders by championship probability .
( The Bills ’ return to glory also remains one of the best storylines of 2020 . )
But it ’ s worth watching them for signs of regression after they won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the first half of the schedule .
Conversely , we might also expect better things going forward from the New York Jets , Atlanta Falcons , Jacksonville Jaguars and Los Angeles Chargers .
Yes , the Falcons and Chargers have developed an almost mythical ability to lose winnable games in their closing moments .
According to the Pythagorean expectation , though , both Atlanta and L.A. “ should ” be around .500 but are running multiple wins behind that pace .
Neither the Chargers nor the Falcons are quite as historic an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the other end of the spectrum .
Through nine games , Atlanta has the 131st-largest shortfall between actual and predicted record since 1960 , and Los Angeles ranks 45th through eight .
There are also limits to how much we can feel like these teams have been wronged by the football gods .
The Chargers and Falcons each rank no higher than 20th leaguewide in schedule-adjusted expected points added ( EPA ) per game , so it ’ s not like their mediocre records are hiding great teams underneath .
But individually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rising in the ranks of the historically unlucky , particularly after throwing what appeared to be a game-winning touchdown pass against the Raiders on Sunday — only to have it overturned on replay after time had expired .
Just seven starts into his NFL career , Herbert is off to a pretty incredible rookie season , with a passer rating of 104.7 ( ninth-best in the league ) and more than 300 passing yards per game .
According to our QB Elo metric , Herbert is averaging a performance 85 Elo points better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which ranks sixth in the NFL .
Normally , we would associate that level of QB play with team success .
And if we run a logistic regression between QB Elo over average and whether the QB ’ s team won a given game ( holding other factors , such as the opposing QB ’ s performance , constant ) — essentially creating an updated , Elo-based version of what I used to call the “ Rivers Index , ” — we would expect Herbert to have 4.8 wins as a starter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at 1-6 , Herbert has the biggest shortfall ( -3.8 wins ) of any QB in football this season according to the Rivers Index 2.0 , easily topping Houston ’ s Deshaun Watson ( -2.8 wins ) for the No .
1 spot .
In fact , only five QBs since 1960 have produced a bigger Rivers Index shortfall over their team ’ s first eight games of a season : This franchise is no stranger to doing less with more .
Secret Base ’ s Jon Bois and Alex Rubenstein did a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who somehow missed the playoffs despite leading the league in both total yards gained and fewest yards allowed .
( Their special teams unit was historically horrible , which helps explain the disconnect . )
This Chargers team also has a notably bad special-teams corps , so in that sense history is repeating itself , and the rest has come down to back-breaking late penalties and other painful items on the “ how to lose close games ” laundry list .
Just like the Steelers and Bills are under the microscope for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep an eye on the Chargers and Falcons to eventually start winning those toss-up contests late in the season .
Or , who knows ?
Maybe they can just keep finding new ways to stay at the bottom of the Pythagorean disappointment rankings .
Looking ahead : Last time around , Elo ’ s game of the week — Packers versus 49ers — didn ’ t really end up being competitive at all .
( Whoops ! )
This week ’ s top Elo game — Rams versus Seahawks — should be better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are at full strength ( and neither club is fighting a COVID-19 outbreak ) .
Both teams are in solid playoff position , though each lost in its last outing , calling into question their status as true contenders : Los Angeles was dealt a double-digit loss by the Dolphins ’ dominating defense , while Seattle ’ s own D gave up 44 points at home to the Bills .
Rams QB Jared Goff will try to exploit that weakness and break out of his recent slump , though the more compelling matchup @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 4 in EPA ) versus Russell Wilson and the Seahawks offense ( also No .
4 in EPA ) .
Seattle is the better team according to Elo , but with L.A. at home , we see a true 50-50 toss-up .
Elo ’ s spread : Pick- ’ em

Halfway through the 2020 NFL season, we have a decent idea about who the best and worst teams are — even if most of this year’s contenders have flaws that could keep them from reaching their full potential in the playoffs. But not everything is always what it seems in a half-season of football. Some of this year’s teams are winning a lot more (or less) than their underlying numbers say they should, which could give us clues about what the rest of the season may hold.
One way to judge how lucky a team has been is to compare its record to what we would predict based on its points scored and allowed — also known as the Pythagorean expectation. Some teams, like this year’s Ravens, have won exactly as many games as we would expect from their point differential. But when a team wins more than the formula says it “should have,” that usually means it won an unusual number of toss-up games, which may not be sustainable going forward.
[Related: Did The Saints And Bills Show The Bucs And Seahawks Who The Real Contenders Are?]
So far in 2020, we’ve seen a few notable outliers in terms of team wins and losses being out of sync with Pythagorean records. On the high side, the Pittsburgh Steelers are a perfect 8-0 despite a .710 Pythagorean mark — which would translate to only 5.7 wins instead of eight. Among all 31 teams to have started 8-0 since 1960, the 2020 Steelers have the fourth-worst Pythagorean record, ahead of only the 2006 Indianapolis Colts, 2015 Carolina Panthers and 1990 San Francisco 49ers:
The luckiest 8-0 teams? Among NFL teams that started 8-0 since 1960, largest gaps between actual and expected record (based on the Pythagorean expectation*) Points Year Team Record Scored Allowed Pythag. W Diff. vs Exp. 2006 Colts 8-0 232 173 5.3 +2.7 2015 Panthers 8-0 228 165 5.5 +2.5 1990 49ers 8-0 198 138 5.6 +2.4 2020 Steelers 8-0 235 161 5.7 +2.3 2011 Packers 8-0 275 179 5.9 +2.1 2012 Falcons 8-0 220 143 5.9 +2.1 2015 Bengals 8-0 229 142 6.1 +1.9 2018 Rams 8-0 264 155 6.2 +1.8 1998 Broncos 8-0 273 159 6.3 +1.7 2009 Saints 8-0 303 174 6.3 +1.7 *The Pythagorean expectation converts a team’s points scored and allowed into an expected W-L record. Source: Pro-Football-Reference.com
Obviously, you’d rather be one of the worst 8-0 teams than one of the best, say, 4-4 teams. On a certain level, it doesn’t matter how you get those eight wins, just that you got them. But that 2.3-win gap between Pittsburgh’s actual and expected wins is the seventh-biggest gap through eight games for any team since 1960. And 2020’s second-luckiest team by Pythagorean record is only fractionally behind: The Buffalo Bills rank ninth on the post-1960 list through nine games, with a gap of 2.3 wins between their actual 7-2 record and expected 4.7-win mark.
Who’s winning more than their margins predict? 2020 NFL teams by gap between actual wins and wins predicted by the Pythagorean expectation Wins Wins Team Actual Pythag Diff Team Actual Pythag Diff PIT 8.0 5.7 +2.3 ARI 5.0 5.2 -0.2 BUF 7.0 4.7 +2.3 IND 5.0 5.2 -0.2 CLE 5.0 3.3 +1.7 NE 3.0 3.3 -0.3 SEA 6.0 4.6 +1.4 MIA 5.0 5.5 -0.5 TEN 6.0 4.7 +1.3 MIN 3.0 3.6 -0.6 KC 8.0 6.7 +1.3 DAL 2.0 2.7 -0.7 OAK 5.0 3.8 +1.2 SF 4.0 4.9 -0.9 NO 6.0 4.9 +1.1 HOU 2.0 3.0 -1.0 GB 6.0 5.0 +1.0 CIN 2.5 3.5 -1.0 CHI 5.0 4.2 +0.8 WSH 2.0 3.0 -1.0 TB 6.0 5.6 +0.4 CAR 3.0 4.1 -1.1 DEN 3.0 3.0 +0.0 NYG 2.0 3.1 -1.1 BAL 6.0 6.0 +0.0 NYJ 0.0 1.2 -1.2 PHI 3.5 3.5 +0.0 ATL 3.0 4.3 -1.3 DET 3.0 3.1 -0.1 JAX 1.0 2.5 -1.5 LAR 5.0 5.1 -0.1 LAC 2.0 3.8 -1.8 Source: Pro-Football-Reference.com
Just because the Steelers and Bills are winning more than their scoring margins would predict doesn’t mean that they’re destined to collapse in the second half of the season. Indeed, our forecast thinks both teams are more than 90 percent likely to make the playoffs, ranking both among the top eight Super Bowl contenders by championship probability. (The Bills’ return to glory also remains one of the best storylines of 2020.) But it’s worth watching them for signs of regression after they won more than their share of close games in the first half of the schedule.
Conversely, we might also expect better things going forward from the New York Jets, Atlanta Falcons, Jacksonville Jaguars and Los Angeles Chargers. Yes, the Falcons and Chargers have developed an almost mythical ability to lose winnable games in their closing moments. According to the Pythagorean expectation, though, both Atlanta and L.A. “should” be around .500 but are running multiple wins behind that pace.
Neither the Chargers nor the Falcons are quite as historic an outlier as the Steelers or Bills are at the other end of the spectrum. Through nine games, Atlanta has the 131st-largest shortfall between actual and predicted record since 1960, and Los Angeles ranks 45th through eight. There are also limits to how much we can feel like these teams have been wronged by the football gods. The Chargers and Falcons each rank no higher than 20th leaguewide in schedule-adjusted expected points added (EPA) per game, so it’s not like their mediocre records are hiding great teams underneath.
But individually speaking, Chargers quarterback Justin Herbert is rising in the ranks of the historically unlucky, particularly after throwing what appeared to be a game-winning touchdown pass against the Raiders on Sunday — only to have it overturned on replay after time had expired.
SO CLOSE. The Chargers lose a heartbreaker to the Raiders after this initial TD was overturned. (via @NFL)pic.twitter.com/9SV2mqdaNN — SportsCenter (@SportsCenter) November 9, 2020
Just seven starts into his NFL career, Herbert is off to a pretty incredible rookie season, with a passer rating of 104.7 (ninth-best in the league) and more than 300 passing yards per game. According to our QB Elo metric, Herbert is averaging a performance 85 Elo points better than league average across his seven starts, which ranks sixth in the NFL. Normally, we would associate that level of QB play with team success. And if we run a logistic regression between QB Elo over average and whether the QB’s team won a given game (holding other factors, such as the opposing QB’s performance, constant) — essentially creating an updated, Elo-based version of what I used to call the “Rivers Index,” — we would expect Herbert to have 4.8 wins as a starter in his young career.
Instead, at 1-6, Herbert has the biggest shortfall (-3.8 wins) of any QB in football this season according to the Rivers Index 2.0, easily topping Houston’s Deshaun Watson (-2.8 wins) for the No. 1 spot. In fact, only five QBs since 1960 have produced a bigger Rivers Index shortfall over their team’s first eight games of a season:
Justin Herbert should be winning more ballgames NFL quarterbacks arranged by an updated version of the Rivers Index — the biggest shortfalls between actual and expected wins (based on QB stats) — through a season’s first eight games, 1960-2020 QB Wins Quarterback Season Team Starts Avg. Game Value* Actual Predicted Rivers Index Archie Manning 1980 NO 8 +31.7 0 4.4 -4.4 Jeff Garcia 2000 SF 8 +165.3 2 6.4 -4.4 Steve DeBerg 1985 TB 8 +9.0 0 3.9 -3.9 Brett Favre 2005 GB 8 +74.0 1 4.9 -3.9 Derek Carr 2014 OAK 8 -2.6 0 3.9 -3.9 Cam Newton 2011 CAR 8 +109.4 2 5.8 -3.8 Justin Herbert 2020 LAC 7 +85.3 1 4.8 -3.8 Jim Hart 1978 ARI 7 +12.0 0 3.7 -3.7 Ryan Fitzpatrick 2010 BUF 6 +56.3 0 3.7 -3.7 Philip Rivers 2015 LAC 8 +101.9 2 5.6 -3.6 Warren Moon 1984 TEN 8 -19.5 0 3.6 -3.6 Andy Dalton 2019 CIN 8 -34.8 0 3.6 -3.6 Steve DeBerg 1979 SF 8 +31.3 1 4.6 -3.6 Matt Ryan 2019 ATL 7 +76.2 1 4.5 -3.5 Joe Ferguson 1984 BUF 6 +37.7 0 3.5 -3.5 Steve Pelluer 1988 DAL 8 +82.7 2 5.4 -3.4 Jeff George 1991 IND 8 -39.8 0 3.3 -3.3 Carson Palmer 2007 CIN 8 +84.5 2 5.3 -3.3 Roman Gabriel 1975 PHI 7 +45.7 1 4.2 -3.2 Matt Ryan 2013 ATL 8 +76.9 2 5.2 -3.2 *A QB’s average Elo value rating, relative to the league norm that season. Expected wins are based on a logistic regression between a starter’s QB Elo rating (relative to average) and his team’s outcome in each game, holding other factors constant. Source: Pro-Football-Reference.com
This franchise is no stranger to doing less with more. Secret Base’s Jon Bois and Alex Rubenstein did a great deep dive into the 2010 Chargers, who somehow missed the playoffs despite leading the league in both total yards gained and fewest yards allowed. (Their special teams unit was historically horrible, which helps explain the disconnect.) This Chargers team also has a notably bad special-teams corps, so in that sense history is repeating itself, and the rest has come down to back-breaking late penalties and other painful items on the “how to lose close games” laundry list.
[Related: The Bills Haven’t Been AFC East Champs In Josh Allen’s Lifetime. Odds Are, That Changes This Year.]
Just like the Steelers and Bills are under the microscope for backsliding down the stretch, we should keep an eye on the Chargers and Falcons to eventually start winning those toss-up contests late in the season. Or, who knows? Maybe they can just keep finding new ways to stay at the bottom of the Pythagorean disappointment rankings.
FiveThirtyEight’s NFL Elo ratings How each team ranks through Week 9 of the 2020 season, according to our quarterback-adjusted predictions Chance To … Rk Team Starting QB QB Rk* Elo Rating Proj. Record Make Playoffs Win Div. Win SB 1 Chiefs Mahomes 1 1735 13-3 >99% 92% 24% 2 Saints Brees 3 1668 12-4 96 80 14 3 Ravens Jackson 7 1659 12-4 95 20 7 4 Steelers R’lisberger✚ 9 1638 14-2 >99 78 15 5 Packers Rodgers 5 1628 12-4 96 81 9 6 Seahawks Wilson 4 1617 11-5 93 60 8 7 Bills Allen 8 1607 11-5 94 87 4 8 Bucs Brady 16 1593 10-6 80 20 5 9 Titans Tannehill 11 1578 11-5 83 70 2 10 Rams Goff 15 1558 9-7 63 20 2 11 Cardinals Murray 2 1554 9-7 63 19 2 12 Colts Rivers 18 1551 9-7 48 29 1 13 Raiders Carr 10 1548 10-6 62 8 1 14 49ers Mullens 29 1519 7-9 17 2 <1 15 Bears Foles 22 1517 9-7 57 16 1 16 Browns Mayfield✚ 24 1515 10-6 56 2 <1 17 Vikings Cousins 23 1510 7-9 24 2 <1 18 Falcons Ryan 12 1506 6-10 2 <1 <1 19 Patriots Newton 19 1505 7-9 12 2 <1 20 Dolphins Tagovailoa 27 1485 9-7 38 11 <1 21 Broncos Lock 28 1484 6-10 6 <1 <1 22 Eagles Wentz 25 1483 7-8-1 71 71 <1 23 Chargers Herbert 13 1456 5-11 1 <1 <1 24 Texans Watson 6 1449 5-11 3 1 <1 25 Panthers Bridgewater 14 1431 6-10 3 <1 <1 26 Bengals Burrow 20 1430 5-10-1 2 <1 <1 27 Wash. Smith 21 1410 5-11 17 16 <1 28 Lions Stafford✚ 17 1400 6-10 5 <1 <1 29 Giants Jones 26 1367 4-12 7 7 <1 30 Cowboys Dalton✚ 31 1316 4-12 6 6 <1 31 Jets Darnold✚ 30 1296 2-14 <1 <1 <1 32 Jaguars Luton 32 1208 2-14 <1 <1 <1 *Ranking among Week 10 starters, according to our QB Elo ratings. ✚ Starter is currently injured and may not play. †Starter could be replaced for performance reasons. Simulations as of Nov. 11, 2020. Source: ESPN
Looking ahead: Last time around, Elo’s game of the week — Packers versus 49ers — didn’t really end up being competitive at all. (Whoops!) This week’s top Elo game — Rams versus Seahawks — should be better, however, since both starting quarterbacks are at full strength (and neither club is fighting a COVID-19 outbreak). Both teams are in solid playoff position, though each lost in its last outing, calling into question their status as true contenders: Los Angeles was dealt a double-digit loss by the Dolphins’ dominating defense, while Seattle’s own D gave up 44 points at home to the Bills. Rams QB Jared Goff will try to exploit that weakness and break out of his recent slump, though the more compelling matchup involves the Rams defense (No. 4 in EPA) versus Russell Wilson and the Seahawks offense (also No. 4 in EPA). Seattle is the better team according to Elo, but with L.A. at home, we see a true 50-50 toss-up. Elo’s spread: Pick-’em
Check out our latest NFL predictions.


fivethirthyeight--2020-11-12--The Georgia Senate Runoffs Are Already In Full Swing

Galen Druke speaks to senior writer Perry Bacon Jr. about the Senate runoff elections in Georgia , where campaigning is @ @ @ @ @ discuss how Trump , Biden and other politicians in both parties could play a role @ @ @ @ @ to take place on January 5 .

Galen Druke speaks to senior writer Perry Bacon Jr. about the Senate runoff elections in Georgia, where campaigning is already underway. They also discuss how Trump, Biden and other politicians in both parties could play a role in the runoffs, set to take place on January 5.
Related: Georgia’s Runoffs Will Determine Control Of The Senate.


fivethirthyeight--2020-11-12--Republicans Are On Track To Take Back The House In 2022

2020 was not supposed to be a good year for House Republicans .
The polls pointed to a Democratic-leaning electoral environment , Democratic candidates were outraising Republicans in most competitive seats , and the GOP had to defend a host of open seats that Republican incumbents had abandoned .
Yet , contrary to expectations , including their own , Republicans managed to gain seats even as the Democrats held onto their majority .
Votes are still being counted , but based on contests projected by ABC News , Republicans have netted six seats so far , and they may still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numbers about seats gained and lost can only tell us so much .
Let ’ s look at some of the major takeaways from the 2020 House elections .
Where the rest of the 2020 races stand | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast Coming into the 2020 election , FiveThirtyEight ’ s forecast only gave Republicans about a 1 in 6 shot of picking up six or more seats , and if the GOP gains more as-yet-uncalled seats in the coming days , the party ’ s haul could become even more unlikely .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that are impressive , though .
Not a single Republican incumbent has lost in the races where we know the outcomes thus far .
Among the outstanding contests , only California Rep. Mike Garcia , who won a May special election , appears to be in danger of losing .
Open-seat races have also been friendly to Republicans , despite the large number of GOP incumbents who retired or left office ahead of the 2020 election .
The GOP had to defend 35 open seats compared to the Democrats ’ 13 , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so far , only three have gone for the Democrats .
And two of those Democratic wins were in North Carolina seats that the GOP had written off after a court-ordered redistricting made the districts heavily Democratic .
While the majority of the Republican caucus will still be men come 2021 , there will be far more Republican women in Congress than there were this year .
So far , it looks like at least 26 GOP women will be in the House next year , surpassing the record of 25 from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in part to the record number of non-incumbent Republican women — 15 — who ’ ve won House contests .
And it ’ s also because of how well Republican women did in tight races .
The table below shows the Republican women who ran in Democratic-held House districts that were at least potentially competitive , according to FiveThirtyEight ’ s forecast .
As of this writing , seven of them have won .
It ’ s not all bad news for Democrats While it was unquestionably a good night for Republicans , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seats they won in 2018 and will continue to be the majority party in the House .
That ’ s in part because they retained most of the suburban districts they picked up in 2018 .
Of the 233 seats that Democrats held coming into the election , 186 of them were in districts that were predominantly or partly suburban in nature , according to density categorizations by Bloomberg ’ s CityLab .
( This figure excludes North Carolina because CityLab has not updated its density data to account for North Carolina ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thus far , Democrats have lost seven of those seats , but they captured one GOP-held suburban seat around Atlanta .
And thanks to redistricting , they ’ ve also won two formerly Republican seats around Greensboro and Raleigh in North Carolina , which reflect the party ’ s strength in more populous areas .
( ABC News hasn ’ t projected a winner yet in 11 suburban races — eight Democratic-held districts and three Republican-held districts . )
Because of their relative success in the suburbs , Democrats kept many seats in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Coming into the election , Democrats held 30 seats in districts Trump carried in 2016 , and they would ’ ve lost their majority if they ’ d lost more than half of them ( assuming they didn ’ t offset the losses by gaining seats elsewhere ) .
But they ’ ve won 18 of them so far and picked up one from the GOP ( Georgia ’ s 7th Congressional District ) .
In fact , more than half of Republicans ’ gains have come in seats representing places that Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 .
We ’ ll have to wait a bit before data can tell us how congressional districts voted in 2020 , but for now it seems many Republican gains were made by picking off the lowest-hanging fruit .
Republicans are well positioned to take the House in 2022 Although we don ’ t yet know the winners of some House races , we can already look ahead to the 2022 midterms and see a fairly straightforward path for the GOP to capture the House .
Midterm elections historically go well for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House , and the out-of-power party is especially likely to do well in the House , since every seat is up for election ( the Senate is a more complicated story ) .
Since the end of World War II , the presidential party has lost an average of 27 House seats in midterm elections , as the chart below shows .
No matter how many seats Democrats end up with after 2020 ’ s election — at this point , they will probably end up somewhere in the low 220s — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be enough for Republicans to retake the House .
The recent history of midterms in a Democratic president ’ s first term seems especially promising for the GOP , too .
Following Bill Clinton ’ s election in 1992 , Democrats lost more than 50 seats in 1994 , and after Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008 , Democrats lost more than 60 seats .
If Democrats had added five to 10 seats this year , they could have survived a 20-seat loss in the midterms .
Instead , Republicans will probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to gain a slender majority in 2022 .
On top of this , Republicans could very well benefit from the new district lines that will be drawn ahead of the 2022 midterm elections .
The GOP is set to fully control redistricting for about two-fifths of all House seats , while Democrats will only hold sway over one-tenth of them , with the remaining seats are in states with divided governments or where redistricting is done by a commission system .
The Republican line-drawing advantage should help the party draw favorable maps that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than we might otherwise expect .
Biden is set to be president .
What comes next ?
| FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast

2020 was not supposed to be a good year for House Republicans. The polls pointed to a Democratic-leaning electoral environment, Democratic candidates were outraising Republicans in most competitive seats, and the GOP had to defend a host of open seats that Republican incumbents had abandoned.
Yet, contrary to expectations, including their own, Republicans managed to gain seats even as the Democrats held onto their majority. Votes are still being counted, but based on contests projected by ABC News, Republicans have netted six seats so far, and they may still flip a few more.
But top-line numbers about seats gained and lost can only tell us so much. Let’s look at some of the major takeaways from the 2020 House elections.
Where the rest of the 2020 races stand | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast
Republicans outperformed expectations
Coming into the 2020 election, FiveThirtyEight’s forecast only gave Republicans about a 1 in 6 shot of picking up six or more seats, and if the GOP gains more as-yet-uncalled seats in the coming days, the party’s haul could become even more unlikely.
It’s not just the flipped seats that are impressive, though. Not a single Republican incumbent has lost in the races where we know the outcomes thus far. Among the outstanding contests, only California Rep. Mike Garcia, who won a May special election, appears to be in danger of losing.
[Related: The Polls Weren’t Great. But That’s Pretty Normal.]
Open-seat races have also been friendly to Republicans, despite the large number of GOP incumbents who retired or left office ahead of the 2020 election. The GOP had to defend 35 open seats compared to the Democrats’ 13, but of the 33 Republican-held open seats projected so far, only three have gone for the Democrats. And two of those Democratic wins were in North Carolina seats that the GOP had written off after a court-ordered redistricting made the districts heavily Democratic.
GOP women made big gains
While the majority of the Republican caucus will still be men come 2021, there will be far more Republican women in Congress than there were this year. So far, it looks like at least 26 GOP women will be in the House next year, surpassing the record of 25 from the 109th Congress. That’s thanks in part to the record number of non-incumbent Republican women — 15 — who’ve won House contests. And it’s also because of how well Republican women did in tight races. The table below shows the Republican women who ran in Democratic-held House districts that were at least potentially competitive, according to FiveThirtyEight’s forecast. As of this writing, seven of them have won.
GOP women have flipped several Democratic seats Republican women running for potentially competitive Democratic-held House seats and the status of their race as of 4:30 p.m Eastern on Nov. 11 District Candidate Current Margin Projected GOP flip MN-07 Michelle Fischbach R+13.2 ✓ ✓ NM-02 Yvette Herrell R+7.8 ✓ ✓ OK-05 Stephanie Bice R+4.1 ✓ ✓ FL-27 Maria Elvira Salazar R+2.7 ✓ ✓ IA-01 Ashley Hinson R+2.6 ✓ ✓ CA-48 Michelle Steel R+2.0 ✓ ✓ SC-01 Nancy Mace R+1.3 ✓ ✓ NY-11 Nicole Malliotakis R+15.8 NY-22 Claudia Tenney R+11.0 CA-39 Young Kim R+1.3 IA-02 Mariannette Miller-Meeks 0 NY-18 Chele Farley D+3.0 TX-15 Monica De La Cruz-Hernandez D+2.9 ✓ AZ-01 Tiffany Shedd D+3.4 ✓ PA-07 Lisa Scheller D+3.7 ✓ IL-17 Esther Joy King D+3.8 ✓ TX-32 Genevieve Collins D+6.0 ✓ FL-13 Anna Paulina Luna D+6.1 ✓ IL-06 Jeanne Ives D+6.6 ✓ OR-05 Amy Ryan Courser D+6.7 ✓ OH-13 Christina Hagan D+7.5 ✓ NC-01 Sandy Smith D+8.3 ✓ GA-06 Karen Handel D+9.2 ✓ KS-03 Amanda Adkins D+9.7 ✓ NJ-11 Rosemary Becchi D+9.8 ✓ CA-03 Tamika Hamilton D+10.9 ✓ PA-04 Kathy Barnette D+18.8 ✓ CA-36 Erin Cruz D+22.1 ✓ Results are unofficial. Races are counted as projected only if the projection comes from ABC News. Excludes races in which the Republican candidate has either a less than 1 in 100 chance or greater than 99 in 100 chance of winning. Source: ABC News
It’s not all bad news for Democrats
While it was unquestionably a good night for Republicans, Democrats still held onto most of the seats they won in 2018 and will continue to be the majority party in the House. That’s in part because they retained most of the suburban districts they picked up in 2018.
Of the 233 seats that Democrats held coming into the election, 186 of them were in districts that were predominantly or partly suburban in nature, according to density categorizations by Bloomberg’s CityLab. (This figure excludes North Carolina because CityLab has not updated its density data to account for North Carolina’s court-ordered redistricting in 2019.) Thus far, Democrats have lost seven of those seats, but they captured one GOP-held suburban seat around Atlanta. And thanks to redistricting, they’ve also won two formerly Republican seats around Greensboro and Raleigh in North Carolina, which reflect the party’s strength in more populous areas. (ABC News hasn’t projected a winner yet in 11 suburban races — eight Democratic-held districts and three Republican-held districts.)
Because of their relative success in the suburbs, Democrats kept many seats in places President Trump won in 2016. Coming into the election, Democrats held 30 seats in districts Trump carried in 2016, and they would’ve lost their majority if they’d lost more than half of them (assuming they didn’t offset the losses by gaining seats elsewhere). But they’ve won 18 of them so far and picked up one from the GOP (Georgia’s 7th Congressional District). In fact, more than half of Republicans’ gains have come in seats representing places that Trump won by a pretty sizable margin in 2016. We’ll have to wait a bit before data can tell us how congressional districts voted in 2020, but for now it seems many Republican gains were made by picking off the lowest-hanging fruit.
Republicans are well positioned to take the House in 2022
Although we don’t yet know the winners of some House races, we can already look ahead to the 2022 midterms and see a fairly straightforward path for the GOP to capture the House. Midterm elections historically go well for the party that’s not in the White House, and the out-of-power party is especially likely to do well in the House, since every seat is up for election (the Senate is a more complicated story).
Since the end of World War II, the presidential party has lost an average of 27 House seats in midterm elections, as the chart below shows. No matter how many seats Democrats end up with after 2020’s election — at this point, they will probably end up somewhere in the low 220s — a loss of that magnitude would easily be enough for Republicans to retake the House.
The recent history of midterms in a Democratic president’s first term seems especially promising for the GOP, too. Following Bill Clinton’s election in 1992, Democrats lost more than 50 seats in 1994, and after Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008, Democrats lost more than 60 seats.
If Democrats had added five to 10 seats this year, they could have survived a 20-seat loss in the midterms. Instead, Republicans will probably need to win fewer than 10 seats to gain a slender majority in 2022.
[Related: Politics Podcast: Why Polls Were Off In 2020, And Why They Weren’t That Bad]
On top of this, Republicans could very well benefit from the new district lines that will be drawn ahead of the 2022 midterm elections. The GOP is set to fully control redistricting for about two-fifths of all House seats, while Democrats will only hold sway over one-tenth of them, with the remaining seats are in states with divided governments or where redistricting is done by a commission system. The Republican line-drawing advantage should help the party draw favorable maps that could help the GOP win more seats than we might otherwise expect.
Biden is set to be president. What comes next? | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast
CORRECTION (Feb. 18, 2021, 2:52 p.m.): The chart in this article originally showed Democrats losing four House seats in the 1998 midterms; they actually gained four seats.


fivethirthyeight--2020-11-12--Which States Counted Biden’s Votes First, And Which Counted Trump’s First?

Election night 2020 was an election night like no other — and not just because the “ night ” ended up lasting four days .
This election was also unique because of how Americans voted — a record number voted early , either in person or by mail .
Because many states report absentee and Election Day ballots at different times , and absentee voters are disproportionately likely to be Democrats while Election Day voters are disproportionately likely to be Republicans , that made it tricky to follow the vote in real time .
The candidate who led a given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always the one who eventually won it , leading many real-time observers to conclude the presidential race was closer than it actually was .
In some states like North Carolina and Ohio , that meant the initial vote totals included a disproportionate number of Biden votes relative to the final results ; in others , like Michigan and Virginia , the initial totals included a disproportionate number of Trump votes .
And in still others , Trump began to look stronger as more votes were counted on election night , but it became @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the last few mail-in ballots were counted in the ensuing days .
You can see this in the map below , which shows you where the reported vote totals stood for each candidate 90 minutes , 12 hours and 72 hours after the last polls were scheduled to close in each state .
Let ’ s take a closer look at the states where Trump gained ground as more votes were counted — a phenomenon sometimes referred to as a “ red shift.
” For example , 90 minutes after polls closed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden looked competitive in these three states — he even led in North Carolina and Ohio .
But that changed as officials reported more results , and Trump wound up carrying all three states .
It wasn ’ t just battleground states where this happened either .
Deeply Republican states like Kentucky experienced this same “ red shift ” in their vote margins because of the order in which votes happened to be reported — it just didn ’ t affect who won them because they were already so Republican-leaning .
In other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposite direction — the appearance of an early lead for Trump was eventually erased as more votes for Biden were counted .
Sometimes this happened because the state was not allowed to process its absentee ballots before the week of the election and therefore couldn ’ t get a head start on its massive volume of absentee ballots ( see Michigan ) .
In other instances , the state only required absentee ballots to be postmarked , not received , by Election Day and was still accepting and counting ballots for a few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And sometimes , the state was just slow to finish counting all its absentee ballots ( see Georgia ) .
Either way , this “ blue shift ” in the vote count often took several days , making it hard to see who was really ahead if you weren ’ t familiar with the ins and outs of vote-counting .
And finally , in some states , it was more of a mix .
The topline results zigged toward Republicans , then zagged toward Democrats as more votes were counted .
For example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good for Biden , but most of the votes counted over the next several hours were for Trump , and by Wednesday morning , Trump was ahead .
However , the state spent the next several days counting absentee ballots , which were favorable for Biden .
As it turned out , there were enough absentee ballots outstanding for the Democrat to eventually take the lead at 9 a.m. on Friday morning .
And Pennsylvania was , of course , the key state that eventually handed Biden the presidency .
In sum , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each state and when made for a roller coaster of an election week , and even produced accusations of fraud .
But there was nothing fishy going on ; no additional ballots were being cast after Election Day to influence the result .
It was just the slow wheels of democracy turning .
Indeed , given how the coronavirus pandemic threw our elections into turmoil with only eight months to prepare for the general election , it ’ s actually quite impressive that , the timing of the results notwithstanding , the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Where the rest of the 2020 races stand | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast

Election night 2020 was an election night like no other — and not just because the “night” ended up lasting four days. This election was also unique because of how Americans voted — a record number voted early, either in person or by mail. Because many states report absentee and Election Day ballots at different times, and absentee voters are disproportionately likely to be Democrats while Election Day voters are disproportionately likely to be Republicans, that made it tricky to follow the vote in real time. The candidate who led a given state on Tuesday night wasn’t always the one who eventually won it, leading many real-time observers to conclude the presidential race was closer than it actually was.
How Joe Biden and Kamala Harris won a historic election | FiveThirtyEight
In some states like North Carolina and Ohio, that meant the initial vote totals included a disproportionate number of Biden votes relative to the final results; in others, like Michigan and Virginia, the initial totals included a disproportionate number of Trump votes. And in still others, Trump began to look stronger as more votes were counted on election night, but it became clear that Biden received more votes as the last few mail-in ballots were counted in the ensuing days.
You can see this in the map below, which shows you where the reported vote totals stood for each candidate 90 minutes, 12 hours and 72 hours after the last polls were scheduled to close in each state.
Let’s take a closer look at the states where Trump gained ground as more votes were counted — a phenomenon sometimes referred to as a “red shift.” For example, 90 minutes after polls closed in Iowa, North Carolina and Ohio, Biden looked competitive in these three states — he even led in North Carolina and Ohio. But that changed as officials reported more results, and Trump wound up carrying all three states. It wasn’t just battleground states where this happened either. Deeply Republican states like Kentucky experienced this same “red shift” in their vote margins because of the order in which votes happened to be reported — it just didn’t affect who won them because they were already so Republican-leaning.
In other states, the margins moved in the opposite direction — the appearance of an early lead for Trump was eventually erased as more votes for Biden were counted. Sometimes this happened because the state was not allowed to process its absentee ballots before the week of the election and therefore couldn’t get a head start on its massive volume of absentee ballots (see Michigan). In other instances, the state only required absentee ballots to be postmarked, not received, by Election Day and was still accepting and counting ballots for a few days after (see Virginia). And sometimes, the state was just slow to finish counting all its absentee ballots (see Georgia). Either way, this “blue shift” in the vote count often took several days, making it hard to see who was really ahead if you weren’t familiar with the ins and outs of vote-counting.
And finally, in some states, it was more of a mix. The topline results zigged toward Republicans, then zagged toward Democrats as more votes were counted. For example, Pennsylvania started off election night looking good for Biden, but most of the votes counted over the next several hours were for Trump, and by Wednesday morning, Trump was ahead. However, the state spent the next several days counting absentee ballots, which were favorable for Biden.
As it turned out, there were enough absentee ballots outstanding for the Democrat to eventually take the lead at 9 a.m. on Friday morning. And Pennsylvania was, of course, the key state that eventually handed Biden the presidency.
In sum, the changes in who was leading in each state and when made for a roller coaster of an election week, and even produced accusations of fraud. But there was nothing fishy going on; no additional ballots were being cast after Election Day to influence the result. It was just the slow wheels of democracy turning. Indeed, given how the coronavirus pandemic threw our elections into turmoil with only eight months to prepare for the general election, it’s actually quite impressive that, the timing of the results notwithstanding, the election largely went off without a hitch.
Where the rest of the 2020 races stand | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast


fivethirthyeight--2020-11-13--Can You Snatch Defeat From The Jaws Of Victory?

Welcome to The Riddler .
Every week , I offer up problems related to the things we hold dear around here : math , logic and probability .
Two puzzles are presented each week : the Riddler Express for those of you who want something bite-size and the Riddler Classic for those of you in the slow-puzzle movement .
Submit a correct answer for either , and you may get a shoutout in next week ’ s column .
Please wait until Monday to publicly share your answers !
If you need a hint or have a favorite puzzle collecting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Twitter .
Last Sunday we lost Alex Trebek , a giant in the world of game shows and trivia .
The show he hosted over the course of four decades — Jeopardy !
— has previously appeared in this column .
Today , it makes a return .
You ’ re playing the ( single ) Jeopardy !
Round , and your opponents are simply no match for you .
You choose first and never relinquish control , working your way horizontally across the board by first selecting all six $ 200 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clues , and so on , until you finally select all the $ 1,000 clues .
You respond to each clue correctly before either of your opponents can .
One randomly selected clue is a Daily Double .
Rather than award you the prize money associated with that clue , it instead allows you to double your current winnings or wager up to $ 1,000 should you have less than that .
Being the aggressive player you are , you always bet the most you can .
( In reality , the Daily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certain locations on the board than others , but for this problem assume it has an equal chance of appearing anywhere on the board . )
How much money do you expect to win during the Jeopardy !
round ?
Extra credit : Suppose you change your strategy .
Instead of working your way horizontally across the board , you select random clues from anywhere on the board , one at a time .
Now how much money do you expect to win during the Jeopardy !
round ?
From Angela Zhou comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s great , but the football is bad : Football season is in full swing , and with it have been some incredible blown leads .
The Atlanta Falcons know a few things about this , not to mention a certain Super Bowl from a few years back .
Inspired by these improbabilities , Angela wondered just how likely one blown lead truly is .
The Georgia Birds and the Michigan Felines play a game where they flip a fair coin 101 times .
In the end , if heads comes up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win ; but if tails comes up at least 51 times , the Felines win .
What ’ s the probability that the Birds have at least a 99 percent chance of winning at some point during the game — meaning their probability of victory is 99 percent or greater given the flips that remain — and then proceed to lose ?
Extra credit : Instead of 101 total flips , suppose there are many , many more ( i.e.
, consider the limit as the number of flips goes to infinity ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heads comes up at least half the time .
Now what ’ s the probability that the Birds have a win probability of at least 99 percent at some point and then proceed to lose ?
Congratulations to 👏 Christoph 👏 of Southampton , United Kingdom , winner of last week ’ s Riddler Express .
Last week , FiveThirtyEight ’ s editor Santul Nerkar completed two 20-mile runs on a treadmill while training for the New York City Marathon .
For the first run , he set the treadmill to a constant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 9 minutes .
The second run was a little different .
He started at a 10 minute-per-mile pace and accelerated continuously until he was running at an 8-minute-per mile pace at the end .
Moreover , Santul ’ s minutes-per-mile pace ( i.e.
, not his speed ) changed linearly over time .
So a quarter of the way through the duration ( in time , not distance ) of the run , his pace was 9 minutes , 30 seconds per mile , halfway through it was 9 minutes per mile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faster ( i.e.
, took less time ) overall ?
And what were Santul ’ s times for the two runs ?
The first run wasn ’ t particularly tricky .
If Santul ran 20 miles and each mile took 9 minutes , then he ran for a total of 180 minutes , or 3 hours .
It was the second run that tripped a few readers up .
His initial pace was 10 minutes per mile , meaning he was running 6 miles per hour .
His final pace was 8 minutes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hour .
At this point , you might have assumed that his speed steadily ( i.e.
, linearly ) increased from 6 to 7.5 miles per hour .
But that was not the case !
As the problem stated , it was Santul ’ s minute-per-miles pace that steadily decreased ( i.e.
, he sped up ) from 10 minutes per mile down to 8 minutes per mile .
If it took him T minutes to run the 20 miles , then his pace after t minutes was 10−2t/T minutes per mile .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10 when t = 0 , and 8 when t = T. ) If his pace was 10−2t/T minutes per mile , then what was his speed ?
It was 60/ ( 10−2t/T ) , which gave you the correct units of miles per hour .
At this point , you knew Santul ’ s speed as a function of time .
To figure out how long he was running for , you had to integrate this speed over time — yes , you needed calculus — and you had to set that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ miles .
This is precisely what solver Eli Wolfhagen did , and solving this integral for T gave the correct answer : 2/ ( 3·ln ( 5/4 ) ) hours , or about 179.26 minutes .
Accelerating this way meant that Santul ran about 45 seconds faster , which can feel like an eternity when running a marathon .
No matter how he trained , I think it ’ s fair to say that Santul ran one hell of a race !
Congratulations to 👏 Nick Meyer 👏 of Oakland , California , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Classic .
Last week , inspired by John von Neumann , you tried to simulate a fair coin using a biased coin that had a probability p of landing heads .
Suppose you wanted to simulate a fair coin in at most three flips .
For which values of p was this possible ?
Von Neumann ’ s approach worked for any value of p , but didn ’ t guarantee a simulation that lasted a finite number of flips .
However , for certain values of p , it was indeed possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a few flips .
Of course , with one flip there was only one way to simulate a fair coin — when p was 1/2 .
With two flips , things got a little more complicated .
When p was 1/2 , you could still simulate a fair coin ( e.g.
, the same outcome on both flips could simulate heads , while different outcomes simulated tails ) .
But there were two other values of p that were also possible .
When p was 1/√2 , the probability of getting two heads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the probability of getting anything else ( HT , TH or TT ) was also 1/2 .
You could similarly simulate a fair coin when p was 1−1/√2 , in which case the probability of getting TT was 1/2 .
So with two coin flips , there were three values of p that could be used to simulate a fair coin : 1/2 , 1/√2 and 1−1/√2 .
Just one problem — the riddle asked about three flips , not two .
But at this point , your strategy was set .
You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ together different outcomes so that their combined probabilities equaled exactly 1/2 .
With three coin flips , there were eight total outcomes : • HHT , HTH and THH , which each had probability p2 ( 1−p ) • HTT , THT and TTH , which each had probability p ( 1−p ) 2 From here , it was a matter of adding these probabilities together and seeing when these sums equaled 1/2 .
In all , there were 64 ways to combine them : p3 , p3 + p2 ( 1−p ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , etc .
Here are all 64 polynomials plotted when p was between 0 and 1 : It ’ s a little hard to see from the graph ( solver David Lewis zooms in on a similar graph ) , but there were 19 locations where these curves cross the 0.5 mark , meaning there were 19 distinct values of p that could simulate a fair coin in at most three tosses .
Solver Josh Silverman used a combinatorial approach to count up the solutions without needing to find them all , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all out .
For extra credit , you were asked to simulate a fair coin in at most N flips , rather than just three flips .
For how many values of p is this possible ?
We already saw that for one flip , there was one value of p. For two flips , there were three values .
And for three flips , there were 19 values .
Brave souls who looked at four flips found there were 271 possible values of p , while there were 8,635 values for five @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As it often turns out in this column , there was an OEIS sequence for that… but wait a minute — solver Tracy Hall just posted this sequence last weekend , meaning it was a brand new discovery .
Amazing !
Solver Angela Zhou decided to plot a histogram showing all 623,533 values of p that could yield a fair coin in at most six flips : There ’ s a lot of mathematical richness to unpack there , like the chasm surrounding 0.5 ( although 0.5 is itself a solution ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peaks and valleys .
It ’ s hard to compete with von Neumann , but Riddler Nation has definitely given him a run for his money .
Well , aren ’ t you lucky ?
There ’ s a whole book full of the best puzzles from this column and some never-before-seen head-scratchers .
It ’ s called “ The Riddler , ” and it ’ s in stores now !

Welcome to The Riddler. Every week, I offer up problems related to the things we hold dear around here: math, logic and probability. Two puzzles are presented each week: the Riddler Express for those of you who want something bite-size and the Riddler Classic for those of you in the slow-puzzle movement. Submit a correct answer for either, and you may get a shoutout in next week’s column. Please wait until Monday to publicly share your answers! If you need a hint or have a favorite puzzle collecting dust in your attic, find me on Twitter.
Riddler Express
Last Sunday we lost Alex Trebek, a giant in the world of game shows and trivia. The show he hosted over the course of four decades — Jeopardy! — has previously appeared in this column. Today, it makes a return.
You’re playing the (single) Jeopardy! Round, and your opponents are simply no match for you. You choose first and never relinquish control, working your way horizontally across the board by first selecting all six $200 clues, then all six $400 clues, and so on, until you finally select all the $1,000 clues. You respond to each clue correctly before either of your opponents can.
One randomly selected clue is a Daily Double. Rather than award you the prize money associated with that clue, it instead allows you to double your current winnings or wager up to $1,000 should you have less than that. Being the aggressive player you are, you always bet the most you can. (In reality, the Daily Double is more likely to appear in certain locations on the board than others, but for this problem assume it has an equal chance of appearing anywhere on the board.)
How much money do you expect to win during the Jeopardy! round?
Extra credit: Suppose you change your strategy. Instead of working your way horizontally across the board, you select random clues from anywhere on the board, one at a time. Now how much money do you expect to win during the Jeopardy! round?
The solution to this Riddler Express can be found in the following week’s column.
Riddler Classic
From Angela Zhou comes a bad football puzzle. The puzzle’s great, but the football is bad:
Football season is in full swing, and with it have been some incredible blown leads. The Atlanta Falcons know a few things about this, not to mention a certain Super Bowl from a few years back. Inspired by these improbabilities, Angela wondered just how likely one blown lead truly is.
The Georgia Birds and the Michigan Felines play a game where they flip a fair coin 101 times. In the end, if heads comes up at least 51 times, the Birds win; but if tails comes up at least 51 times, the Felines win.
What’s the probability that the Birds have at least a 99 percent chance of winning at some point during the game — meaning their probability of victory is 99 percent or greater given the flips that remain — and then proceed to lose?
Extra credit: Instead of 101 total flips, suppose there are many, many more (i.e., consider the limit as the number of flips goes to infinity). Again, the Birds win if heads comes up at least half the time. Now what’s the probability that the Birds have a win probability of at least 99 percent at some point and then proceed to lose?
The solution to this Riddler Classic can be found in the following week’s column.
Solution to last week’s Riddler Express
Congratulations to 👏 Christoph 👏 of Southampton, United Kingdom, winner of last week’s Riddler Express.
Last week, FiveThirtyEight’s editor Santul Nerkar completed two 20-mile runs on a treadmill while training for the New York City Marathon. For the first run, he set the treadmill to a constant speed so that he ran every mile in 9 minutes.
The second run was a little different. He started at a 10 minute-per-mile pace and accelerated continuously until he was running at an 8-minute-per mile pace at the end. Moreover, Santul’s minutes-per-mile pace (i.e., not his speed) changed linearly over time. So a quarter of the way through the duration (in time, not distance) of the run, his pace was 9 minutes, 30 seconds per mile, halfway through it was 9 minutes per mile, etc.
Which training run was faster (i.e., took less time) overall? And what were Santul’s times for the two runs?
The first run wasn’t particularly tricky. If Santul ran 20 miles and each mile took 9 minutes, then he ran for a total of 180 minutes, or 3 hours.
It was the second run that tripped a few readers up. His initial pace was 10 minutes per mile, meaning he was running 6 miles per hour. His final pace was 8 minutes per mile, or 7.5 miles per hour. At this point, you might have assumed that his speed steadily (i.e., linearly) increased from 6 to 7.5 miles per hour. But that was not the case!
As the problem stated, it was Santul’s minute-per-miles pace that steadily decreased (i.e., he sped up) from 10 minutes per mile down to 8 minutes per mile. If it took him T minutes to run the 20 miles, then his pace after t minutes was 10−2t/T minutes per mile. (You can check that this equals 10 when t = 0, and 8 when t = T.) If his pace was 10−2t/T minutes per mile, then what was his speed? It was 60/(10−2t/T), which gave you the correct units of miles per hour.
At this point, you knew Santul’s speed as a function of time. To figure out how long he was running for, you had to integrate this speed over time — yes, you needed calculus — and you had to set that equal to 20, his distance in miles. This is precisely what solver Eli Wolfhagen did, and solving this integral for T gave the correct answer: 2/(3·ln(5/4)) hours, or about 179.26 minutes. Accelerating this way meant that Santul ran about 45 seconds faster, which can feel like an eternity when running a marathon.
No matter how he trained, I think it’s fair to say that Santul ran one hell of a race!
Solution to last week’s Riddler Classic
Congratulations to 👏 Nick Meyer 👏 of Oakland, California, winner of last week’s Riddler Classic.
Last week, inspired by John von Neumann, you tried to simulate a fair coin using a biased coin that had a probability p of landing heads.
Suppose you wanted to simulate a fair coin in at most three flips. For which values of p was this possible?
Von Neumann’s approach worked for any value of p, but didn’t guarantee a simulation that lasted a finite number of flips. However, for certain values of p, it was indeed possible to simulate a fair join in just a few flips.
Of course, with one flip there was only one way to simulate a fair coin — when p was 1/2.
With two flips, things got a little more complicated. When p was 1/2, you could still simulate a fair coin (e.g., the same outcome on both flips could simulate heads, while different outcomes simulated tails). But there were two other values of p that were also possible. When p was 1/√2, the probability of getting two heads (HH) was 1/2, while the probability of getting anything else (HT, TH or TT) was also 1/2. You could similarly simulate a fair coin when p was 1−1/√2, in which case the probability of getting TT was 1/2.
So with two coin flips, there were three values of p that could be used to simulate a fair coin: 1/2, 1/√2 and 1−1/√2. Just one problem — the riddle asked about three flips, not two. But at this point, your strategy was set. You were looking for different ways to cobble together different outcomes so that their combined probabilities equaled exactly 1/2.
With three coin flips, there were eight total outcomes:
HHH, which had probability p 3
HHT, HTH and THH, which each had probability p 2 (1− p )
(1− ) HTT, THT and TTH, which each had probability p (1− p ) 2
(1− ) TTT, which had probability (1−p)3
From here, it was a matter of adding these probabilities together and seeing when these sums equaled 1/2. In all, there were 64 ways to combine them: p3, p3 + p2(1−p), p3 + 2p2(1−p), etc. Here are all 64 polynomials plotted when p was between 0 and 1:
It’s a little hard to see from the graph (solver David Lewis zooms in on a similar graph), but there were 19 locations where these curves cross the 0.5 mark, meaning there were 19 distinct values of p that could simulate a fair coin in at most three tosses. Solver Josh Silverman used a combinatorial approach to count up the solutions without needing to find them all, while Emma Knight was able to list them all out.
For extra credit, you were asked to simulate a fair coin in at most N flips, rather than just three flips. For how many values of p is this possible?
We already saw that for one flip, there was one value of p. For two flips, there were three values. And for three flips, there were 19 values. Brave souls who looked at four flips found there were 271 possible values of p, while there were 8,635 values for five flips and 623,533 values for six flips. As it often turns out in this column, there was an OEIS sequence for that… but wait a minute — solver Tracy Hall just posted this sequence last weekend, meaning it was a brand new discovery. Amazing!
Solver Angela Zhou decided to plot a histogram showing all 623,533 values of p that could yield a fair coin in at most six flips:
Distribution of p for N = 6: pic.twitter.com/WDMpzwtyyO — AZ (@a_____z___) November 9, 2020
There’s a lot of mathematical richness to unpack there, like the chasm surrounding 0.5 (although 0.5 is itself a solution), not to mention all those other peaks and valleys.
It’s hard to compete with von Neumann, but Riddler Nation has definitely given him a run for his money.
Want more riddles?
Well, aren’t you lucky? There’s a whole book full of the best puzzles from this column and some never-before-seen head-scratchers. It’s called “The Riddler,” and it’s in stores now!
Want to submit a riddle?
Email Zach Wissner-Gross at riddlercolumn@gmail.com


fivethirthyeight--2020-11-13--What The 2020 House Elections Could Mean For The 2022 Midterms

Democrats did not do as well as expected in House elections this year .
FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast host Galen Druke @ @ @ @ @ discuss the record number of Republican women who will serve in the next Congress and @ @ @ @ @ back the House in the 2022 midterms .

Democrats did not do as well as expected in House elections this year. FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast host Galen Druke and elections analyst Geoffrey Skelley discuss the record number of Republican women who will serve in the next Congress and whether the GOP could win back the House in the 2022 midterms.
Related: How The Pandemic Might Have Affected The Polls In 2020


fivethirthyeight--2020-11-13--What We Know About ‘Long COVID’

What We Know About ‘Long COVID’

On this week ’ s episode of PODCAST-19 , we do a deep dive into “ long COVID , ” @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve survived COVID-19 continue to experience a variety of symptoms for weeks , or @ @ @ @ @ acute illness .
What ’ s causing this disease to linger for so many people @ @ @ @ @ to our health care system if a lot of people are sick for years to @ @ @ @ @ ?
Don ’ t want to miss an episode of PODCAST-19 , FiveThirtyEight ’ s @ @ @ @ @ know — and what we know we don ’ t know — about COVID-19 ?
@ @ @ @ @ app .
For example , here ’ s where to do it on Apple Podcasts @ @ @ @ @ What To Make Of Pfizer ’ s Big Vaccine Announcement

On this week’s episode of PODCAST-19, we do a deep dive into “long COVID,” which is when people who’ve survived COVID-19 continue to experience a variety of symptoms for weeks, or sometimes months, after their acute illness. What’s causing this disease to linger for so many people? And what will happen to our health care system if a lot of people are sick for years to come with a hard-to-define illness?
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.
Related: What To Make Of Pfizer’s Big Vaccine Announcement


fivethirthyeight--2020-11-13--Ty Lue Inherited A Kawhi Leonard Problem

Through 50 seasons , the Los Angeles Clippers have tended to come undone at the worst possible times .
Last year ’ s arrival of Kawhi Leonard and Paul George was supposed to remedy that ; instead , history repeated itself in the form of a Western Conference semifinals collapse .
Now the problem belongs to newly promoted head coach Tyronn Lue .
Lue , whose head coaching career started midway through the Cleveland Cavaliers ’ championship 2015-16 season , understands the challenge of elevating a franchise within an uncertain window .
“ Anytime you have a chance to win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Lue told Rachel Nichols on ESPN ’ s “ The Jump.
” “ And I think Kawhi , PG are here to stay for a long time .
… We just got ta make it a great environment and we have to win.
” For seven seasons , Doc Rivers , Lue ’ s predecessor , created the winningest environment in Clippers history , leading the Clippers to a top-five regular-season win percentage in that span ( .631 ) .
But , of course , those numbers didn ’ t translate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clippers to just a 3-8 playoff mark in series-clinching opportunities , the most such losses among head coaches over his tenure .
By contrast , Lue sports the best all-time win percentage in clinching situations ( .909 ) among 52 qualified coaches , according to Elias Sports Bureau .
Rivers ’ s career mark of .341 ranks fourth-worst on that list .
As in his Cavaliers stint , Lue takes over the Clippers with the franchise facing its heaviest championship expectations to date .
This weight bears a double-edged sword , one side @ @ @ @ @ @ @ championship and the other by the relative immediacy of Leonard ’ s rapidly closing window .
As the Clippers ’ 3-1 semifinals collapse against the Denver Nuggets illustrated , it ’ s tough catching lightning in a bottle , even when your newly acquired centerpiece did so the season prior .
Los Angeles paired Leonard with All-NBA forward George , an investment that paid off throughout the regular season , but their first playoff run together offered more questions than answers .
According to NBA Advanced Stats , the Clippers ’ star duo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 890 minutes in the regular season , but their ratingfell by double-digits in the playoffs , bottoming out at -22.7 over the team ’ s three-game skid to end the season .
Despite building around two of the league ’ s premiere two-way players , the Clippers ’ defense struggled when Leonard and George shared the court during the playoffs .
Lue chalked it up to chemistry problems brought on by injuries and the league ’ s abbreviated schedule .
But the Clippers can ’ t afford another playoff run in which their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both stars have contracts with player options after next season .
To pair Leonard with George , the Clippers surrendered control of their first-round draft picks until 2028 , well beyond either star ’ s prime .
And while Lue is confident that the team can retain both Leonard and George long-term , the Clippers ’ window remains open only as long as Leonard ’ s ability to weather deep playoff runs going forward — and Lue acknowledges the importance of managing the star ’ s health .
Though Leonard only turns 30 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ongoing knee issues could curb his championship peak .
Since being drafted in 2011 , he ranks fifth in total playoff minutes , peaking at 939 in the 2019 postseason — a playoffs run in which he scored 732 points ( third-most in NBA playoff history ) .
Per Basketball-Reference.com , that total marked the highest by any player since LeBron James and the Miami Heat completed their repeat in 2013 .
Leonard is also one of only three players to win a Finals MVP with multiple franchises , and his career regular-season @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in NBA history according to the Elias Sports Bureau .
But his past performances weren ’ t enough to end L.A. ’ s streak of frustration .
In Game 7 against the Nuggets , Leonard shot just 1-for-11 after halftime , which marked his worst shooting half over 648 regular and postseason games .
Even worse for the Clippers , Leonard ’ s clutch-time output ( 22 points ) nearly matched the rest of his teammates ’ combined ( 31 ) , per NBA Advanced Stats .
In fact , he was the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such situations over the 2020 playoffs .
Long-term , the franchise can not contend while skating on such thin ice .
So what were the specific deficiencies for the team , and how can Lue and the front office go about fixing them , as constricted as they are ?
Though Leonard posted career highs in scoring and assists during his first Clippers season , it grew progressively tougher for him to dominate from his sweet spots late in games .
According to Second Spectrum , during the regular season , Leonard ranked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percentage in the fourth quarter or overtime from midrange ( 47.1 ) .
By the playoffs , his decrease on such shots coincided with other noticeable late-game dips .
As Leonard ’ s efficiency shrank when it mattered , so did the Clippers ’ room for error .
Following Los Angeles ’ Game 7 loss to Denver , Leonard reflected on arguably the Clippers ’ greatest weakness en route to elimination : an inability to create productive possessions at critical moments .
“ When a team is playing us a certain way — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my hands or packing the paint — we got ta know what to do , ” Leonard said .
“ We can ’ t panic if we ’ re not making shots — if I ’ m not making shots.
” During the regular season , the team ranked only 24th in the league in assist rate , by far the lowest team ranking in Leonard ’ s career .
Point guard seems an obvious position where an upgrade over Patrick Beverley and Lou Williams would help the club .
Like Leonard and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agent after next season .
Beverley has two years and over $ 27 million remaining on his deal , per Spotrac .
Given their aforementioned bare cupboard of draft capital , the Clippers ’ most practical options for improvement are maximizing their respective salary-cap exceptions in free agency and pursuing sign-and-trade options for Montrezl Harrell , as a long-term raise from his $ 6 million salary could clash with the Clippers ’ win-now prospects .
Despite posting regular-season career highs in scoring and rebounding , Harrell ’ s inability to protect the rim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when sharing the court with two of the league ’ s premier perimeter defenders .
Per Spotrac , the Clippers will enter free agency with a non-taxpayer midlevel exception ( $ 9.3 million ) and biannual exception ( $ 3.6 million ) in their pocket .
With the likes of Fred VanVleet , De ’ Aaron Fox and Goran Dragić potentially available , the Clippers could certainly improve their playmaking on paper should the trade market bear little fruit .
[ Daryl Morey Made A Lot Of Trades .
How Much Did They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s introductory press conference , Clippers owner Steve Ballmer detailed the importance of maximizing the roster within the team ’ s foreseeable limitations .
“ Everyone knows our situation with our picks , we ’ re just going to have to do better and better with all aspects of player development , ” Ballmer said .
“ Given that we don ’ t have a lot of picks going forward , how we sort of work in margins and really find and develop talent and how we use our exceptions and veteran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of work.
” With history behind them , and limited resources to allow them to think too far down the road , the Clippers ’ best bet is for Ballmer and Lue to provide every assurance that Leonard ’ s best playoff runs aren ’ t already behind him .

Through 50 seasons, the Los Angeles Clippers have tended to come undone at the worst possible times. Last year’s arrival of Kawhi Leonard and Paul George was supposed to remedy that; instead, history repeated itself in the form of a Western Conference semifinals collapse. Now the problem belongs to newly promoted head coach Tyronn Lue.
Lue, whose head coaching career started midway through the Cleveland Cavaliers’ championship 2015-16 season, understands the challenge of elevating a franchise within an uncertain window. “Anytime you have a chance to win a championship, it’s pressure,” Lue told Rachel Nichols on ESPN’s “The Jump.” “And I think Kawhi, PG are here to stay for a long time. … We just gotta make it a great environment and we have to win.”
[Inside The Political Donation History Of Wealthy Sports Owners]
For seven seasons, Doc Rivers, Lue’s predecessor, created the winningest environment in Clippers history, leading the Clippers to a top-five regular-season win percentage in that span (.631). But, of course, those numbers didn’t translate to the postseason: Rivers led the Clippers to just a 3-8 playoff mark in series-clinching opportunities, the most such losses among head coaches over his tenure. By contrast, Lue sports the best all-time win percentage in clinching situations (.909) among 52 qualified coaches, according to Elias Sports Bureau. Rivers’s career mark of .341 ranks fourth-worst on that list.
As in his Cavaliers stint, Lue takes over the Clippers with the franchise facing its heaviest championship expectations to date. This weight bears a double-edged sword, one side sharpened by the Lakers’ recent 17th championship and the other by the relative immediacy of Leonard’s rapidly closing window.
As the Clippers’ 3-1 semifinals collapse against the Denver Nuggets illustrated, it’s tough catching lightning in a bottle, even when your newly acquired centerpiece did so the season prior. Los Angeles paired Leonard with All-NBA forward George, an investment that paid off throughout the regular season, but their first playoff run together offered more questions than answers.
According to NBA Advanced Stats, the Clippers’ star duo sported a net rating of 13.2 over 890 minutes in the regular season, but their rating fell by double-digits in the playoffs, bottoming out at -22.7 over the team’s three-game skid to end the season. Despite building around two of the league’s premiere two-way players, the Clippers’ defense struggled when Leonard and George shared the court during the playoffs.
Things got worse in the playoffs for Kawhi and PG Stats for the Los Angeles Clippers with Kawhi Leonard and Paul George on the court together during the 2020 season Opp. 3-point % Def. Efficiency Net Efficiency Regular season 35.1% 103.9 13.2 Playoffs 38.1 109.8 1.1 Differential +3.0 +5.9 -12.1 Source: NBA Advanced Stats
Lue chalked it up to chemistry problems brought on by injuries and the league’s abbreviated schedule. But the Clippers can’t afford another playoff run in which their stars collapse so dramatically, especially when both stars have contracts with player options after next season.
To pair Leonard with George, the Clippers surrendered control of their first-round draft picks until 2028, well beyond either star’s prime. And while Lue is confident that the team can retain both Leonard and George long-term, the Clippers’ window remains open only as long as Leonard’s ability to weather deep playoff runs going forward — and Lue acknowledges the importance of managing the star’s health.
Though Leonard only turns 30 next June, his basketball odometer and ongoing knee issues could curb his championship peak. Since being drafted in 2011, he ranks fifth in total playoff minutes, peaking at 939 in the 2019 postseason — a playoffs run in which he scored 732 points (third-most in NBA playoff history). Per Basketball-Reference.com, that total marked the highest by any player since LeBron James and the Miami Heat completed their repeat in 2013. Leonard is also one of only three players to win a Finals MVP with multiple franchises, and his career regular-season win percentage of .750 is the highest in NBA history according to the Elias Sports Bureau. But his past performances weren’t enough to end L.A.’s streak of frustration.
Clutch-time performance for the Los Angeles Clippers in the 2020 playoffs Points FG % Assists Kawhi Leonard 22 53.8% 3 Rest of team 31 42.1 3 Source: NBA Advanced Stats
In Game 7 against the Nuggets, Leonard shot just 1-for-11 after halftime, which marked his worst shooting half over 648 regular and postseason games. Even worse for the Clippers, Leonard’s clutch-time output (22 points) nearly matched the rest of his teammates’ combined (31), per NBA Advanced Stats. In fact, he was the only Clipper with a double-digit output in such situations over the 2020 playoffs.
Long-term, the franchise cannot contend while skating on such thin ice. So what were the specific deficiencies for the team, and how can Lue and the front office go about fixing them, as constricted as they are?
Field-goal percentage by shot type for Kawhi Leonard in the fourth quarter and overtime, 2019-20 Shot type Reg. Season Playoffs In paint 60% 54% Midrange 47 37 Contested 45 42 Source: Second Spectrum
Though Leonard posted career highs in scoring and assists during his first Clippers season, it grew progressively tougher for him to dominate from his sweet spots late in games. According to Second Spectrum, during the regular season, Leonard ranked sixth among 40 qualified shooters in field-goal percentage in the fourth quarter or overtime from midrange (47.1). By the playoffs, his decrease on such shots coincided with other noticeable late-game dips. As Leonard’s efficiency shrank when it mattered, so did the Clippers’ room for error.
Following Los Angeles’ Game 7 loss to Denver, Leonard reflected on arguably the Clippers’ greatest weakness en route to elimination: an inability to create productive possessions at critical moments. “When a team is playing us a certain way — trying to get the ball out of my hands or packing the paint — we gotta know what to do,” Leonard said. “We can’t panic if we’re not making shots — if I’m not making shots.”
During the regular season, the team ranked only 24th in the league in assist rate, by far the lowest team ranking in Leonard’s career. Point guard seems an obvious position where an upgrade over Patrick Beverley and Lou Williams would help the club. Like Leonard and George, Williams can be a free agent after next season. Beverley has two years and over $27 million remaining on his deal, per Spotrac.
Given their aforementioned bare cupboard of draft capital, the Clippers’ most practical options for improvement are maximizing their respective salary-cap exceptions in free agency and pursuing sign-and-trade options for Montrezl Harrell, as a long-term raise from his $6 million salary could clash with the Clippers’ win-now prospects.
Despite posting regular-season career highs in scoring and rebounding, Harrell’s inability to protect the rim in the playoffs proved costly, especially when sharing the court with two of the league’s premier perimeter defenders.
Harrell struggled alongside Leonard and George in playoffs Playoff stats per 100 possessions for the Clippers with Kawhi Leonard and Paul George on the court together, with or without Montrezl Harrell Off. efficiency Net efficiency Opp. points in paint Harrell off the court +115.1 +10.7 35.9 Harrell on the court +91.5 -30.1 50.9 Differential -23.6 -40.8 +15.0 Source: NBA Advanced Stats
Per Spotrac, the Clippers will enter free agency with a non-taxpayer midlevel exception ($9.3 million) and biannual exception ($3.6 million) in their pocket. With the likes of Fred VanVleet, De’Aaron Fox and Goran Dragić potentially available, the Clippers could certainly improve their playmaking on paper should the trade market bear little fruit.
[Daryl Morey Made A Lot Of Trades. How Much Did They Help The Rockets?]
During Lue’s introductory press conference, Clippers owner Steve Ballmer detailed the importance of maximizing the roster within the team’s foreseeable limitations. “Everyone knows our situation with our picks, we’re just going to have to do better and better with all aspects of player development,” Ballmer said. “Given that we don’t have a lot of picks going forward, how we sort of work in margins and really find and develop talent and how we use our exceptions and veteran minimums, there’s a lot of work.”
With history behind them, and limited resources to allow them to think too far down the road, the Clippers’ best bet is for Ballmer and Lue to provide every assurance that Leonard’s best playoff runs aren’t already behind him.