fivethirthyeight--2020-10-30--Beware The Hot Pumpkin

Beware The Hot Pumpkin

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 .
While waiting in line to vote early last week , I overheard a discussion between election officials .
Apparently , there may have been a political sign that was within 100 feet of the polling place , against New York State law .
This got me thinking .
Suppose a polling site is a square building whose sides are 100 feet in length .
An election official takes a string that is also 100 feet long and ties one end to a door located in the middle of one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then holds the other end of the string in her hand .
What ’ s the area of the region outside of the building she can reach while holding the string ?
From Ricky Jacobson comes a party game that ’ s just in time for Halloween : Instead of playing hot potato , you and 60 of your closest friends decide to play a socially distanced game of hot pumpkin .
Before the game starts , you all sit in a circle and agree on a positive integer N. Once the number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leader of the group ) start the game by counting “ 1 ” and passing the pumpkin to the person sitting directly to your left .
She then declares “ 2 ” and passes the pumpkin one space to her left .
This continues with each player saying the next number in the sequence , wrapping around the circle as many times as necessary , until the group has collectively counted up to N. At that point , the player who counted “ N ” is eliminated , and the player directly to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ round , again proceeding to the same value of N. The game continues until just one player remains , who is declared the victor .
In the game ’ s first round , the player 18 spaces to your left is the first to be eliminated .
Ricky , the next player in the sequence , begins the next round .
The second round sees the elimination of the player 31 spaces to Ricky ’ s left .
Zach begins the third round , only to find himself eliminated in a cruel twist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
What was the smallest value of N the group could have used for this game ?
Extra credit : Suppose the players were numbered from 1 to 61 , with you as Player No .
1 , the player to your left as Player No .
2 and so on .
Which player won the game ?
Extra extra credit : What ’ s the smallest N that would have made you the winner ?
Congratulations to 👏 Eric Mentzell 👏 of Takoma Park , Maryland , winner of last week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , four-time WNBA champion Sue Bird and Seattle Storm teammate Breanna Stewart were interested in testing whether Bird had a “ hot hand ” — that is , if her chances of making a basket depended on whether or not her previous shot went in .
Bird happened to know that her chances of making any given shot was always 50 percent , independent of her shooting history , but she agreed to perform an experiment .
In each trial of the experiment , Bird took three shots , while Stewart recorded which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then looked at all the trials with at least one shot that was immediately preceded by a made shot .
She randomly picked one of these trials , and then randomly picked a shot that was immediately preceded by a made shot .
( If there was only one such shot to pick from , she chose that shot . )
What was the probability that Bird made the shot that Stewart picked ?
At first glance , you might have thought that the answer was 50 percent .
After all , Bird @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chance of making any given shot .
Right ?
Wrong .
And Riddler Nation was not fooled .
To see why the answer wasn ’ t 50 percent , many solvers , like Deborah Abel , listed out all eight possible shot sequences .
If we let “ X ” represent a made shot and “ O ” a missed shot , then the eight possible shot sequences were : OOO , OOX , OXO , XOO , OXX , XOX , XXO , and XXX .
Because Bird had an equal chance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all eight of these shot sequences were equally likely .
During her analysis , Stewart first looked at shots that were “ immediately preceded by a made shot.
” This didn ’ t occur for sequences OOO and OOX , so we know that Stewart was limiting her analysis exclusively to the remaining six sequences , and that each had a one-in-six chance of being selected .
Next , Stewart “ randomly picked a shot that was immediately preceded by a made shot.
” Here ’ s what happened if you looked at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time : • OXO : Stewart looked at the last shot .
For this sequence , Bird made zero percent of the shots Stewart could have picked .
• XOO : Stewart looked at the second shot .
For this sequence , Bird made zero percent of the shots Stewart could have picked .
• OXX : Stewart looked at the last shot .
For this sequence , Bird made 100 percent of the shots Stewart could have picked , which gives a 1/6 chance of selecting a made shot in this sequence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the second shot .
For this sequence , Bird made zero percent of the shots Stewart could have picked .
• XXO : Stewart could have looked at the second or third shots .
For this sequence , Bird made 50 percent of the shots Stewart could have picked , which gives a 1/12 chance of selecting a made shot in this sequence .
• XXX : Stewart could have looked at the second or third shots .
For this sequence , Bird made 100 percent of the shots Stewart could have picked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ selecting a made shot in this sequence .
Putting this all together , the probability Bird had made the shot that Stewart picked was 1/6 + 1/12 + 1/6 , or 5/12 — the solution !
So while Bird had a 50 percent chance of making any given shot , Stewart ’ s methodology for selecting a shot was somehow biased toward shots that Bird missed .
What was going on here ?
Solver Madeline Argent of Launceston , Australia offered an explanation .
Among the six shot sequences listed above , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of her first two shots .
Of these eight , Bird made four of the next shots and missed four of them .
So if Stewart had selected among all shots that were immediately preceded by a made shot , Bird would have made half the selected shots .
But because Stewart first randomly selected a trial , the last two shot sequences — XXO and XXX , in which Bird made most of her shots — were unfairly weighted equally alongside the other four sequences , even though they had twice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choose from .
That was what happened when Bird took three shots per trial .
Meanwhile , solver Dean Ballard found similar results when Bird took more shots .
The probability she had made a selected shot approached 50 percent as the number of shots increased , but it never quite reached 50 percent .
Clearly , this methodology for determining whether a basketball player had a “ hot hand ” was flawed .
It may surprise some readers that this was precisely the methodology used in an attempt to debunk the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a debunking that itself was later debunked .
If you ’ d like to read more on this , check out this 2019 article that connects all of this to the Monty Hall problem .
( Kudos to submitter Drew Mathieson for the link ! )
So if Stewart performed the experiment as outlined , and found that Bird had made half the selected shots ( rather than 5/12 of them ) , she would have rightfully concluded that Bird did have a “ hot hand.
” Congratulations to 👏 Lucas Robinson 👏 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last week ’ s Riddler Classic .
Last week , four-time NBA champion LeBron James was playing a game of sudden-death , one-on-one basketball with Los Angeles Lakers teammate Anthony Davis .
They flipped a coin to see which of them had first possession , and whoever made the first basket won the game .
Both players had a 50 percent chance of making any shot they took .
However , Davis was the superior rebounder and would always rebound any shot that either of them missed .
Every time Davis rebounded the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three-point line before attempting another shot .
Before each of Davis ’ s shot attempts , James had a probability p of stealing the ball and regaining possession before Davis could get the shot off .
What value of p made this an evenly matched game of one-on-one , in which both players had an equal chance of winning before the coin was flipped ?
Suppose James ’ s probability of winning when he had possession was J , while James ’ s probability of winning when Davis had possession was D. We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For James to win when he had possession , he either had to score ( with probability 1/2 ) or , upon missing ( also with probability 1/2 ) , he ’ d have to somehow win after Davis got the rebound and gained possession .
In other words , J = 1/2 + 1/2·D .
We can similarly write an equation for D : For James to win when Davis had possession , he either had to steal the ball ( with probability p ) and regain possession , or , upon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1−p ) , he needed Davis to miss ( with probability 1/2 ) so James could have another chance at victory .
In other words , D = pJ + ( 1−p ) D/2 .
That gave you two equations with three unknowns .
What was missing ?
Based on the coin flip , James started with possession half the time , and Davis started with possession the other half the time .
James ’ s probability of winning was therefore J/2 + D/2 , which the problem stated this was to equal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ J/2 + D/2 = 1/2 , or J + D = 1 .
Solving this system of three equations gave you the result that J = 2/3 ( James had a two-thirds chance of winning when he had possession ) , D = 1/3 ( James had a one-third chance of winning when Davis had possession ) and p = 1/3 .
In other words , for the game to be fair , James had to have a one-third chance of stealing the ball .
Solver Quoc Tran extended the puzzle , simulating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the more realistic scenario where Davis didn ’ t nab every rebound .
For the game to be fair , we already saw that James needed to steal one-third of the time when Davis rebounded every shot .
Meanwhile , if James and Davis had had equal chances of getting a rebound , then to maintain parity , James couldn ’ t steal at all .
But when Davis had a rebounding edge , interesting mathematics was happening , as shown below : How fitting that this game was fair where purple met @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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
While waiting in line to vote early last week, I overheard a discussion between election officials. Apparently, there may have been a political sign that was within 100 feet of the polling place, against New York State law.
This got me thinking. Suppose a polling site is a square building whose sides are 100 feet in length. An election official takes a string that is also 100 feet long and ties one end to a door located in the middle of one of the building’s sides. She then holds the other end of the string in her hand.
What’s the area of the region outside of the building she can reach while holding the string?
The solution to this Riddler Express can be found in the following week’s column.
Riddler Classic
From Ricky Jacobson comes a party game that’s just in time for Halloween:
Instead of playing hot potato, you and 60 of your closest friends decide to play a socially distanced game of hot pumpkin.
Before the game starts, you all sit in a circle and agree on a positive integer N. Once the number has been chosen, you (the leader of the group) start the game by counting “1” and passing the pumpkin to the person sitting directly to your left. She then declares “2” and passes the pumpkin one space to her left. This continues with each player saying the next number in the sequence, wrapping around the circle as many times as necessary, until the group has collectively counted up to N. At that point, the player who counted “N” is eliminated, and the player directly to his or her left starts the next round, again proceeding to the same value of N. The game continues until just one player remains, who is declared the victor.
In the game’s first round, the player 18 spaces to your left is the first to be eliminated. Ricky, the next player in the sequence, begins the next round. The second round sees the elimination of the player 31 spaces to Ricky’s left. Zach begins the third round, only to find himself eliminated in a cruel twist of fate. (Woe is Zach.)
What was the smallest value of N the group could have used for this game?
Extra credit: Suppose the players were numbered from 1 to 61, with you as Player No. 1, the player to your left as Player No. 2 and so on. Which player won the game?
Extra extra credit: What’s the smallest N that would have made you the winner?
The solution to this Riddler Classic can be found in the following week’s column.
Solution to last week’s Riddler Express
Congratulations to 👏 Eric Mentzell 👏 of Takoma Park, Maryland, winner of last week’s Riddler Express.
Last week, four-time WNBA champion Sue Bird and Seattle Storm teammate Breanna Stewart were interested in testing whether Bird had a “hot hand” — that is, if her chances of making a basket depended on whether or not her previous shot went in. Bird happened to know that her chances of making any given shot was always 50 percent, independent of her shooting history, but she agreed to perform an experiment.
In each trial of the experiment, Bird took three shots, while Stewart recorded which shots Bird made or missed. Stewart then looked at all the trials with at least one shot that was immediately preceded by a made shot. She randomly picked one of these trials, and then randomly picked a shot that was immediately preceded by a made shot. (If there was only one such shot to pick from, she chose that shot.)
What was the probability that Bird made the shot that Stewart picked?
At first glance, you might have thought that the answer was 50 percent. After all, Bird acknowledged that she had a 50 percent chance of making any given shot. Right?
Wrong. And Riddler Nation was not fooled. To see why the answer wasn’t 50 percent, many solvers, like Deborah Abel, listed out all eight possible shot sequences. If we let “X” represent a made shot and “O” a missed shot, then the eight possible shot sequences were: OOO, OOX, OXO, XOO, OXX, XOX, XXO, and XXX. Because Bird had an equal chance of making or missing any shot, all eight of these shot sequences were equally likely.
During her analysis, Stewart first looked at shots that were “immediately preceded by a made shot.” This didn’t occur for sequences OOO and OOX, so we know that Stewart was limiting her analysis exclusively to the remaining six sequences, and that each had a one-in-six chance of being selected.
Next, Stewart “randomly picked a shot that was immediately preceded by a made shot.” Here’s what happened if you looked at the six possible sequences one at a time:
OXO: Stewart looked at the last shot. For this sequence, Bird made zero percent of the shots Stewart could have picked.
XOO: Stewart looked at the second shot. For this sequence, Bird made zero percent of the shots Stewart could have picked.
OXX: Stewart looked at the last shot. For this sequence, Bird made 100 percent of the shots Stewart could have picked, which gives a 1/6 chance of selecting a made shot in this sequence.
XOX: Stewart looked at the second shot. For this sequence, Bird made zero percent of the shots Stewart could have picked.
XXO: Stewart could have looked at the second or third shots. For this sequence, Bird made 50 percent of the shots Stewart could have picked, which gives a 1/12 chance of selecting a made shot in this sequence.
XXX: Stewart could have looked at the second or third shots. For this sequence, Bird made 100 percent of the shots Stewart could have picked, which gives a 1/6 chance of selecting a made shot in this sequence.
Putting this all together, the probability Bird had made the shot that Stewart picked was 1/6 + 1/12 + 1/6, or 5/12 — the solution!
So while Bird had a 50 percent chance of making any given shot, Stewart’s methodology for selecting a shot was somehow biased toward shots that Bird missed. What was going on here?
Solver Madeline Argent of Launceston, Australia offered an explanation. Among the six shot sequences listed above, there were eight cases in which Bird made one of her first two shots. Of these eight, Bird made four of the next shots and missed four of them. So if Stewart had selected among all shots that were immediately preceded by a made shot, Bird would have made half the selected shots. But because Stewart first randomly selected a trial, the last two shot sequences — XXO and XXX, in which Bird made most of her shots — were unfairly weighted equally alongside the other four sequences, even though they had twice as many made shots for Stewart to choose from.
That was what happened when Bird took three shots per trial. Meanwhile, solver Dean Ballard found similar results when Bird took more shots. The probability she had made a selected shot approached 50 percent as the number of shots increased, but it never quite reached 50 percent.
Clearly, this methodology for determining whether a basketball player had a “hot hand” was flawed. It may surprise some readers that this was precisely the methodology used in an attempt to debunk the “hot hand” back in 1985 — a debunking that itself was later debunked. If you’d like to read more on this, check out this 2019 article that connects all of this to the Monty Hall problem. (Kudos to submitter Drew Mathieson for the link!)
So if Stewart performed the experiment as outlined, and found that Bird had made half the selected shots (rather than 5/12 of them), she would have rightfully concluded that Bird did have a “hot hand.”
Solution to last week’s Riddler Classic
Congratulations to 👏 Lucas Robinson 👏 of Oakwood, Ohio, winner of last week’s Riddler Classic.
Last week, four-time NBA champion LeBron James was playing a game of sudden-death, one-on-one basketball with Los Angeles Lakers teammate Anthony Davis. They flipped a coin to see which of them had first possession, and whoever made the first basket won the game.
Both players had a 50 percent chance of making any shot they took. However, Davis was the superior rebounder and would always rebound any shot that either of them missed. Every time Davis rebounded the ball, he dribbled back to the three-point line before attempting another shot.
Before each of Davis’s shot attempts, James had a probability p of stealing the ball and regaining possession before Davis could get the shot off. What value of p made this an evenly matched game of one-on-one, in which both players had an equal chance of winning before the coin was flipped?
Suppose James’s probability of winning when he had possession was J, while James’s probability of winning when Davis had possession was D. We can write an equation for J: For James to win when he had possession, he either had to score (with probability 1/2) or, upon missing (also with probability 1/2), he’d have to somehow win after Davis got the rebound and gained possession. In other words, J = 1/2 + 1/2·D. We can similarly write an equation for D: For James to win when Davis had possession, he either had to steal the ball (with probability p) and regain possession, or, upon not getting the steal (with probability 1−p), he needed Davis to miss (with probability 1/2) so James could have another chance at victory. In other words, D = pJ + (1−p)D/2.
That gave you two equations with three unknowns. What was missing? Based on the coin flip, James started with possession half the time, and Davis started with possession the other half the time. James’s probability of winning was therefore J/2 + D/2, which the problem stated was to equal 1/2, so the third equation was J/2 + D/2 = 1/2, or J + D = 1.
Solving this system of three equations gave you the result that J = 2/3 (James had a two-thirds chance of winning when he had possession), D = 1/3 (James had a one-third chance of winning when Davis had possession) and p = 1/3. In other words, for the game to be fair, James had to have a one-third chance of stealing the ball.
Solver Quoc Tran extended the puzzle, simulating how James’s fortunes changed in the more realistic scenario where Davis didn’t nab every rebound. For the game to be fair, we already saw that James needed to steal one-third of the time when Davis rebounded every shot. Meanwhile, if James and Davis had had equal chances of getting a rebound, then to maintain parity, James couldn’t steal at all. But when Davis had a rebounding edge, interesting mathematics was happening, as shown below:
How fitting that this game was fair where purple met gold.
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--2020-10-30--Americans Say They’re Fired Up To Vote — Especially Democrats

Welcome to Pollapalooza , our weekly polling roundup .
American voters are fired up to cast their ballots .
And many already have , in record numbers .
According to the latest Gallup poll , released this morning , 69 percent of registered voters say that they are more enthusiastic to vote this year compared to previous elections .
That is a stark contrast to the 2016 election , when enthusiasm to vote was relatively low .
According to Gallup , which has asked voters about how enthusiastic they are to vote for at least the last two decades , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they were more enthusiastic to vote in 2016 than they had been in previous elections .
And regardless of who Americans plan to vote for , other polls also show that they think this election is important .
Ninety-four percent of registered voters said in a YouGov/The Economist poll conducted earlier this week that voting for president this year is “ very important.
” Members of both parties seem more enthusiastic to vote , too .
According to the party crosstabs of the Gallup poll , the share of voters who said that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were more excited than usual to vote is about 15 percentage points higher among Republicans and about 27 points higher among Democrats than it was four years ago .
Although , as you can see in the chart below , Democrats have an advantage in terms of voter enthusiasm this year .
Democratic enthusiasm this year is higher relative to past presidential elections .
The share of Democrats who say they ’ re more enthusiastic to vote this year is about 9 percentage points higher than the share of Republicans who say the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ large as the 14-point enthusiasm gap we saw in 2008 , when Barack Obama was first elected president , but that ’ s not because Democrats aren ’ t just as enthusiastic .
The difference is that Republicans are a bit more enthusiastic in 2020 than they were in 2008 .
But this enthusiasm doesn ’ t necessarily mean voters are excited about the candidates .
There ’ s long been this idea that Biden ’ s backers just aren ’ t as enthusiastic as Trump ’ s , and when YouGov asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidate , they did find that fewer of Biden ’ s supporters ( 48 percent ) said they were enthusiastic about him , while far more of Trump ’ s supporters ( 77 percent ) said they were enthusiastic about him .
However , 42 percent of Biden ’ s supporters said that they were “ satisfied but not enthusiastic ” about voting for him , while only 18 percent of Trump ’ s supporters said the same .
As we ’ ve written before , that “ enthusiasm ” gap might not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One source of voter enthusiasm is hatred of the other political party .
And on that metric , Biden has the upper hand .
While Trump may enjoy more enthusiastic support from his base , Biden ’ s voters are charged up to vote against Trump .
In that YouGov poll , for example , 52 percent of Biden voters said they were mostly casting a ballot against Trump rather than for Biden , while only 17 percent of Trump ’ s supporters said they were casting a vote primarily against Biden .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ who will be sitting behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office come January , it doesn ’ t much matter how enthusiastic someone was to vote , only that they did .
• Americans are split on whether children should be allowed to trick-or-treat on Halloween this year and whether they will hand out candy , given the coronavirus pandemic .
According to a YouGov poll , 30 percent of Americans say they plan to hand out treats to trick-or-treaters , while 26 percent say they usually do but won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who I can only surmise are either unable to give out treats or just extremely grumpy , said they never give out treats .
Nevertheless , a majority ( 69 percent ) seem to agree that children who trick-or-treat should be required to wear face masks .
• For those of you fed up with the horse race , a poll from Echelon Insights reimagined what the 2020 election might look like if the U.S. were a multi-party democracy .
Respondents were read descriptions of five hypothetical political parties , without the name @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And among these hypothetical parties , the Labor and Conservative Parties collectively led with 26 and 25 percent of the vote respectively , followed by the Nationalist Party , which got 16 percent , and then Acela and Green Parties , which got 11 percent each .
The hypothetical Green Party , which the pollster said would advocate for socialist policies and would be “ the political home of the Squad , ” got support from 45 percent of Gen Z voters ( those born after 1997 ) .
• Speaking of young @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 18- to 29-year-olds from the Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics found that the level of enthusiasm to vote among that demographic was about 16 percentage points higher than it was in 2016 .
In fact , this level of enthusiasm mirrored what Harvard found in 2008 .
Respondents were also asked about whether their opportunities to succeed were better than their parents ’ generation , and responses were split , with 36 percent saying they were better , 34 percent saying they were worse , and 29 percent saying their opportunities were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twenty percent of American adults say that ghosts definitely exist , according to a YouGov poll conducted last week .
About a quarter say they probably exist , 39 percent say they probably or definitely do not exist , and 16 percent said they don ’ t know .
• Seventy percent of Americans now support same-sex marriage while only 28 percent oppose it , according to a poll conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute .
That ’ s the highest level of support the institute has ever recorded for same-sex marriage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Eurasian country ( not the U.S. state ) , will vote Saturday to elect a new parliament .
October polls from Edison Research , Ipsos and European Georgia show the ruling Georgian Dream party , which won control of parliament decisively in 2016 , ahead in the polls .
These polls give the party anywhere from 25 to 36 percent of the vote and have the United National Movement party — led by former Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili , who is campaigning for the election remotely from self-exile in Ukraine — in second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the vote .
However , the polls also show a high number of undecided voters , and according to Georgian electoral rules , if a party doesn ’ t receive at least 40 percent of the vote , it may not hold a majority of seats in parliament and would have to rule as part of a coalition .
According to FiveThirtyEight ’ s presidential approval tracker , 44.0 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing as president , while 52.9 percent disapprove ( a net approval rating of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last week , 42.6 percent approved and 53.6 percent disapproved ( for a net approval rating of -11.0 points ) .
One month ago , Trump had an approval rating of 43.7 percent and a disapproval rating of 52.5 percent , for a net approval rating of -8.8 points .
In our average of polls of the generic congressional ballot , Democrats currently lead by 8.1 percentage points ( 49.8 percent to 41.7 percent ) .
A week ago , Democrats led Republicans by 7.1 points ( 49.4 percent to 42.3 percent ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters preferred Democrats by 6.1 points ( 48.8 percent to 42.7 percent ) .
Check out all the polls we ’ ve been collecting ahead of the 2020 elections .

Welcome to Pollapalooza, our weekly polling roundup.
Poll(s) of the week
American voters are fired up to cast their ballots. And many already have, in record numbers.
[Live Updates: We’re Tracking The Vote And Voting Problems]
According to the latest Gallup poll, released this morning, 69 percent of registered voters say that they are more enthusiastic to vote this year compared to previous elections. That is a stark contrast to the 2016 election, when enthusiasm to vote was relatively low. According to Gallup, which has asked voters about how enthusiastic they are to vote for at least the last two decades, only about half of registered voters said they were more enthusiastic to vote in 2016 than they had been in previous elections.
And regardless of who Americans plan to vote for, other polls also show that they think this election is important. Ninety-four percent of registered voters said in a YouGov/The Economist poll conducted earlier this week that voting for president this year is “very important.”
Members of both parties seem more enthusiastic to vote, too. According to the party crosstabs of the Gallup poll, the share of voters who said that, compared to previous elections, they were more excited than usual to vote is about 13 percentage points higher among Republicans and about 25 points higher among Democrats than it was four years ago. Although, as you can see in the chart below, Democrats have an advantage in terms of voter enthusiasm this year.
Democratic enthusiasm this year is higher relative to past presidential elections. The share of Democrats who say they’re more enthusiastic to vote this year is about 9 percentage points higher than the share of Republicans who say the same. That’s not as large as the 15-point enthusiasm gap we saw in 2008, when Barack Obama was first elected president, but that’s not because Democrats aren’t just as enthusiastic. The difference is that Republicans are a bit more enthusiastic in 2020 than they were in 2008.
What election stories need to get more coverage | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast
But this enthusiasm doesn’t necessarily mean voters are excited about the candidates. There’s long been this idea that Biden’s backers just aren’t as enthusiastic as Trump’s, and when YouGov asked voters if they were enthusiastic about each candidate, they did find that fewer of Biden’s supporters (48 percent) said they were enthusiastic about him, while far more of Trump’s supporters (77 percent) said they were enthusiastic about him. However, 42 percent of Biden’s supporters said that they were “satisfied but not enthusiastic” about voting for him, while only 18 percent of Trump’s supporters said the same.
As we’ve written before, that “enthusiasm” gap might not matter all that much for Biden. One source of voter enthusiasm is hatred of the other political party. And on that metric, Biden has the upper hand. While Trump may enjoy more enthusiastic support from his base, Biden’s voters are charged up to vote against Trump. In that YouGov poll, for example, 52 percent of Biden voters said they were mostly casting a ballot against Trump rather than for Biden, while only 17 percent of Trump’s supporters said they were casting a vote primarily against Biden.
That said, when it comes to who will be sitting behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office come January, it doesn’t much matter how enthusiastic someone was to vote, only that they did.
Other polling bites
Americans are split on whether children should be allowed to trick-or-treat on Halloween this year and whether they will hand out candy, given the coronavirus pandemic. According to a YouGov poll, 30 percent of Americans say they plan to hand out treats to trick-or-treaters, while 26 percent say they usually do but won’t this year. Another 35 percent, who I can only surmise are either unable to give out treats or just extremely grumpy, said they never give out treats. Nevertheless, a majority (69 percent) seem to agree that children who trick-or-treat should be required to wear face masks.
For those of you fed up with the horse race, a poll from Echelon Insights reimagined what the 2020 election might look like if the U.S. were a multi-party democracy. Respondents were read descriptions of five hypothetical political parties, without the name of the party or its leader. And among these hypothetical parties, the Labor and Conservative Parties collectively led with 26 and 25 percent of the vote respectively, followed by the Nationalist Party, which got 16 percent, and then Acela and Green Parties, which got 11 percent each. The hypothetical Green Party, which the pollster said would advocate for socialist policies and would be “the political home of the Squad,” got support from 45 percent of Gen Z voters (those born after 1997).
Speaking of young people, a survey of about 2,000 18- to 29-year-olds from the Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics found that the level of enthusiasm to vote among that demographic was about 16 percentage points higher than it was in 2016. In fact, this level of enthusiasm mirrored what Harvard found in 2008. Respondents were also asked about whether their opportunities to succeed were better than their parents’ generation, and responses were split, with 36 percent saying they were better, 34 percent saying they were worse, and 29 percent saying their opportunities were about the same.
BOO! Twenty percent of American adults say that ghosts definitely exist, according to a YouGov poll conducted last week. About a quarter say they probably exist, 39 percent say they probably or definitely do not exist, and 16 percent said they don’t know.
Seventy percent of Americans now support same-sex marriage while only 28 percent oppose it, according to a poll conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute. That’s the highest level of support the institute has ever recorded for same-sex marriage.
Citizens in Georgia, the Eurasian country (not the U.S. state), will vote Saturday to elect a new parliament. October polls from Edison Research, Ipsos and European Georgia show the ruling Georgian Dream party, which won control of parliament decisively in 2016, ahead in the polls. These polls give the party anywhere from 25 to 36 percent of the vote and have the United National Movement party — led by former Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili, who is campaigning for the election remotely from self-exile in Ukraine — in second place with about 17 to 18 percent of the vote. However, the polls also show a high number of undecided voters, and according to Georgian electoral rules, if a party doesn’t receive at least 40 percent of the vote, it may not hold a majority of seats in parliament and would have to rule as part of a coalition.
Fewer undecided voters is good news for Biden in the Midwest| FiveThirtyEight
Trump approval
According to FiveThirtyEight’s presidential approval tracker, 44.0 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing as president, while 52.9 percent disapprove (a net approval rating of -8.9 points). At this time last week, 42.6 percent approved and 53.6 percent disapproved (for a net approval rating of -11.0 points). One month ago, Trump had an approval rating of 43.7 percent and a disapproval rating of 52.5 percent, for a net approval rating of -8.8 points.
Generic ballot
In our average of polls of the generic congressional ballot, Democrats currently lead by 8.1 percentage points (49.8 percent to 41.7 percent). A week ago, Democrats led Republicans by 7.1 points (49.4 percent to 42.3 percent). At this time last month, voters preferred Democrats by 6.1 points (48.8 percent to 42.7 percent).
Check out all the polls we’ve been collecting ahead of the 2020 elections.
CORRECTION (Nov. 2, 2020, 7:10 p.m.): This article’s analysis of voter enthusiasm by party was based on a mixed sample of adults and registered voters. We have updated it so that the sample — registered voters — is consistent across years. In addition, the chart incorrectly described the sample as voters when it was actually a mix of voters and adults. The chart has also been updated.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-30--Why Younger Americans Don’t Vote More Often (*No, It’s Not Apathy)

We often hear how younger people are apathetic toward politics or politically disengaged .
And while it ’ s true that they tend to vote at lower rates than older Americans , apathy is just one piece of the puzzle for young people — and maybe not even the most important piece .
According to our new survey with Ipsos of more than 8,000 Americans , people between 18 and 34 are less likely to have faith in our political system .
But when we asked why they hadn ’ t voted in the past , we found that younger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ older people to say they didn ’ t vote because they think the system is too broken to be fixed by voting , or because all the candidates are the same , or because they don ’ t believe in voting .
That cynicism doesn ’ t seem to be motivating them to sit on the sidelines during elections .
Instead , younger people are much more likely than older people to report that they or members of their household have experienced barriers to voting , which suggests that they may genuinely find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And that problem could be compounded this year given the extraordinary challenges of voting during a pandemic .
In our survey , almost one-quarter ( 22 percent ) of young people said that when they didn ’ t end up casting a ballot , they had actually wanted to but couldn ’ t .
As the chart below shows , young people are more likely to report that they or members of their household have experienced hurdles to voting — even though most have had far fewer elections to vote in .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ much more likely to say they couldn ’ t get off work to vote , didn ’ t receive their ballot in time , missed the registration deadline or had trouble finding or accessing their polling place .
Take Jordan B. , 23 , a nursing student living in Savannah , Georgia .
Due to a mixup when she renewed her driver ’ s license , Jordan ’ s voter registration reverted to her home county , which is more than 200 miles away .
“ I ’ ll probably just drive four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
Jordan hasn ’ t had problems voting in the past but said some of her friends have run into issues with mail-in ballots this year .
Despite the inconvenience of not being able to cast her ballot in Savannah this year , though , she said she ’ s going to make voting a priority , in part because she ’ s unhappy with how President Trump has handled the COVID-19 pandemic .
Like many other Americans , younger voters feel a sense of urgency around this election .
Admittedly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ older voters to say the outcome of the 2020 election really matters ( 75 percent compared with 91 percent of people 65 or over ) .
But a high share ( 78 percent ) of young people told us they ’ re planning to vote this year , although of course , the number who actually cast a ballot will almost certainly be lower .
That could be part of the reason why so many young people are turning out to vote early — and if turnout remains high among this group , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden and Democratic candidates in general .
In our poll , 53 percent of adults under 35 said they planned to support Biden , while only 24 percent said they planned to support Trump .
( The rest were unsure . )
In general , young people tend to be more Democratic-leaning than older people : Our survey found that 62 percent of adults under 35 identify as Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party .
But young people aren ’ t necessarily that passionate about supporting Biden .
He struggled with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several of our survey respondents told us in follow-up interviews that they ’ re still lukewarm about him .
Kenneth Brant , 28 , who lives in Florida and voted for Sen. Bernie Sanders in the primary , was initially unhappy when Biden won the nomination but says he ’ s more enthusiastic about him now .
Still , however , he feels pretty “ resigned ” about his vote .
Brant wasn ’ t the only young voter we spoke with who was dissatisfied with his options , or politics more generally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he finds politics very frustrating , because people on opposite sides of the aisle won ’ t admit that anything their opponents have done is good .
Briana Thompson , 26 , feels disappointed with her voting choices .
She told us that since she lives in South Carolina , a red state , she doesn ’ t expect her vote to matter , which is why she ’ s decided to vote for the Green Party candidate instead of Biden .
Thompson feels that sends a stronger message than simply voting for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ election ] I am increasingly more jaded , ” she said .
Other voters , like Brant , who still plans to vote for one of the two major candidates , also approached the process itself with a heavy layer of cynicism .
Even though he lives in a swing state , Brant told us he still doesn ’ t think it will make a difference .
“ Honestly , Florida has never had free and fair elections , ” he said .
These kinds of attitudes were common among the young @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s one reason why — particularly considering the high barriers they typically face — young voter turnout might continue to ebb and flow , even if we see record-high turnout this year .
And many young people will likely continue to feel disenchanted with politics , even if they keep casting a ballot .
We asked Brant whether he ’ ll keep voting in 2022 and 2024 , even if Trump wins , and he responded with the verbal equivalent of a shrug .
“ Yeah , sure , my vote won ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll cast it to say that I cast it .
”

Why don’t more young people vote?
We often hear how younger people are apathetic toward politics or politically disengaged. And while it’s true that they tend to vote at lower rates than older Americans, apathy is just one piece of the puzzle for young people — and maybe not even the most important piece.
[Live Updates: We’re Tracking The Vote And Voting Problems]
According to our new survey with Ipsos of more than 8,000 Americans, people between 18 and 34 are less likely to have faith in our political system. But when we asked why they hadn’t voted in the past, we found that younger people weren’t more likely than older people to say they didn’t vote because they think the system is too broken to be fixed by voting, or because all the candidates are the same, or because they don’t believe in voting.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: How the electorate will be different in 2020
That cynicism doesn’t seem to be motivating them to sit on the sidelines during elections. Instead, younger people are much more likely than older people to report that they or members of their household have experienced barriers to voting, which suggests that they may genuinely find it more difficult to cast a ballot. And that problem could be compounded this year given the extraordinary challenges of voting during a pandemic.
In our survey, almost one-quarter (22 percent) of young people said that when they didn’t end up casting a ballot, they had actually wanted to but couldn’t. As the chart below shows, young people are more likely to report that they or members of their household have experienced hurdles to voting — even though most have had far fewer elections to vote in. Young people, for instance, are much more likely to say they couldn’t get off work to vote, didn’t receive their ballot in time, missed the registration deadline or had trouble finding or accessing their polling place.
Take Jordan B., 23, a nursing student living in Savannah, Georgia. Due to a mixup when she renewed her driver’s license, Jordan’s voter registration reverted to her home county, which is more than 200 miles away. “I’ll probably just drive four hours to go vote,” she said. Jordan hasn’t had problems voting in the past but said some of her friends have run into issues with mail-in ballots this year. Despite the inconvenience of not being able to cast her ballot in Savannah this year, though, she said she’s going to make voting a priority, in part because she’s unhappy with how President Trump has handled the COVID-19 pandemic.
Like many other Americans, younger voters feel a sense of urgency around this election. Admittedly, they’re slightly less likely than older voters to say the outcome of the 2020 election really matters (75 percent compared with 91 percent of people 65 or over). But a high share (78 percent) of young people told us they’re planning to vote this year, although of course, the number who actually cast a ballot will almost certainly be lower.
That could be part of the reason why so many young people are turning out to vote early — and if turnout remains high among this group, that could be very good news for Joe Biden and Democratic candidates in general. In our poll, 53 percent of adults under 35 said they planned to support Biden, while only 24 percent said they planned to support Trump. (The rest were unsure.) In general, young people tend to be more Democratic-leaning than older people: Our survey found that 62 percent of adults under 35 identify as Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party.
Will millions of dollars on TV ads make a difference in the race for the presidency?
But young people aren’t necessarily that passionate about supporting Biden. He struggled with young voters in the primary, and several of our survey respondents told us in follow-up interviews that they’re still lukewarm about him. Kenneth Brant, 28, who lives in Florida and voted for Sen. Bernie Sanders in the primary, was initially unhappy when Biden won the nomination but says he’s more enthusiastic about him now. Still, however, he feels pretty “resigned” about his vote.
Brant wasn’t the only young voter we spoke with who was dissatisfied with his options, or politics more generally. Andrew B., 29, said he finds politics very frustrating, because people on opposite sides of the aisle won’t admit that anything their opponents have done is good. Briana Thompson, 26, feels disappointed with her voting choices. She told us that since she lives in South Carolina, a red state, she doesn’t expect her vote to matter, which is why she’s decided to vote for the Green Party candidate instead of Biden. Thompson feels that sends a stronger message than simply voting for Biden. “[With] each [election] I am increasingly more jaded,” she said.
Other voters, like Brant, who still plans to vote for one of the two major candidates, also approached the process itself with a heavy layer of cynicism. Even though he lives in a swing state, Brant told us he still doesn’t think it will make a difference. “Honestly, Florida has never had free and fair elections,” he said.
These kinds of attitudes were common among the young voters we spoke with. That’s one reason why — particularly considering the high barriers they typically face — young voter turnout might continue to ebb and flow, even if we see record-high turnout this year. And many young people will likely continue to feel disenchanted with politics, even if they keep casting a ballot.
We asked Brant whether he’ll keep voting in 2022 and 2024, even if Trump wins, and he responded with the verbal equivalent of a shrug. “Yeah, sure, my vote won’t matter for anything, but I’ll cast it to say that I cast it.”
Tony Chow contributed reporting.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-30--What Are The Chances We’ll Know The Next President On Election Night?

FiveThirtyEight editor-in-chief Nate Silver discusses the race in Pennsylvania , when we ’ ll know the outcome of the general @ @ @ @ @ that the Supreme Court will need to step in to determine the winner of the @ @

What Are The Chances We’ll Know The Next President On Election Night?
FiveThirtyEight editor-in-chief Nate Silver discusses the race in Pennsylvania, when we’ll know the outcome of the general election, and the chances that the Supreme Court will need to step in to determine the winner of the presidency.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-30--Why Trump Has A Better Chance Of Winning Pennsylvania Than Wisconsin Or Michigan

In this installment of Model Talk , editor-in-chief Nate Silver and Galen Druke discuss how the latest polling has shifted @ @ @ @ @ battleground states and whether there is reason to believe that “ shy Trump voters ” @ @ @ @ @ upset win .

In this installment of Model Talk, editor-in-chief Nate Silver and Galen Druke discuss how the latest polling has shifted in some of the key battleground states and whether there is reason to believe that “shy Trump voters” could give the president an upset win.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-30--Politics Podcast: There Just Isn’t Good Evidence That ‘Shy’ Trump Voters Exist

This is the final ( ! )
preelection installment of Model Talk on the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast .
Galen Druke @ @ @ @ @ about the latest polling shifts in key battleground states and whether there is any reason @ @ @ @ @ Trump voters ” will deliver an upset win for the president on Election Day .
@ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t . )
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “ @ @ @ @ @ audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes , the ESPN App or your @ @ @ @ @ you are new to podcasts , learn how to listen .
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast @ @ @ @ @ .
Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on @ @ @ @ @ , question or suggestion for “ good polling vs. bad polling ” ?
Get in @ @ @ @ @ Twitter or in the comments .

This is the final(!) preelection installment of Model Talk on the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast. Galen Druke talks to editor-in-chief Nate Silver about the latest polling shifts in key battleground states and whether there is any reason to believe that “shy Trump voters” will deliver an upset win for the president on Election Day. (The evidence suggests there isn’t.)
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast is recorded Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-30--Biden Doesn’t Have A Popularity Problem. That Might Help Him Win.

From the start of the Democratic primary , many Democratic voters prioritized electability , with plenty believing that Joe Biden was the most electable Democratic candidate in a general election against President Trump .
Not everyone bought that argument : Some argued that Trump would easily caricature Biden and make him less popular with voters .
Even FiveThirtyEight was skeptical of Biden ’ s electability argument .
Sure , Biden was well-known and perceived as moderate , not to mention experienced .
But it was hard to evaluate the accuracy of Democratic primary voters ’ sense of Biden ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats were just scaring themselves into backing a white , moderate and male candidate in reaction to Hillary Clinton ’ s loss in 2016 .
But it is increasingly looking like Democractic primary voters might have been right about Biden ’ s electability argument .
In the face of relentless attacks from the Trump campaign , Biden hasn ’ t dipped in the polls ; in fact , he ’ s actually become better liked , and has built a formidable favorability advantage over Trump .
One way we can see this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polls asking voters to choose between Biden and Trump with generic ballot polls that ask voters whether they support a Democrat or Republican for Congress .
Initially , Trump led on this metric , performing better than the generic Republican congressional candidate by approximately 3 percentage points earlier in 2020 , but Biden ’ s popularity has steadily ticked upward since mid-April .
And since August , Biden has led Trump on this metric ( although Trump has ticked up in October ) .
Even though Democrats have long led on the generic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point advantage , on average — Biden is not just ahead because voters prefer Democrats .
He ’ s ahead because voters support Biden more than they support the average Democrat running for Congress .
In fact , when asked if they have a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward Biden , voters have either remained positive or split .
That is a big contrast with 2016 , when voters had consistently negative attitudes toward Clinton ( and Trump ) .
One possible reason Biden might have a popularity edge ?
General election voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and historically , more moderate presidential candidates generally do better in general elections .
They generate less opposition when it comes to voter turnout and are perceived as less extreme by swing voters — though that advantage is declining .
In fact , Trump benefited from this dynamic in 2016 , when he was perceived as more moderate than most Republican candidates .
( Although when we compare the current cycle to 2016 , there is the separate question of gender , which is difficult to entangle but shouldn ’ t be discounted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testament to Biden ’ s strength as a general election candidate , though , is the fact that he continues to do better than Democratic primary runner-up Sen. Bernie Sanders in head-to-head matchups against Trump .
He held a consistent advantage during the primaries and that has continued in hypothetical polls afterward .
Republicans have still been trying to tie Biden to “ socialists ” and “ the radical left , ” by linking him to Sanders , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , and Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar .
But if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden largely the same way that they would have against Sanders , it has not worked .
Additionally , Biden ’ s supposed lack of enthusiasm among small donors never really materialized .
Despite struggling with online donations in the primary , Biden is now raising 1,000 times as much online per day as he was last year .
He ’ s also outraising Trump , which suggests that maybe in fundraising , partisanship matters more than excitement around the nominee or even ideology .
Likewise , voter turnout estimates remain very high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turnout in the primary , voters may not need a younger or more liberal candidate to be inclined to participate .
So if Biden wins , those who argued that his “ electability advantage ” was unreal or was based on a voter misunderstanding may need to revisit those takes .
Sometimes the conventional wisdom , even among voters , is right .

From the start of the Democratic primary, many Democratic voters prioritized electability, with plenty believing that Joe Biden was the most electable Democratic candidate in a general election against President Trump. Not everyone bought that argument: Some argued that Trump would easily caricature Biden and make him less popular with voters. Even FiveThirtyEight was skeptical of Biden’s electability argument.
[Live Updates: We’re Tracking The Vote And Voting Problems]
Sure, Biden was well-known and perceived as moderate, not to mention experienced. But it was hard to evaluate the accuracy of Democratic primary voters’ sense of Biden’s electability. There was the possibility that Democrats were just scaring themselves into backing a white, moderate and male candidate in reaction to Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016.
What the deluge of final polls can tell us | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast
But it is increasingly looking like Democractic primary voters might have been right about Biden’s electability argument. In the face of relentless attacks from the Trump campaign, Biden hasn’t dipped in the polls; in fact, he’s actually become better liked, and has built a formidable favorability advantage over Trump.
One way we can see this is if we compare the results of presidential polls asking voters to choose between Biden and Trump with generic ballot polls that ask voters whether they support a Democrat or Republican for Congress. Initially, Trump led on this metric, performing better than the generic Republican congressional candidate by approximately 3 percentage points earlier in 2020, but Biden’s popularity has steadily ticked upward since mid-April. And since August, Biden has led Trump on this metric (although Trump has ticked up in October).
Even though Democrats have long led on the generic ballot — they have a nearly 8 point advantage, on average — Biden is not just ahead because voters prefer Democrats. He’s ahead because voters support Biden more than they support the average Democrat running for Congress.
In fact, when asked if they have a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward Biden, voters have either remained positive or split. That is a big contrast with 2016, when voters had consistently negative attitudes toward Clinton (and Trump).
One possible reason Biden might have a popularity edge? General election voters still perceive Biden as relatively moderate, and historically, more moderate presidential candidates generally do better in general elections. They generate less opposition when it comes to voter turnout and are perceived as less extreme by swing voters — though that advantage is declining. In fact, Trump benefited from this dynamic in 2016, when he was perceived as more moderate than most Republican candidates. (Although when we compare the current cycle to 2016, there is the separate question of gender, which is difficult to entangle but shouldn’t be discounted as a possible factor.)
Further testament to Biden’s strength as a general election candidate, though, is the fact that he continues to do better than Democratic primary runner-up Sen. Bernie Sanders in head-to-head matchups against Trump. He held a consistent advantage during the primaries and that has continued in hypothetical polls afterward. Republicans have still been trying to tie Biden to “socialists” and “the radical left,” by linking him to Sanders, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar. But if Republicans’ plan was to run against Biden largely the same way that they would have against Sanders, it has not worked.
Additionally, Biden’s supposed lack of enthusiasm among small donors never really materialized. Despite struggling with online donations in the primary, Biden is now raising 1,000 times as much online per day as he was last year. He’s also outraising Trump, which suggests that maybe in fundraising, partisanship matters more than excitement around the nominee or even ideology. Likewise, voter turnout estimates remain very high. So despite concerns around young voter turnout in the primary, voters may not need a younger or more liberal candidate to be inclined to participate.
So if Biden wins, those who argued that his “electability advantage” was unreal or was based on a voter misunderstanding may need to revisit those takes. Sometimes the conventional wisdom, even among voters, is right.
What are the chances we’ll know the next president on election night?


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-30--The Dodgers’ Championship Machine Took A Decade — And A Lot Of Money — To Build

The Los Angeles Dodgers ’ championship-clinching victory in Tuesday ’ s World Series Game 6 was a long time coming .
That was true literally — before this week , the Dodgers hadn ’ t lifted the trophy since 1988 , one of the longest droughts in baseball — but also figuratively .
Over the past decade or so , no team has made more of a concerted effort to win a title than Los Angeles .
Since 2012 , the Dodgers have won more regular-season games than any other club , spent more money on payroll than all but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the game ’ s strongest farm systems .
They hired one of the largest analytics staffs in sports — under the direction of Andrew Friedman , president of baseball operations — went star-hunting in the trade market and pressed every other advantage they could think of .
After years of falling short , everything came together for L.A. in 2020 with the best team in franchise history — and one of the best baseball has ever seen .
The Dodgers have long been one of MLB ’ s glamour franchises , with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ top-notch uniforms and a sizable fanbase in a massive media market .
( And , of course , they had the great Vin Scully on the mic until a few years ago . )
All that was missing through the 1990s and into the 2000s was a championship , which eluded Los Angeles across seven managers , seven general managers and three ownership changes .
It wasn ’ t for lack of trying ; the team has long attempted to leverage its big-market status into perennial contention .
But it often struggled to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1999 to 2003 , the Dodgers spent a staggering $ 478,360,432 ( again , second only to the Yankees ) on zero playoff appearances .
Shortly thereafter , they overhauled their prospect pipeline and hired a proto-Friedman of sorts in general manager Paul DePodesta , of “ Moneyball ” fame .
But then-owner Frank McCourt pulled the plug on DePodesta ’ s tenure after barely two seasons .
The immediate post-DePodesta Dodgers under Ned Colletti were more successful , with three postseason berths in his first four seasons , though that was followed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aging roster .
The tide truly started to turn for L.A. after McCourt was forced to sell the team as part of a messy divorce and bankruptcy saga .
In 2012 , the Guggenheim Baseball Management group purchased the Dodgers for $ 2 billion , at the time a record price tag for a sports franchise .
With Los Angeles Lakers icon Magic Johnson among the investors , the new ownership group — helmed by veteran executive Stan Kasten — set about turning the Dodgers into the winning ( and money-making ) machine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been .
It started with investing a huge amount of money into upgrading Dodger Stadium — and also the on-field product .
In 2013 , Los Angeles set an all-time MLB record ( which still stands ) by spending $ 259,856,000 on its payroll , eclipsing even the Yankees ’ notoriously spendthrift ways under former owner George Steinbrenner .
That Dodgers team didn ’ t win it all , losing to the St. Louis Cardinals in the National League Championship Series , but it did represent the closest L.A. had come to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since 1988 .
Then the Dodgers lured Friedman away from the Tampa Bay Rays to become their president of baseball operations , and they hired Farhan Zaidi — another analytics visionary from the Oakland A ’ s , just like DePodesta — to be general manager .
From then on , the Dodgers effectively became the model MLB franchise , a big-market club that wasn ’ t afraid to spend but also focused on developing players and creating a constant pipeline of talent .
Of the 690 team-seasons since 1998 , only 60 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ top 10 in both total major-league payroll and Baseball America ’ s organizational farm system rankings .
The two factors so seldom coexist because there is a natural push-and-pull between loading up on talent for the future and spending to win in the here and now .
In the traditional cycle of rebuilding and contending , a rebuild consists of shedding payroll and focusing on the farm system , then ramping up spending ( and gutting the supply of prospects in trades ) when a core is in place to contend .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they don ’ t exist in that continuum between contending and rebuilding .
They rebuild and they contend , all at once , which is why they have pulled off the double-top-10 feat in each of the past six seasons — the longest streak since the Atlanta Braves did it from 1998 to 2005 .
Those Braves never got enough credit for being a player-development machine , but that was a crucial part of Atlanta ’ s dynasty-era streak of 14 consecutive division titles .
Similarly , the Dodgers have used the formula @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outfielder Mookie Betts — with a constant supply of homegrown talent that includes World Series MVP Corey Seager , 2019 NL MVP Cody Bellinger and pitchers Walker Buehler and Julio Urías , who combined for a 1.50 ERA in 48 innings this postseason .
( And , of course , a certain 2006 Dodgers draftee who has been through L.A. ’ s entire renaissance : future Hall of Fame starter Clayton Kershaw . )
The Braves never won a World Series during that streak of top 10 prospect-and-payroll seasons , a cautionary tale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sport as random as baseball .
And Los Angeles was also looking like a warning sign for those hoping to win through sheer talent accumulation : Only two teams ( one of which was that Atlanta squad ) ever won more games in a seven-season span with zero titles to show for it than the 2013-19 Dodgers did .
But the 2020 Dodgers came up big where their predecessors had failed .
In its previous two World Series losses , 2017 and 2018 , L.A. hit fewer home runs than the eventual winners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out more ( 121 to 107 ) , had an inferior batting average ( .193 versus .226 ) and lost the on-base plus slugging battle ( .728 to .617 on average ) .
Against the Rays in 2020 , though , the Dodgers flipped those numbers around , winning all of the key battles — including a commanding .819 to .672 OPS edge .
As part of that , Kershaw overcame his reputation for postseason miscues , winning both of his World Series starts with a sterling 2.31 ERA .
His story — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) to convert stellar regular-season promise into championship success — was a microcosm of the whole franchise ’ s battle to reach the pinnacle of the sport this past decade .
So too was the tale of manager Dave Roberts , who was often criticized for in-game decisions in L.A. ’ s previous losses but pushed all the right buttons down the stretch of the 2020 World Series ( in stark contrast with his counterpart for Tampa Bay , Kevin Cash ) .
In steering the Dodger ship to a title , Roberts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( such as Joe Torre , Don Mattingly , Jim Tracy and Davey Johnson ) couldn ’ t over the past three decades .
Maybe , in the end , this team was simply too good to not win .
Across the regular season and playoffs , Los Angeles went 56-22 — which works out to a 116.3-win pace per 162 games , better than the record for single-season victories set by the Seattle Mariners in 2001 .
They had a +136 run differential in 60 regular-season games , the fourth-best per-game margin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ratings , the 2020 Dodgers finished the season with a rating of 1612.4 , which makes them the seventh-best team of the entire World Series era ( since 1903 ) in terms of final , end-of-season Elo : It may have come at the end of an imperfect season , but the 2020 Dodgers ’ championship was the culmination of a long , expensive effort to create the perfect baseball machine .
Along the way , L.A. proved that if a franchise invests enough , innovates enough , acquires enough talent and — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it can finally engineer a championship breakthrough .

The Los Angeles Dodgers’ championship-clinching victory in Tuesday’s World Series Game 6 was a long time coming. That was true literally — before this week, the Dodgers hadn’t lifted the trophy since 1988, one of the longest droughts in baseball — but also figuratively. Over the past decade or so, no team has made more of a concerted effort to win a title than Los Angeles. Since 2012, the Dodgers have won more regular-season games than any other club, spent more money on payroll than all but one team and consistently built one of the game’s strongest farm systems. They hired one of the largest analytics staffs in sports — under the direction of Andrew Friedman, president of baseball operations — went star-hunting in the trade market and pressed every other advantage they could think of. After years of falling short, everything came together for L.A. in 2020 with the best team in franchise history — and one of the best baseball has ever seen.
The Dodgers have long been one of MLB’s glamour franchises, with a rich history, an iconic stadium, top-notch uniforms and a sizable fanbase in a massive media market. (And, of course, they had the great Vin Scully on the mic until a few years ago.) All that was missing through the 1990s and into the 2000s was a championship, which eluded Los Angeles across seven managers, seven general managers and three ownership changes. It wasn’t for lack of trying; the team has long attempted to leverage its big-market status into perennial contention. But it often struggled to get the formula quite right.
From 1999 to 2003, the Dodgers spent a staggering $478,360,432 (again, second only to the Yankees) on zero playoff appearances. Shortly thereafter, they overhauled their prospect pipeline and hired a proto-Friedman of sorts in general manager Paul DePodesta, of “Moneyball” fame. But then-owner Frank McCourt pulled the plug on DePodesta’s tenure after barely two seasons. The immediate post-DePodesta Dodgers under Ned Colletti were more successful, with three postseason berths in his first four seasons, though that was followed by another multi-year playoff drought with an aging roster.
The tide truly started to turn for L.A. after McCourt was forced to sell the team as part of a messy divorce and bankruptcy saga. In 2012, the Guggenheim Baseball Management group purchased the Dodgers for $2 billion, at the time a record price tag for a sports franchise. With Los Angeles Lakers icon Magic Johnson among the investors, the new ownership group — helmed by veteran executive Stan Kasten — set about turning the Dodgers into the winning (and money-making) machine it always seemed like it should have been.
It started with investing a huge amount of money into upgrading Dodger Stadium — and also the on-field product. In 2013, Los Angeles set an all-time MLB record (which still stands) by spending $259,856,000 on its payroll, eclipsing even the Yankees’ notoriously spendthrift ways under former owner George Steinbrenner. That Dodgers team didn’t win it all, losing to the St. Louis Cardinals in the National League Championship Series, but it did represent the closest L.A. had come to the World Series (two wins away) since 1988. Then the Dodgers lured Friedman away from the Tampa Bay Rays to become their president of baseball operations, and they hired Farhan Zaidi — another analytics visionary from the Oakland A’s, just like DePodesta — to be general manager. From then on, the Dodgers effectively became the model MLB franchise, a big-market club that wasn’t afraid to spend but also focused on developing players and creating a constant pipeline of talent.
Of the 690 team-seasons since 1998, only 60 have seen a team rank among the top 10 in both total major-league payroll and Baseball America’s organizational farm system rankings. The two factors so seldom coexist because there is a natural push-and-pull between loading up on talent for the future and spending to win in the here and now. In the traditional cycle of rebuilding and contending, a rebuild consists of shedding payroll and focusing on the farm system, then ramping up spending (and gutting the supply of prospects in trades) when a core is in place to contend.
But the beauty of these Dodgers is that they don’t exist in that continuum between contending and rebuilding. They rebuild and they contend, all at once, which is why they have pulled off the double-top-10 feat in each of the past six seasons — the longest streak since the Atlanta Braves did it from 1998 to 2005.
They ascend, spend … and win Since 1998, longest streaks for MLB teams among the top 10 in both Baseball America’s farm system rankings and payroll Avg. MLB Ranks Team Years Prospects Payroll streak Braves 1998-2005 4.3 5.9 8 years Dodgers 2015-2020 4.7 4.2 6 Yankees 1998-2002 5.0 1.2 5 Angels 2004-2007 3.0 5.8 4 Red Sox 2013-2016 4.3 3.5 4 Red Sox 2006-2008 6.3 2.7 3 Cubs 2003-2005 6.7 7.7 3 Dodgers 2006-2008 4.7 6.7 3 Rangers 2012-2014 4.3 6.3 3 Sources: Baseball-Reference.com, Baseball America
Those Braves never got enough credit for being a player-development machine, but that was a crucial part of Atlanta’s dynasty-era streak of 14 consecutive division titles. Similarly, the Dodgers have used the formula to complement their big-ticket pickups — like outfielder Mookie Betts — with a constant supply of homegrown talent that includes World Series MVP Corey Seager, 2019 NL MVP Cody Bellinger and pitchers Walker Buehler and Julio Urías, who combined for a 1.50 ERA in 48 innings this postseason. (And, of course, a certain 2006 Dodgers draftee who has been through L.A.’s entire renaissance: future Hall of Fame starter Clayton Kershaw.)
The Braves never won a World Series during that streak of top 10 prospect-and-payroll seasons, a cautionary tale about the limits of machine-building in a sport as random as baseball. And Los Angeles was also looking like a warning sign for those hoping to win through sheer talent accumulation: Only two teams (one of which was that Atlanta squad) ever won more games in a seven-season span with zero titles to show for it than the 2013-19 Dodgers did.
But the 2020 Dodgers came up big where their predecessors had failed. In its previous two World Series losses, 2017 and 2018, L.A. hit fewer home runs than the eventual winners (23 to 16), struck out more (121 to 107), had an inferior batting average (.193 versus .226) and lost the on-base plus slugging battle (.728 to .617 on average). Against the Rays in 2020, though, the Dodgers flipped those numbers around, winning all of the key battles — including a commanding .819 to .672 OPS edge.
The Dodgers flipped their usual World Series script Margins for the Los Angeles Dodgers (versus their opponents) in key statistics during the 2017, 2018 and 2020 World Series Dodgers Margin World Series AVG OBP BB% SO%* SLG Iso. Power OPS 2017-18 -.034 -.031 -0.8% +3.8% -.079 -.046 -.111 2020 +.035 +.061 +3.3 -6.6 +.086 +.051 +.147 *A lower strikeout percentage is better for a team. Source: Baseball-Reference.com
As part of that, Kershaw overcame his reputation for postseason miscues, winning both of his World Series starts with a sterling 2.31 ERA. His story — trying again and again (and again) to convert stellar regular-season promise into championship success — was a microcosm of the whole franchise’s battle to reach the pinnacle of the sport this past decade. So too was the tale of manager Dave Roberts, who was often criticized for in-game decisions in L.A.’s previous losses but pushed all the right buttons down the stretch of the 2020 World Series (in stark contrast with his counterpart for Tampa Bay, Kevin Cash). In steering the Dodger ship to a title, Roberts did what plenty of other well-regarded skippers (such as Joe Torre, Don Mattingly, Jim Tracy and Davey Johnson) couldn’t over the past three decades.
Maybe, in the end, this team was simply too good to not win. Across the regular season and playoffs, Los Angeles went 56-22 — which works out to a 116.3-win pace per 162 games, better than the record for single-season victories set by the Seattle Mariners in 2001. They had a +136 run differential in 60 regular-season games, the fourth-best per-game margin ever. And according to our Elo ratings, the 2020 Dodgers finished the season with a rating of 1612.4, which makes them the seventh-best team of the entire World Series era (since 1903) in terms of final, end-of-season Elo:
The 2020 Dodgers are one of the best teams ever Greatest teams of the World Series era (1903-2020), according to FiveThirtyEight’s final, end-of-season Elo ratings Year Team Wins Losses Win% Won WS? Final Elo 1939 Yankees 110 45 .710 ✓ 1631.6 1906 Cubs 117 40 .745 1622.5 1927 Yankees 114 44 .722 ✓ 1619.7 1942 Cardinals 110 49 .692 ✓ 1619.3 1911 Athletics 105 52 .669 ✓ 1613.4 1932 Yankees 112 47 .704 ✓ 1612.7 2020 Dodgers 56 22 .718 ✓ 1612.4 1909 Pirates 115 45 .719 ✓ 1612.0 1998 Yankees 125 50 .714 ✓ 1611.8 1970 Orioles 115 55 .676 ✓ 1611.2 2018 Red Sox 119 57 .676 ✓ 1610.1 1909 Cubs 104 49 .680 1605.7 1910 Athletics 106 49 .684 ✓ 1604.9 1907 Cubs 112 44 .718 ✓ 1604.6 1937 Yankees 107 53 .669 ✓ 1604.0 1936 Yankees 106 53 .667 ✓ 1603.6 1905 Giants 109 48 .694 ✓ 1601.6 1908 Cubs 103 56 .648 ✓ 1600.3 1954 Yankees 103 51 .669 1600.0 1943 Cardinals 106 53 .667 1599.0 Sources: Baseball-Reference.com, Retrosheet
It may have come at the end of an imperfect season, but the 2020 Dodgers’ championship was the culmination of a long, expensive effort to create the perfect baseball machine. Along the way, L.A. proved that if a franchise invests enough, innovates enough, acquires enough talent and — perhaps most importantly — tries enough times, it can finally engineer a championship breakthrough.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-30--When To Expect Election Results In Every State

Here ’ s a general picture of how much of the vote we expect to be counted on election night in all 50 states and Washington , D.C .
If you click on a given state , it ’ ll take you to a more detailed description of when to expect results and whether to expect a red or blue shift in the vote count .
There ’ s a good chance we won ’ t know who won the presidential election on election night .
More people than ever are voting by mail this year due to the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ count than ballots cast at polling places .
But because each state has its own rules for how votes are counted and reported , some will report results sooner than others .
Those disparate rules may also make initial returns misleading : The margins in some states may shift toward Democrats as mail ballots ( which are overwhelmingly cast by Democrats ) are counted , while states that release mail ballots first may experience a shift toward Republicans as Election Day votes are tallied .
The upshot for the presidential race is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of where things are headed on election night , even if no candidate is able to clinch 270 electoral votes ( which is the threshold required to win ) until later in the week .
We should get near-complete results in Florida in a matter of hours ; Arizona and North Carolina will release the vast majority of their ballots very quickly , although if the race is too close to call they may not provide a final answer for days .
Georgia and Texas should tally most ballots on Nov. 3 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thursday .
We should know the winner in Wisconsin by Wednesday morning ; Michigan and Pennsylvania , by contrast , will probably take until the end of the week .
Of course , there are a lot more races on the ballot than just the presidential contest , so read on to get a more detailed picture of every state .
One last caveat before you dive in : These are just our best guesses based on what we know right now .
Things can always go sideways thanks to human error or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even the fastest-counting state may leave a race uncalled for days if the margin is close enough .

Some states may hold polls open longer if they run into issues like long lines or malfunctioning machines. To follow any changes announced on Election Day, check out our live blog
When To Expect Election Results In Every State A complete guide to poll closing times, vote counting and races to watch on election night 2020
There’s a good chance we won’t know who won the presidential election on election night. More people than ever are voting by mail this year due to the pandemic, and mail ballots take longer to count than ballots cast at polling places. But because each state has its own rules for how votes are counted and reported, some will report results sooner than others. Those disparate rules may also make initial returns misleading: The margins in some states may shift toward Democrats as mail ballots (which are overwhelmingly cast by Democrats) are counted, while states that release mail ballots first may experience a shift toward Republicans as Election Day votes are tallied. Here’s a general picture of how much of the vote we expect to be counted on election night in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. If you click on a given state, it’ll take you to a more detailed description of when to expect results and whether to expect a red or blue shift in the vote count.
How much of the vote is expected to be counted on election night? Nearly all Most but not all Only some Ark. Ark. Tenn. Tenn. Ga. Ga. Miss. Miss. Fla. Fla. Idaho Idaho N.D. N.D. Minn. Minn. Ill. Ill. N.Y. N.Y. Pa. Pa. Nev. Nev. Ind. Ind. Colo. Colo. Va. Va. Calif. Calif. Mo. Mo. W. Va. W. Va. Md. Md. D.C. D.C. Wis. Wis. N.M. N.M. S.C. S.C. Ariz. Ariz. Kan. Kan. N.C. N.C. Okla. Okla. La. La. Ala. Ala. Alaska Alaska Hawaii Hawaii Texas Texas Mont. Mont. Wash. Wash. Mich. Mich. Mass. Mass. N.J. N.J. Wyo. Wyo. Ore. Ore. S.D. S.D. Iowa Iowa Ohio Ohio Conn. Conn. R.I. R.I. Utah Utah Neb. Neb. Ky. Ky. Del. Del. Vt. Vt. N.H. N.H. Maine Maine