fivethirthyeight--2020-10-27--Who’s The Best Quarterback From The Much-Hyped 2018 Draft Class?

The 2018 NFL draft was historic for quarterbacks .
It was the first draft in 69 years that four quarterbacks came off the board in the first 10 picks , and it was just the third time that five or more were taken in the first round .
That kind of expenditure of draft capital naturally leads to high expectations .
Typically it takes three years before we can judge the success of a draft pick , so with over a third of the 2020 season completed , we wanted to ask : Is it still too early to say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Picking the worst is easy .
Joshua Ballinger Lippincott Rosen , who was taken with the 10th overall pick , has already been traded and waived in his brief career and is now on the practice squad in Tampa Bay .
Picking the best is more difficult .
Among the four first-round QBs who are currently starting , three have made a case for consideration through Week 6 of this season — if only temporarily .
• In 2018 , Baker Mayfield took over starting duties in Cleveland from Tyrod Taylor after Taylor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York Jets with a concussion .
( A young , first-round QB taking over for Taylor and then never leaving has become a familiar story for the beleaguered Chargers quarterback . )
Mayfield went on to set the rookie touchdown passing record en route to a 6-7 record as a starter .
• 2019 was Lamar Jackson ’ s year .
He captivated the NFL with his athleticism , rushing for a single-season quarterback record and earning league MVP honors while leading the Baltimore Ravens to a 13-2 record in games he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Josh Allen playing near-elite football .
And while he ’ s cooled off since the Buffalo Bills ’ 4-0 start to the season , losing two straight games heading into Week 7 , Allen has surpassed Mayfield in Total Quarterback Rating ( QBR ) over their careers .
Allen now places second among the four starting QBs from the ’ 18 draft class by that measure , behind only Jackson .
• Despite being taken with the third overall pick , Sam Darnold of the New York Jets is the only QB in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moment — however brief — in which he was performing well enough to be considered the top quarterback in the draft class .
Darnold currently sits last in career QBR among the four 2018 draftees , with a rating of just 46.2 through Week 6 .
We can also track the evolution of each quarterback ’ s performance over his career so far using FiveThirtyEight ’ s QB Elo ratings .
Mayfield ’ s peak came early on , and he hasn ’ t matched that level of performance since , settling in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent weeks .
Meanwhile , Jackson ’ s ascent was rapid and sustained , with 70 percent of his games earning an above-average Elo value .
Allen ’ s plot is emblematic of the Josh Allen Experience : a roller-coaster ride of ups and downs , with a general upward trend .
Finally , Darnold has had his moments , but his peaks aren ’ t especially high , while his lows are among the lowest .
Just 30 percent of Darnold ’ s games have been above average .
Even with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safe to say that the conventional wisdom was wrong about these quarterbacks .
The No .
1 overall pick ranks third among his draft peers in career QBR , and the last pick of the first round ranks first .
Not even Baltimore was completely sold on Jackson — the Ravens took tight end Hayden Hurst with the 25th pick before trading up to select their QB with the last pick of Round 1 .
Pointing and laughing surely isn ’ t useful , but examining the reasons that coaches and scouts missed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If we ’ re going to talk about bad football opinions , it ’ s hard not to start with people ’ s thoughts on Jackson .
Perhaps the coldest take of the 2018 draft process was the notion that Jackson wasn ’ t big enough or accurate enough to be an NFL QB .
That sentiment was expressed most famously by Bill Polian , former general manager of the Indianapolis Colts , when he said Jackson should become a wide receiver .
But Polian wasn ’ t alone .
The evaluation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coach .
“ He will not be able to play [ quarterback ] in this league , mark my words .
When he throws , he hopes , ” an anonymous offensive coordinator told NFL.com ’ s Tom Pellissero .
Perhaps it ’ s piling on , but it ’ s worth mentioning that Jackson won his MVP at quarterback .
But NFL coaches ’ misreads didn ’ t end with Jackson .
“ If you watch them both , I think it ’ s obvious how much better an athlete Darnold is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coach told Pelissero .
“ I ’ m not talking about [ forty ] times or anything .
I ’ m just talking about his ability to move quickly , to adjust.
” If Darnold actually is more athletic than Allen , he hasn ’ t shown it yet .
So far in his career , Allen is averaging 37.8 rushing yards per game on scrambles and designed runs , nearly four times as many as Darnold ’ s 10.6 yards per game , through Week 6 of 2020 .
And their career @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 7 percent for Darnold and 7.1 percent for Allen .
Teams take great pains to try to quantify prospects ’ general athleticism each year at the combine in Indianapolis .
That Jackson ’ s obvious athleticism was held against him as a QB prospect and Allen ’ s relative athleticism compared to Darnold was missed entirely suggests that even the most straightforward evaluations of QB play are fraught with error .
But the most common fault scouts and coaches found with these QBs was their accuracy .
One coordinator summed up the feeling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when he pointed out that you can ’ t teach accuracy , and this truism was especially damning for Allen ’ s pro prospects .
“ You ’ re not going to fix that in 10 weeks or two years , ” the coordinator said of Allen .
“ If you ’ re not accurate , you ’ re not accurate .
There ’ s an element of processing and anticipation that I think he lacks .
But I think he ’ s got a big arm and somebody ’ s going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Every bit of evidence-based analysis we have about pro football supports that notion .
Yet this year , we have data indicating that Allen may actually be getting more accurate .
His early-career returns were terrible , and he sometimes went stretches where more than 1 in 4 of his passes were off-target , but he ’ s recently matched the lower off-target shares of his peers .
It ’ s a remarkable development — and quite unexpected .
The number of bad balls a QB throws is one of the more stable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the position , and at least so far this season , Allen has made a mockery of the idea that players are incapable of substantially improving this skill once they ’ re in the NFL .
Jackson was also thought to be particularly susceptible to inaccurate throws over the middle of the field because of mechanics one analyst described as a “ narrow base [ that ] forces his elbow to drop.
” Yet the middle of the field has turned out to be a strength of the Ravens ’ passing attack , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ receiver Marquise Brown both averaging over six yards per route run since 2018 on deep inside patterns .
When you look at the distribution of his throws , Jackson ’ s proficiency over the middle is obvious .
Between the hashes , Jackson ’ s off-target heat map shows almost no pink from 0 to 25 yards downfield , indicating that his throws to that area are on time and on target .
Like the other QBs , he ’ s been inaccurate to the right sideline at intermediate depths , but his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ areas of the heat map — bulge out into the middle of the field deeper than those of his peers .
So what explains all these failures of projection ?
How could so many people — and the numbers — be so wrong in so many important ways ?
And why is it still so difficult to say which QB is the best from the 2018 class ?
One possible answer is team fit .
“ Give [ Baltimore offensive coordinator ] Greg Roman a ton of credit for making [ Jackson ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where he can succeed , ” an anonymous scout recently told USA Today .
An example of what the scout may be referring to , and an obvious explanation for Jackson ’ s sudden ability to accurately throw over the middle , is Baltimore ’ s use of the play-action .
Play-action passes are especially effective when targeted 10 to 30 yards downfield , and in the three years that Jackson has been in Baltimore , the Ravens have run play-action passes on at least 28 percent of dropbacks each season , ranking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first in 2019 and seventh this year .
These team effects are likely benefiting Allen as well .
This season , Buffalo has surpassed Baltimore in play-action percentage , and about 47 percent of Allen ’ s passing yardage has come off those plays .
While play-action surely isn ’ t the entire explanation for Allen ’ s improvement in accuracy , it points toward something more pervasive .
It appears that teams with organizational structures in place to maximize talent tend to dominate the analysis of a prospect .
What is seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strength — on the right team .
The Tennessee Titans ’ reclamation of Ryan Tannehill — third in the league in play-action dropback percentage and fourth in the league in QBR this season through Week 6 — adds further evidence .
So while it ’ s still too early to answer the question of who ’ s the best QB drafted in 2018 , we at least have a framework for answering the question — and for handicapping QB prospects moving forward .
Bet on players who land on smart teams , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and dysfunction .

The 2018 NFL draft was historic for quarterbacks. It was the first draft in 69 years that four quarterbacks came off the board in the first 10 picks, and it was just the third time that five or more were taken in the first round. That kind of expenditure of draft capital naturally leads to high expectations. Typically it takes three years before we can judge the success of a draft pick, so with over a third of the 2020 season completed, we wanted to ask: Is it still too early to say which 2018 QB is the best?
Picking the worst is easy. Joshua Ballinger Lippincott Rosen, who was taken with the 10th overall pick, has already been traded and waived in his brief career and is now on the practice squad in Tampa Bay. Picking the best is more difficult. Among the four first-round QBs who are currently starting, three have made a case for consideration through Week 6 of this season — if only temporarily.
In 2018, Baker Mayfield took over starting duties in Cleveland from Tyrod Taylor after Taylor left a Week 3 game against the New York Jets with a concussion. (A young, first-round QB taking over for Taylor and then never leaving has become a familiar story for the beleaguered Chargers quarterback.) Mayfield went on to set the rookie touchdown passing record en route to a 6-7 record as a starter.
2019 was Lamar Jackson’s year. He captivated the NFL with his athleticism, rushing for a single-season quarterback record and earning league MVP honors while leading the Baltimore Ravens to a 13-2 record in games he started.
This season began with Josh Allen playing near-elite football. And while he’s cooled off since the Buffalo Bills’ 4-0 start to the season, losing two straight games heading into Week 7, Allen has surpassed Mayfield in Total Quarterback Rating (QBR) over their careers. Allen now places second among the four starting QBs from the ’18 draft class by that measure, behind only Jackson.
Despite being taken with the third overall pick, Sam Darnold of the New York Jets is the only QB in the group to have not enjoyed a moment — however brief — in which he was performing well enough to be considered the top quarterback in the draft class. Darnold currently sits last in career QBR among the four 2018 draftees, with a rating of just 46.2 through Week 6.
We can also track the evolution of each quarterback’s performance over his career so far using FiveThirtyEight’s QB Elo ratings.
Mayfield’s peak came early on, and he hasn’t matched that level of performance since, settling in as a slightly below-average NFL QB in recent weeks. Meanwhile, Jackson’s ascent was rapid and sustained, with 70 percent of his games earning an above-average Elo value. Allen’s plot is emblematic of the Josh Allen Experience: a roller-coaster ride of ups and downs, with a general upward trend. Finally, Darnold has had his moments, but his peaks aren’t especially high, while his lows are among the lowest. Just 30 percent of Darnold’s games have been above average.
Even with the fluctuations in performance, it’s safe to say that the conventional wisdom was wrong about these quarterbacks. The No. 1 overall pick ranks third among his draft peers in career QBR, and the last pick of the first round ranks first. Not even Baltimore was completely sold on Jackson — the Ravens took tight end Hayden Hurst with the 25th pick before trading up to select their QB with the last pick of Round 1. Pointing and laughing surely isn’t useful, but examining the reasons that coaches and scouts missed the way they did can be instructive.
If we’re going to talk about bad football opinions, it’s hard not to start with people’s thoughts on Jackson. Perhaps the coldest take of the 2018 draft process was the notion that Jackson wasn’t big enough or accurate enough to be an NFL QB. That sentiment was expressed most famously by Bill Polian, former general manager of the Indianapolis Colts, when he said Jackson should become a wide receiver. But Polian wasn’t alone. The evaluation was shared by at least one other coach. “He will not be able to play [quarterback] in this league, mark my words. When he throws, he hopes,” an anonymous offensive coordinator told NFL.com’s Tom Pellissero. Perhaps it’s piling on, but it’s worth mentioning that Jackson won his MVP at quarterback.
But NFL coaches’ misreads didn’t end with Jackson. “If you watch them both, I think it’s obvious how much better an athlete Darnold is than Josh Allen,” one QB coach told Pelissero. “I’m not talking about [forty] times or anything. I’m just talking about his ability to move quickly, to adjust.”
If Darnold actually is more athletic than Allen, he hasn’t shown it yet. So far in his career, Allen is averaging 37.8 rushing yards per game on scrambles and designed runs, nearly four times as many as Darnold’s 10.6 yards per game, through Week 6 of 2020. And their career sack rates are nearly identical, at 7 percent for Darnold and 7.1 percent for Allen.
Teams take great pains to try to quantify prospects’ general athleticism each year at the combine in Indianapolis. That Jackson’s obvious athleticism was held against him as a QB prospect and Allen’s relative athleticism compared to Darnold was missed entirely suggests that even the most straightforward evaluations of QB play are fraught with error.
But the most common fault scouts and coaches found with these QBs was their accuracy. One coordinator summed up the feeling of many in the draft analytics community when he pointed out that you can’t teach accuracy, and this truism was especially damning for Allen’s pro prospects. “You’re not going to fix that in 10 weeks or two years,” the coordinator said of Allen. “If you’re not accurate, you’re not accurate. There’s an element of processing and anticipation that I think he lacks. But I think he’s got a big arm and somebody’s going to over-draft the guy because of that.”
Every bit of evidence-based analysis we have about pro football supports that notion. Yet this year, we have data indicating that Allen may actually be getting more accurate. His early-career returns were terrible, and he sometimes went stretches where more than 1 in 4 of his passes were off-target, but he’s recently matched the lower off-target shares of his peers.
It’s a remarkable development — and quite unexpected. The number of bad balls a QB throws is one of the more stable and predictive performance measures we have for the position, and at least so far this season, Allen has made a mockery of the idea that players are incapable of substantially improving this skill once they’re in the NFL.
Jackson was also thought to be particularly susceptible to inaccurate throws over the middle of the field because of mechanics one analyst described as a “narrow base [that] forces his elbow to drop.” Yet the middle of the field has turned out to be a strength of the Ravens’ passing attack, with tight end Mark Andrews and wide receiver Marquise Brown both averaging over six yards per route run since 2018 on deep inside patterns. When you look at the distribution of his throws, Jackson’s proficiency over the middle is obvious.
Between the hashes, Jackson’s off-target heat map shows almost no pink from 0 to 25 yards downfield, indicating that his throws to that area are on time and on target. Like the other QBs, he’s been inaccurate to the right sideline at intermediate depths, but his accurate throws — represented by the teal areas of the heat map — bulge out into the middle of the field deeper than those of his peers.
So what explains all these failures of projection? How could so many people — and the numbers — be so wrong in so many important ways? And why is it still so difficult to say which QB is the best from the 2018 class? One possible answer is team fit.
“Give [Baltimore offensive coordinator] Greg Roman a ton of credit for making [Jackson] more accurate and putting him into plays where he can succeed,” an anonymous scout recently told USA Today.
An example of what the scout may be referring to, and an obvious explanation for Jackson’s sudden ability to accurately throw over the middle, is Baltimore’s use of the play-action. Play-action passes are especially effective when targeted 10 to 30 yards downfield, and in the three years that Jackson has been in Baltimore, the Ravens have run play-action passes on at least 28 percent of dropbacks each season, ranking fifth in the league in 2018, first in 2019 and seventh this year.
These team effects are likely benefiting Allen as well. This season, Buffalo has surpassed Baltimore in play-action percentage, and about 47 percent of Allen’s passing yardage has come off those plays. While play-action surely isn’t the entire explanation for Allen’s improvement in accuracy, it points toward something more pervasive. It appears that teams with organizational structures in place to maximize talent tend to dominate the analysis of a prospect. What is seen as a liability can suddenly become a strength — on the right team. The Tennessee Titans’ reclamation of Ryan Tannehill — third in the league in play-action dropback percentage and fourth in the league in QBR this season through Week 6 — adds further evidence.
So while it’s still too early to answer the question of who’s the best QB drafted in 2018, we at least have a framework for answering the question — and for handicapping QB prospects moving forward. Bet on players who land on smart teams, and discount those who are drafted into chaos and dysfunction.
Check out our latest NFL predictions.


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

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

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


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-27--The Cases Where Amy Coney Barrett’s Presence On The Supreme Court Could Make A Difference Immediatel

The Cases Where Amy Coney Barrett’s Presence On The Supreme Court Could Make A Difference Immediately

It ’ s official : Amy Coney Barrett will be the country ’ s next Supreme Court justice .
She was confirmed by a 52 to 48 vote margin , and will be sworn in by Justice Clarence Thomas at the White House tonight — just in time for Election Day .
Barrett ’ s ascension to the court was incredibly swift — her confirmation hearings started less than a month after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s death , and this is the closest to an election a Supreme Court confirmation vote has been held .
Notably , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emerged relatively unscathed from her confirmation hearings .
This is quite a feat considering both the partisan nature of the hearings and the looming questions over whether the rush to confirm her jeopardizes the court ’ s legitimacy .
Barrett ’ s confirmation is incredibly consequential , too , as she will likely shift the center of gravity away from Chief Justice John Roberts and toward the right edge of the court ’ s conservative wing , which could potentially result in rulings that are significantly outside the mainstream of public opinion .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ long to see how Barrett rules , either .
She faces a slew of hot-button cases right off the bat , including a dispute over religious liberty exemptions , a challenge to the Affordable Care Act and several cases involving controversial Trump administration policies — not to mention any election-related fights that make their way to the court in the next few weeks , plus the fact that Mississippi recently asked the Supreme Court to consider its 15-week abortion ban , which directly challenges Roe v. Wade .
Why Barrett is poised to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve written before , it ’ s hard to know exactly how a nominee to the Supreme Court will rule until they ’ re actually sworn in and begin weighing in on cases .
But we do have data on Barrett ’ s three years as a judge on the 7th U.S .
Circuit Court of Appeals , and as you can see in the chart below , she was very conservative .
We looked at two separate analyses of her record on the court this month , and we found whether it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ en banc decisions in which the entire appeals court ruled together , she was consistently on the right-most edge — if not the most conservative judge on the bench .
And she was especially likely to rule in a conservative direction on civil rights issues .
Those findings underscore the idea that Barrett is likely to be a reliable conservative vote on the court .
And her confirmation is even more significant because she ’ s replacing one of the court ’ s stalwart liberals .
If Barrett ends up being ideologically similar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ currently the second-most conservative justice on the Supreme Court , her replacement of Ginsburg could be one of the biggest ideological swings in modern court history .
In this scenario , Justice Brett Kavanaugh would replace Roberts as the court ’ s new median justice , which could lead to a significant rightward turn on the court , as Roberts is often the lone conservative justice to side with the liberals .
He has cast several recent pivotal votes with the liberals , too , including a dispute in which the justices deadlocked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court decision that allowed state officials to count ballots that arrive up to three days late .
With Barrett on the court , though , Roberts would lose that “ swing justice ” role .
In the short term , that means election-related cases could have very different outcomes — even including a new iteration of the Pennsylvania case , which Republican officials recently brought back to the court .
And in the long term , conservative legal advocates may respond by bringing even more ambitious cases , questioning long-held precedents .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Barrett — and the court The idea of confirming anyone to replace Ginsburg before the election was quite unpopular only a few weeks ago .
While it ’ s true that most Supreme Court confirmation hearings are pretty partisan these days , around the time Barrett was named as the nominee , a majority of Americans said they wanted the winner of the election to choose the next justice .
And polling by the Economist in mid-October also found that Barrett was the most unpopular nominee in Supreme Court history .
Now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warmed to the idea of Barrett joining the court before Election Day .
According to tracking polls by Morning Consult , support for confirming Barrett rose from 37 percent when she was nominated to 51 percent after the hearings were over and a Gallup poll conducted during Barrett ’ s confirmation hearings found a similar result .
Notably , according to that Gallup poll , this was substantially higher than the share who wanted the Senate to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 ( 41 percent ) , and is even slightly higher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have received on average ( 48 percent ) .
To be sure , this isn ’ t universal support for Barrett ’ s confirmation .
Partisan opinion on her confirmation is really divided — according to Gallup , only 15 percent of Democrats wanted the Senate to vote to confirm her , for instance .
A deep partisan divide in support isn ’ t a good sign for the court in general either , as it can reinforce perceptions that the court is itself a partisan institution .
But Barrett could have emerged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — which is why the level of support she does enjoy is pretty notable , especially when you consider most Americans agreed that she ’ d push the court to the right ( 54 percent in that Morning Consult poll ) .
Barrett will be faced with highly controversial cases immediately Barrett could be immediately faced with tough decisions , too , including voting on the fate of ballot deadlines in several states .
There are a number of important or even precedent-altering cases at stake , too , and considering that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ precedents with slim 5-4 majorities than any other court in modern history , that trend could further accelerate with Barrett on the court .
The day after the election , for instance , the justices will hear a case in which they ’ re being asked to reconsider a 30-year-old religious liberty precedent .
In that case , the justices will consider whether that precedent makes it too hard for religious people to sue for exemptions .
The majority opinion in that precedent-setting case , Employment Division v. Smith , was actually written @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but four of the current conservative justices have already signaled they may be willing to strike it down .
Barrett could overrule it , and make it much easier for nondiscrimination provisions to be challenged by religious litigants .
And a week after the election , a case involving the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act will come before the court , in which the justices could declare the entire law invalid .
Another important signal will be whether Barrett ’ s presence on the court gives conservatives a fourth vote to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 15-week abortion ban , which the state attorney general described as an “ ideal vehicle ” for “ clarifying ” how the court ’ s precedents on abortion should be interpreted .
There are also several important Trump administration policies on the docket a little later this term — including the administration ’ s attempt to exclude undocumented citizens from the census count used for redistricting , and whether Trump unconstitutionally commandeered Congress ’ s power when he diverted Defense Department funds to expand the border wall with Mexico .
Given that several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policies — including an attempt to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census — split 5-4 , with Roberts casting a deciding vote with the liberals against the Trump administration , Barrett ’ s presence on the court could make a decision in favor of Trump more likely .
Barrett made it through her confirmation hearings mostly without controversy , but we ’ ll see whether that lasts .
It won ’ t take long to get a sense for just how far the Supreme Court ’ s conservatives are willing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decisive majority for the first time in decades .

It’s official: Amy Coney Barrett will be the country’s next Supreme Court justice. She was confirmed by a 52 to 48 vote margin, and will be sworn in by Justice Clarence Thomas at the White House tonight — just in time for Election Day.
[Live Updates: We’re Tracking The Vote And Voting Problems]
Barrett’s ascension to the court was incredibly swift — her confirmation hearings started less than a month after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, and this is the closest to an election a Supreme Court confirmation vote has been held. Notably, though, despite this accelerated timeline, Barrett emerged relatively unscathed from her confirmation hearings. This is quite a feat considering both the partisan nature of the hearings and the looming questions over whether the rush to confirm her jeopardizes the court’s legitimacy.
Could any surprises still affect the race for president?
Barrett’s confirmation is incredibly consequential, too, as she will likely shift the center of gravity away from Chief Justice John Roberts and toward the right edge of the court’s conservative wing, which could potentially result in rulings that are significantly outside the mainstream of public opinion.
We won’t have to wait long to see how Barrett rules, either. She faces a slew of hot-button cases right off the bat, including a dispute over religious liberty exemptions, a challenge to the Affordable Care Act and several cases involving controversial Trump administration policies — not to mention any election-related fights that make their way to the court in the next few weeks, plus the fact that Mississippi recently asked the Supreme Court to consider its 15-week abortion ban, which directly challenges Roe v. Wade.
Why Barrett is poised to remake the Supreme Court
As we’ve written before, it’s hard to know exactly how a nominee to the Supreme Court will rule until they’re actually sworn in and begin weighing in on cases. But we do have data on Barrett’s three years as a judge on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and as you can see in the chart below, she was very conservative.
We looked at two separate analyses of her record on the court this month, and we found whether it was in regular opinions or in special en banc decisions in which the entire appeals court ruled together, she was consistently on the right-most edge — if not the most conservative judge on the bench. And she was especially likely to rule in a conservative direction on civil rights issues.
Those findings underscore the idea that Barrett is likely to be a reliable conservative vote on the court. And her confirmation is even more significant because she’s replacing one of the court’s stalwart liberals. If Barrett ends up being ideologically similar to Justice Samuel Alito, who is currently the second-most conservative justice on the Supreme Court, her replacement of Ginsburg could be one of the biggest ideological swings in modern court history.
In this scenario, Justice Brett Kavanaugh would replace Roberts as the court’s new median justice, which could lead to a significant rightward turn on the court, as Roberts is often the lone conservative justice to side with the liberals. He has cast several recent pivotal votes with the liberals, too, including a dispute in which the justices deadlocked 4-4 on whether to halt a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that allowed state officials to count ballots that arrive up to three days late. With Barrett on the court, though, Roberts would lose that “swing justice” role.
In the short term, that means election-related cases could have very different outcomes — even including a new iteration of the Pennsylvania case, which Republican officials recently brought back to the court. And in the long term, conservative legal advocates may respond by bringing even more ambitious cases, questioning long-held precedents.
The hearings could have gone much worse for Barrett — and the court
The idea of confirming anyone to replace Ginsburg before the election was quite unpopular only a few weeks ago. While it’s true that most Supreme Court confirmation hearings are pretty partisan these days, around the time Barrett was named as the nominee, a majority of Americans said they wanted the winner of the election to choose the next justice. And polling by the Economist in mid-October also found that Barrett was the most unpopular nominee in Supreme Court history.
Now, though, Americans may actually have warmed to the idea of Barrett joining the court before Election Day. According to tracking polls by Morning Consult, support for confirming Barrett rose from 37 percent when she was nominated to 51 percent after the hearings were over and a Gallup poll conducted during Barrett’s confirmation hearings found a similar result. Notably, according to that Gallup poll, this was substantially higher than the share who wanted the Senate to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 (41 percent), and is even slightly higher than the support previous nominees since 1987 have received on average (48 percent).
Barrett’s confirmation wasn’t that divisive Share of Americans who said they were or were not in favor of the Senate confirming each Supreme Court nominee Nominee In favor Not in favor No opinion Amy Coney Barrett 51% 46% 3% Brett Kavanaugh 41 37 22 Neil Gorsuch 45 32 23 Merrick Garland 52 29 19 Elena Kagan 46 32 22 Sonia Sotomayor 54 28 19 Samuel Alito 50 25 25 Harriet Miers 44 36 20 John Roberts 59 22 19 Ruth Bader Ginsburg 53 14 33 Clarence Thomas 52 17 31 Robert Bork 31 25 44 Average for previous nominees 48 27 25 Data was not available for Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter, Anthony Kennedy and Douglas Ginsburg. Source: Gallup
To be sure, this isn’t universal support for Barrett’s confirmation. Partisan opinion on her confirmation is really divided — according to Gallup, only 15 percent of Democrats wanted the Senate to vote to confirm her, for instance. A deep partisan divide in support isn’t a good sign for the court in general either, as it can reinforce perceptions that the court is itself a partisan institution. But Barrett could have emerged a lot less popular from her hearing — which is why the level of support she does enjoy is pretty notable, especially when you consider most Americans agreed that she’d push the court to the right (54 percent in that Morning Consult poll).
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: How the electorate will be different in 2020
Barrett will be faced with highly controversial cases immediately
Barrett could be immediately faced with tough decisions, too, including voting on the fate of ballot deadlines in several states. There are a number of important or even precedent-altering cases at stake, too, and considering that the Roberts court has already been overturning more precedents with slim 5-4 majorities than any other court in modern history, that trend could further accelerate with Barrett on the court.
The day after the election, for instance, the justices will hear a case in which they’re being asked to reconsider a 30-year-old religious liberty precedent. In that case, the justices will consider whether that precedent makes it too hard for religious people to sue for exemptions. The majority opinion in that precedent-setting case, Employment Division v. Smith, was actually written by the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, but four of the current conservative justices have already signaled they may be willing to strike it down. Barrett could overrule it, and make it much easier for nondiscrimination provisions to be challenged by religious litigants.
And a week after the election, a case involving the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act will come before the court, in which the justices could declare the entire law invalid. Another important signal will be whether Barrett’s presence on the court gives conservatives a fourth vote to hear a case involving Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban, which the state attorney general described as an “ideal vehicle” for “clarifying” how the court’s precedents on abortion should be interpreted. There are also several important Trump administration policies on the docket a little later this term — including the administration’s attempt to exclude undocumented citizens from the census count used for redistricting, and whether Trump unconstitutionally commandeered Congress’s power when he diverted Defense Department funds to expand the border wall with Mexico. Given that several recent Supreme Court decisions on Trump administration policies — including an attempt to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census — split 5-4, with Roberts casting a deciding vote with the liberals against the Trump administration, Barrett’s presence on the court could make a decision in favor of Trump more likely.
Barrett made it through her confirmation hearings mostly without controversy, but we’ll see whether that lasts. It won’t take long to get a sense for just how far the Supreme Court’s conservatives are willing to go now that they hold a decisive majority for the first time in decades.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-26--Trump Hasn’t Gained Ground Since The Debate, And He’s Running Out Of Time

One question we posed after the last presidential debate was , Will the presidential race tighten ?
Since its peak on Oct. 19 , Joe Biden ’ s lead over President Trump in national polls has narrowed from 10.7 percentage points to 9.4 points , while Biden ’ s popular vote margin in our presidential forecast also shrank from 8.4 points to 7.9 points .
Although , as you can see in the chart below , Biden ’ s odds have been relatively stable .
So what gives ?
Is the race tightening ?
And , if it is , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national polling average ?
Well , two things .
First , we ’ re still expecting some tightening toward Trump in our forecast , so we ’ re pricing that in a little in our model .
And second , the forecast is mostly based on state polls , which have been more consistent with an 8-point Biden lead than the 9-to-10-point Biden lead we ’ ve seen nationally .
( Remember , if used properly , state polls give you a more accurate projection of the national popular vote than national polls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relies on them so heavily ! )
But let ’ s unpack the latest polls conducted entirely ( or mostly ) after the last presidential debate to better answer that question of just how much the race is tightening .
Overall , we have six national surveys and eight battleground-state polls , and on average , these 14 polls show essentially no change from before the debate .
In fact , the post-debate polls have arguably been pretty good for Biden .
Gravis Marketing , for instance , last tested Michigan , Pennsylvania @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finds Biden in better shape in all three states , including double-digit leads in Michigan and Wisconsin .
Meanwhile , Ipsos and The New York Times Upshot/Siena College found essentially no movement in Pennsylvania , Texas and Wisconsin .
Most national polls also showed little to no change .
International Business Daily/TIPP ’ s five-day nationwide tracking poll had shown Biden declining , but it has recently found his lead back up in the high single digits .
There may have been a bit of tightening before the debate , but at this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be any evidence of the race tightening since the debate .
In fact , only two polls found clear , negative shifts for Biden , and they both come from pollsters that might have a particular interest in casting the president ’ s chances in a positive light .
First , a new InsiderAdvantage survey sponsored by the Center for American Greatness , a conservative media think tank , gave Trump a 3-point lead in Pennsylvania , which marks a 6-point swing in margin from its previous poll in mid-October .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discount that this might be the case , but the ideological leanings of the pollster ’ s sponsor do give us pause .
Similarly , a national poll from Rasmussen Reports/Pulse Opinion Research found Trump ahead by 1 point , a 4-point shift from its last survey .
But Rasmussen has a well-known GOP house effect , or put another way , it consistently shows better results for Republican candidates compared with other polling firms .
We choose to be very inclusive when it comes to our forecast , so we toss almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But , on the whole , these recent polls may indicate some post-debate widening in the race rather than tightening , especially if you take the two quasi-partisan polls with a small pinch of salt ( which we ’ d recommend ) .

One question we posed after the last presidential debate was, Will the presidential race tighten?
[Live Updates: We’re Tracking The Vote And Voting Problems]
Since its peak on Oct. 19, Joe Biden’s lead over President Trump in national polls has narrowed from 10.7 percentage points to 9.4 points, while Biden’s popular vote margin in our presidential forecast also shrank from 8.4 points to 7.9 points. Although, as you can see in the chart below, Biden’s odds have been relatively stable.
So what gives? Is the race tightening? And, if it is, why is our forecast different from our national polling average?
Well, two things. First, we’re still expecting some tightening toward Trump in our forecast, so we’re pricing that in a little in our model. And second, the forecast is mostly based on state polls, which have been more consistent with an 8-point Biden lead than the 9-to-10-point Biden lead we’ve seen nationally. (Remember, if used properly, state polls give you a more accurate projection of the national popular vote than national polls do, which is why our forecast relies on them so heavily!)
Polling 101: Should You Trust The Polls In 2020? | FiveThirtyEight
But let’s unpack the latest polls conducted entirely (or mostly) after the last presidential debate to better answer that question of just how much the race is tightening. Overall, we have six national surveys and eight battleground-state polls, and on average, these 14 polls show essentially no change from before the debate.
Not much has changed since the debate State and national polls conducted entirely (or mostly) after the Oct. 22 debate compared to the last poll from the same pollster Biden lead Pollster Now Before change MI Gravis Marketing +13 +9 +4 PA Gravis Marketing +7 +3 +4 PA InsiderAdvantage -3 +3 -6 PA Reuters/Ipsos +5 +4 +1 TX NYT Upshot/Siena -4 -3 -1 TX Data for Progress +1 +1 0 WI Gravis Marketing +11 +8 +3 WI Reuters/Ipsos +9 +8 +1 US IBD/TIPP +7 +5 +2 US Morning Consult +9 +9 0 US Rasmussen Reports -1 +3 -4 US RMG Research +7 +8 -1 US SurveyMonkey +6 +6 0 US Yahoo News/YouGov +12 +11 +1 Average 0 Source: Polls
In fact, the post-debate polls have arguably been pretty good for Biden. Gravis Marketing, for instance, last tested Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in July, but now finds Biden in better shape in all three states, including double-digit leads in Michigan and Wisconsin. Meanwhile, Ipsos and The New York Times Upshot/Siena College found essentially no movement in Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin. Most national polls also showed little to no change. International Business Daily/TIPP’s five-day nationwide tracking poll had shown Biden declining, but it has recently found his lead back up in the high single digits.
There may have been a bit of tightening before the debate, but at this point, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of the race tightening since the debate. In fact, only two polls found clear, negative shifts for Biden, and they both come from pollsters that might have a particular interest in casting the president’s chances in a positive light.
First, a new InsiderAdvantage survey sponsored by the Center for American Greatness, a conservative media think tank, gave Trump a 3-point lead in Pennsylvania, which marks a 6-point swing in margin from its previous poll in mid-October. We, of course, can’t discount that this might be the case, but the ideological leanings of the pollster’s sponsor do give us pause. Similarly, a national poll from Rasmussen Reports/Pulse Opinion Research found Trump ahead by 1 point, a 4-point shift from its last survey. But Rasmussen has a well-known GOP house effect, or put another way, it consistently shows better results for Republican candidates compared with other polling firms.
We choose to be very inclusive when it comes to our forecast, so we toss almost everything into the polling kitchen sink. But, on the whole, these recent polls may indicate some post-debate widening in the race rather than tightening, especially if you take the two quasi-partisan polls with a small pinch of salt (which we’d recommend).
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: How the electorate will be different in 2020


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-28--Fear Of Voter Intimidation Is Its Own Voter Intimidation

In 1981 , the Republican National Committee sent hundreds of armed , off-duty police officers to the polls in the state of New Jersey .
Dressed in official-looking “ National Ballot Security Task Force ” armbands , they demanded voter registration cards from people waiting in line in heavily Black and Hispanic districts , turning some voters away and intimidating others into not voting at all .
As my colleague Clare Malone has written , the whole thing was illegal .
After a lawsuit , it led to a 37-year-long ban preventing the RNC from organizing poll watching efforts .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ without the ban in place .
It is also a presidential election where the incumbent has cast doubt on the trustworthiness of the election , toyed repeatedly with the idea of not giving up office and recruited thousands of poll watchers .
It is also a presidential election where far-right militias and other supporters of the president have discussed showing up , armed , at polling sites .
But despite that tension , neither experts in election law nor experts in militia and armed radical groups believe we are likely to see a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearly four decades ago .
Why ?
Partly , it ’ s because laws heavily restrict what poll watchers can do and how they can do it .
And partly , experts told me , it ’ s because the actual job of poll watching is unlikely to appeal to the groups and individuals whose presence would be most dangerous .
None of the experts I spoke to thought it was a good idea to dismiss the risk of armed or threatening poll disruptors out of hand .
But they did want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public were realistic about the concern .
“ I ’ m not sure it would be accurate to say I ’ m not worried .
It ’ s my job to worry about everything , ” said Myrna Pérez , director of the Brennan Center ’ s Voting Rights and Elections Program .
“ But in terms of assessing risk and the probability of it being more than a bunch of isolated incidences , there ’ s reason to believe this is lower on the concern list.
” That ’ s true , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tight and heavily enforced array of laws protecting polling places on election day .
While poll watchers are legal — and , in some states , can challenge individual voters ’ eligibility at the polls on the basis of things like residency or citizenship — the job isn ’ t just a free-for-all for whoever happens to decide to show up .
There are lots of laws around how poll watchers must be registered and trained , and who can and can ’ t be one .
Depending on the state , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to voters .
There can only be so many at any polling location .
And when those rules are violated , there is generally swift follow-up by the judiciary , poll workers and , if necessary , police .
For example , in 2008 , challengers in Michigan and Indiana tried to use foreclosure and eviction notices to create a list of voters who might be voting in the wrong district .
That practice was quickly ruled illegal before it was enacted because it discriminated against low-income voters .
Of course , enforcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the problem .
Enlisting officers as part of a partisan poll watching campaign isn ’ t limited to the distant past .
In 2008 , for example , on-duty officers in Michigan showed up at polling places to scan voter lines for people with outstanding warrants , something the Brennan Center categorizes as voter intimidation .
Police-based voter intimidation has a long enough history that there are a number of states that expressly forbid law enforcement from being at polling places at all , unless they ’ re there to vote themselves .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a year where voters may want protection at the polls , but where officers may not know the best way to deescalate or ( as in a recent case in Florida ) may be friends with the people doing the intimidation .
“ From my research , I ’ ve observed that these men react negatively to the perception that they ’ re there to cause a problem , ” said Amy Cooter , a sociologist at Vanderbilt University who does ethnographic interviews on militias and related groups .
Her research suggests that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of the social and political fabric makes them less likely to cause a problem .
But she also acknowledged that that information wasn ’ t particularly helpful to voters who found the presence of armed people at a polling site intimidating .
“ I ’ m glad I ’ m not law enforcement trying to come up with a perfect answer , ” she said .
But , laws aside , there ’ s reason to think groups that have shown up to protests in many cities this summer won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , experts told me .
“ There ’ s a long long history of threats being not something that is ever followed through on , ” said Lawrence Rosenthal , chair and lead researcher of the Berkeley Center for Right-Wing Studies .
One of the main impediments individual citizens or armed groups like the Proud Boys policing the polls is , ironically , also one of the main impediments to voting itself — simply having the time outside work and family commitments , Cooter said .
Cooter described her sources expressing heightened concern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to previous years , and a desire to combat the perceived risk of fraud .
But , for most of them , she told me , there ’ s not a sense that they really have the ability to do anything about it , personally .
The ones who have volunteered as poll watchers in the past , she said , did so in ways that followed the rules .
There ’ s also the simple matter that , for those people interested in breaking the rules , a polling place wouldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experience , Rosenthal said .
There ’ s no marching , he pointed out .
There ’ s no good opportunity for confrontation with left-wing counterparts , real or imagined .
It ’ s mostly just a lot of standing around outside at a distance , if you aren ’ t an official poll watcher .
Rosenthal thinks it ’ s unlikely that that scenario would attract any serious , organized response .
None of this precludes lone wolf scenarios — where one or two troublemakers show up intent on intimidation .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the vote is contested , is anyone ’ s guess .
But the experts I spoke to wanted to make it clear that violence and real physical threats were unlikely on Election Day itself .
The bigger risk , right they told me , is that fear of voter intimidation could lead to , well , voter intimidation .
“ There ’ s a danger in overplaying this risk and making it seem more dangerous than it actually is , ” Cooter said .
“ In a way that could have a suppressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ”

In 1981, the Republican National Committee sent hundreds of armed, off-duty police officers to the polls in the state of New Jersey. Dressed in official-looking “National Ballot Security Task Force” armbands, they demanded voter registration cards from people waiting in line in heavily Black and Hispanic districts, turning some voters away and intimidating others into not voting at all.
[Live Updates: We’re Tracking The Vote And Voting Problems]
As my colleague Clare Malone has written, the whole thing was illegal. After a lawsuit, it led to a 37-year-long ban preventing the RNC from organizing poll watching efforts. This will be the first presidential election without the ban in place. It is also a presidential election where the incumbent has cast doubt on the trustworthiness of the election, toyed repeatedly with the idea of not giving up office and recruited thousands of poll watchers. It is also a presidential election where far-right militias and other supporters of the president have discussed showing up, armed, at polling sites.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: How the electorate will be different in 2020
But despite that tension, neither experts in election law nor experts in militia and armed radical groups believe we are likely to see a repeat of what happened in New Jersey nearly four decades ago. Why? Partly, it’s because laws heavily restrict what poll watchers can do and how they can do it. And partly, experts told me, it’s because the actual job of poll watching is unlikely to appeal to the groups and individuals whose presence would be most dangerous.
None of the experts I spoke to thought it was a good idea to dismiss the risk of armed or threatening poll disruptors out of hand. But they did want to make sure that the media and the public were realistic about the concern.
“I’m not sure it would be accurate to say I’m not worried. It’s my job to worry about everything,” said Myrna Pérez, director of the Brennan Center’s Voting Rights and Elections Program. “But in terms of assessing risk and the probability of it being more than a bunch of isolated incidences, there’s reason to believe this is lower on the concern list.”
That’s true, from her perspective, because of the tight and heavily enforced array of laws protecting polling places on election day. While poll watchers are legal — and, in some states, can challenge individual voters’ eligibility at the polls on the basis of things like residency or citizenship — the job isn’t just a free-for-all for whoever happens to decide to show up. There are lots of laws around how poll watchers must be registered and trained, and who can and can’t be one. Depending on the state, they might not be able to even talk to voters. There can only be so many at any polling location. And when those rules are violated, there is generally swift follow-up by the judiciary, poll workers and, if necessary, police. For example, in 2008, challengers in Michigan and Indiana tried to use foreclosure and eviction notices to create a list of voters who might be voting in the wrong district. That practice was quickly ruled illegal before it was enacted because it discriminated against low-income voters.
Of course, enforcement gets tricky when police become part of the problem. Enlisting officers as part of a partisan poll watching campaign isn’t limited to the distant past. In 2008, for example, on-duty officers in Michigan showed up at polling places to scan voter lines for people with outstanding warrants, something the Brennan Center categorizes as voter intimidation. Police-based voter intimidation has a long enough history that there are a number of states that expressly forbid law enforcement from being at polling places at all, unless they’re there to vote themselves. This history creates a tricky situation in a year where voters may want protection at the polls, but where officers may not know the best way to deescalate or (as in a recent case in Florida) may be friends with the people doing the intimidation.
“From my research, I’ve observed that these men react negatively to the perception that they’re there to cause a problem,” said Amy Cooter, a sociologist at Vanderbilt University who does ethnographic interviews on militias and related groups. Her research suggests that framing armed people outside the polls as part of the social and political fabric makes them less likely to cause a problem. But she also acknowledged that that information wasn’t particularly helpful to voters who found the presence of armed people at a polling site intimidating.
“I’m glad I’m not law enforcement trying to come up with a perfect answer,” she said.
Fewer undecided voters is good news for Biden in the Midwest| FiveThirtyEight
But, laws aside, there’s reason to think groups that have shown up to protests in many cities this summer won’t be making a leap to polling places, experts told me. “There’s a long long history of threats being not something that is ever followed through on,” said Lawrence Rosenthal, chair and lead researcher of the Berkeley Center for Right-Wing Studies.
One of the main impediments individual citizens or armed groups like the Proud Boys policing the polls is, ironically, also one of the main impediments to voting itself — simply having the time outside work and family commitments, Cooter said.
Cooter described her sources expressing heightened concern about the integrity of elections, compared to previous years, and a desire to combat the perceived risk of fraud. But, for most of them, she told me, there’s not a sense that they really have the ability to do anything about it, personally. The ones who have volunteered as poll watchers in the past, she said, did so in ways that followed the rules.
There’s also the simple matter that, for those people interested in breaking the rules, a polling place wouldn’t offer a very interesting or rewarding experience, Rosenthal said. There’s no marching, he pointed out. There’s no good opportunity for confrontation with left-wing counterparts, real or imagined. It’s mostly just a lot of standing around outside at a distance, if you aren’t an official poll watcher. Rosenthal thinks it’s unlikely that that scenario would attract any serious, organized response.
None of this precludes lone wolf scenarios — where one or two troublemakers show up intent on intimidation. And what happens after the election, if the vote is contested, is anyone’s guess. But the experts I spoke to wanted to make it clear that violence and real physical threats were unlikely on Election Day itself. The bigger risk, right they told me, is that fear of voter intimidation could lead to, well, voter intimidation.
“There’s a danger in overplaying this risk and making it seem more dangerous than it actually is,” Cooter said. “In a way that could have a suppressive effect on desire to go vote.”


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-28--We Have A Lot Of New Polls But There’s Little Sign Of The Presidential Race Tightening

After a surprisingly sluggish weekend for polling , the floodgates have opened , with a mix of high-quality polls , low-quality polls and pretty much everything in between .
And although there are some outliers in both directions , they tell a fairly consistent story , overall : A steady race nationally , perhaps with some gains for Joe Biden in the Midwest .
Let ’ s dive right in .
Following our rules from my colleague Geoffrey Skelley ’ s post earlier this week , we ’ re going to look at every poll where at least half of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s debate , with a comparison to the most recent pre-debate survey by the same firm .
If the pollster hasn ’ t surveyed a state before , we ’ ll make the comparison based on what the FiveThirtyEight polling average said in that state as of the night of the debate ( Oct. 22 ) instead .
As an aside , I set a cutoff for polls as of 7 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday .
( More will probably have filtered into the averages by the time that you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rotate through the four major regions of the country — the South , the West , the Midwest and the Northeast .
But first , here are the post-debate national polls : On average , Biden leads by 9 percentage points using a simple average of post-debate national polls , which matches his 9 point lead in our fancy-schmancy official FiveThirtyEight national average .
It ’ s a bit of a weird mix of polls , though , with more quantity than quality .
The only two fully live-caller national polls in here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Strategies , which show Biden leading by 12 points and 11 points , respectively .
On the one hand , the trendlines aren ’ t so bad for Trump in those live-caller polls .
He trailed by 16 points in CNN ’ s previous national poll , and by 9 points in the past Hart Research/Public Opinion Strategies poll ( or by 11 if you prefer to compare it to the prior NBC/Wall Street Journal national poll , which uses the same polling team ) .
On the other hand , the higher-quality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump than the lower quality polls , which is rarely a good sign .
More highly-rated online firms , such as YouGov , Morning Consult , and Ipsos , show Trump trailing by margins ranging from 9 to 12 points .
At least some of the fluctuations in our national polling average seem to reflect shifts in the ratio of high-quality and low-quality surveys .
This can go through cycles , and recently the higher-quality firms have mostly been concentrating on state polling .
Most of them will release their final national polls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t be surprising if , following CNN and CNBC ’ s example , a few more of them show double-digit leads for Biden .
Something else to note : Although there ’ s been a slight decline in Biden ’ s national polls since the debate , a majority of state polls show his position improving .
To be more precise , Biden has gained 0.7 percentage points in the average state poll since the debate , while he ’ s lost 0.5 points in the average national poll .
That brings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alignment after a period where national polls suggested that Biden led by 10 to 11 points but state polls were more consistent with a lead of about 9 points instead .
Let ’ s start our review of the regions with the South , where there ’ s been a lot of polling over the past couple of days : It ’ s hard to tell a coherent story here because every state in the region seems to be marching to its own fight song .
Biden ’ s gotten some great numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s had some terrible ones in Florida .
North Carolina is somewhere in between , with polls variously suggesting that he ’ s gaining or losing ground .
Do I buy that there are these microfluctations between neighboring states ?
I ’ m not sure that I do , particularly since you have a different mix of pollsters from state to state .
Florida and Georgia could use one or two more high-quality polls .
For the time being , though , Biden ’ s small lead in our Georgia polling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead in Florida ( also +1.4 ) and North Carolina ( +2.1 ) .
That means Georgia needs to be taken seriously as a plausible — if unlikely — tipping-point state .
It ’ s going to be the focus of a lot of resource expenditures over the final few days of the campaign , especially since it also has two competitive Senate races .
Texas is a step or two away from the rest of the Southern group , meanwhile , as Trump leads in our polling average by 1.8 points there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of America … the West : This is a decent set of polls for Biden , including in Arizona , where Biden ’ s lead has oscillated between 3 and 5 points in our polling average for most of the year .
It ’ s in the lower-to-mid part of that range now , at 3.5 points in our official polling average , although the raw average of post-debate Arizona polls is slightly better for him at +4.2 .
I realize this might seem like splitting hairs , but Arizona is an important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s probably his best backup option if he loses Pennsylvania .
( If Biden loses Pennsylvania but wins Arizona , Michigan and Wisconsin , he ’ d also need to find one more electoral vote somewhere to break a 269-269 Electoral College tie , but he ’ d probably get that in Nebraska ’ s 2nd Congressional District , where he ’ s favored . )
In a world where Arizona is polling at Biden +5 , it ’ s really almost as though he has a Plan A1 ( Pennsylvania ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
That would make his map more robust .
In a world where Arizona is Biden +2 or Biden +3 , conversely , it doesn ’ t really stand out from his other backup options , such as North Carolina and Florida , so it would be as though Biden has one Plan A ( Pennsylvania ) and a bunch of Plan Cs .
Now to the Midwest : FiveThirtyEight ’ s Nathaniel Rakich covered this region this morning , so I ’ ll be brief here .
This is the one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t really say the race is steady ; instead , this has been a strong set of polling for Biden , and he ’ s gained an average of 1.7 points in surveys in this region versus the pre-debate polls .
No , Trump probably doesn ’ t trail in Wisconsin by 17 points , as he does in the ABC News/Washington Post poll .
( Good pollsters publish their outliers instead of sitting on them , and sometimes they turn out not to be outliers at all . )
But average @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other post-debate polls of Wisconsin , and Biden is still ahead by 10.5 points there .
Biden ’ s polling gains may reflect that the COVID-19 outbreak in the Upper Midwest is bad right now , especially in Wisconsin .
There is some evidence that the polls tend to shift against Trump following spikes in COVID-19 cases in a state , potentially a foreboding indicator for Trump as COVID-19 cases are also now rising sharply in many other states .
By the Northeast , as you can see from the chart above , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plus one stray poll of Maine .
This region has been underpolled .
There haven ’ t been any live caller polls of Pennsylvania since the debate , and the online and IVR polls show highly disparate results there .
New Hampshire has had no post-debate polling at all , meanwhile .
We go back and forth here at FiveThirtyEight about whether Pennsylvania counts as part of the Northeast or the Midwest .
I ’ ve usually been a proponent of the theory that for political purposes , Pennsylvania behaves like a Midwestern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , demographic and cultural differences between Pennsylvania and the Upper Midwest , however , and this year , the polling in Pennsylvania hasn ’ t tracked the numbers in Wisconsin and Michigan that well .
Pennsylvania is also not currently experiencing as bad of a COVID-19 outbreak as those other states .
So it may be less correlated with them than usual .
But one way or another , the final round of high-quality , live-caller polls in Pennsylvania are likely to make a big difference to our model .
Pennsylvania is by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If Biden gets up to , say , a 6- or 7-point lead there , he ’ ll be in a much safer position overall in the Electoral College than if he gets knocked down to a 4-point lead here instead .
More polling of the Keystone State is surely to come soon .

We Have A Lot Of New Polls, But There’s Little Sign Of The Presidential Race Tightening Instead, Biden gains in the Midwest.
Tweet us a question or comment
After a surprisingly sluggish weekend for polling, the floodgates have opened , with a mix of high-quality polls, low-quality polls and pretty much everything in between. And although there are some outliers in both directions, they tell a fairly consistent story, overall: A steady race nationally, perhaps with some gains for Joe Biden in the Midwest.
Let’s dive right in. Following our rules from my colleague Geoffrey Skelley’s post earlier this week, we’re going to look at every poll where at least half of the survey took place after last week’s debate, with a comparison to the most recent pre-debate survey by the same firm. If the pollster hasn’t surveyed a state before, we’ll make the comparison based on what the FiveThirtyEight polling average said in that state as of the night of the debate (Oct. 22) instead.
What election stories need to get more coverage | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast
As an aside, I set a cutoff for polls as of 7 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday. (More will probably have filtered into the averages by the time that you’re reading this.) We’ll rotate through the four major regions of the country — the South, the West, the Midwest and the Northeast. But first, here are the post-debate national polls:
National polls since the final debate Polls conducted entirely (or mostly) after the Oct. 22 debate compared to the last poll from the same pollster Biden lead Pollster Now Before change US Change Research +8.0 +10.0 -2.0 US CNN/SSRS +12.0 +16.0 -4.0 US Economist/YouGov +11.0 +9.0 +2.0 US Global Marketing Reserch Services +14.0 +16.0 -2.0 US Hart Research/Public Opinion Strategies +11.0 +9.0 +2.0 US IBD/TIPP +5.0 +5.0 +0.0 US J.L. Parnters +14.0 +10.0 +4.0 US Leger +8.0 +9.0 -1.0 US Morning Consult +9.0 +9.0 +0.0 US Qriously +10.0 +12.0 -2.0 US Rasmussen Reports -1.0 +3.0 -4.0 US Redfield & Wilton Strategies +10.0 +11.0 -1.0 US Reuters/Ipsos +10.0 +8.0 +2.0 US RMG Research +7.0 +8.0 -1.0 US SurveyMonkey +4.0 +6.0 -2.0 US Yahoo News/YouGov +12.0 +11.0 +1.0 US Average +9.0 +9.5 -0.5 Source: polls
On average, Biden leads by 9 percentage points using a simple average of post-debate national polls, which matches his 9-point lead in our fancy-schmancy official FiveThirtyEight national average.
It’s a bit of a weird mix of polls, though, with more quantity than quality. The only two fully live-caller national polls in here are from CNN and CNBC/Hart Research/Public Opinion Strategies, which show Biden leading by 12 points and 11 points, respectively. On the one hand, the trendlines aren’t so bad for Trump in those live-caller polls. He trailed by 16 points in CNN’s previous national poll and by 9 points in the past Hart Research/Public Opinion Strategies poll (or by 11 if you prefer to compare it to the prior NBC/Wall Street Journal national poll, which uses the same polling team).
[Live Updates: We’re Tracking The Vote And Voting Problems]
On the other hand, the higher-quality national polls are showing worse results for Trump than the lower-quality polls, which is rarely a good sign. More highly rated online firms — such as YouGov, Morning Consult and Ipsos — show Trump trailing by margins ranging from 9 to 12 points.
At least some of the fluctuations in our national polling average seem to reflect shifts in the ratio of high-quality and low-quality surveys. This can go through cycles, and recently the higher-quality firms have mostly been concentrating on state polling. Most of them will release their final national polls soon, though, and it wouldn’t be surprising if, following CNN and CNBC’s example, a few more of them show double-digit leads for Biden.
Something else to note: Although there’s been a slight decline in Biden’s national polls since the debate, a majority of state polls show his position improving. To be more precise, Biden has gained 0.7 percentage points in the average state poll since the debate, while he’s lost 0.5 points in the average national poll. That brings the national and state polls into better alignment after a period where national polls suggested that Biden led by 10 to 11 points but state polls were more consistent with a lead of about 9 points instead.
Let’s start our review of the regions with the South, where there’s been a lot of polling over the past couple of days:
Polls of Southern states since the final debate Polls conducted entirely (or mostly) after the Oct. 22 debate compared to the last poll from the same pollster Biden lead Pollster Now Before change FL Florida Atlantic +2.0 +4.0 -2.0 FL Reuters/Ipsos +1.5 +4.5 -3.0 FL Susquehanna Polling & Research -5.0 +4.0 -9.0 GA Civiqs +5.0 +3.0 +2.0 GA Monmouth University +3.0 -3.5 +6.5 MS Civiqs* -14.0 -15.0 +1.0 NC Gravis Marketing +3.0 -3.0 +6.0 NC Harper Polling +1.0 -1.0 +2.0 NC Public Policy Polling +4.0 +4.0 +0.0 NC Reuters/Ipsos +1.0 +2.5 -1.5 NC RMG Research +1.0 +2.0 -1.0 NC SurveyUSA +0.0 +5.0 -5.0 SC East Carolina University -8.0 -12.0 +4.0 SC Starboard Communications* -7.0 -7.0 +0.0 TX Data for Progress +1.0 +1.0 +0.0 TX NYT Upshot/Siena -4.0 -3.0 -1.0 Average -1.0 -0.9 -0.1 * The firm had not previously polled the state and the change is based on the FiveThirtyEight average as of the Oct. 22 debate. Source: polls
It’s hard to tell a coherent story here because every state in the region seems to be marching to its own fight song. Biden’s gotten some great numbers in Georgia since the debate, but he’s had some terrible ones in Florida. North Carolina is somewhere in between, with polls variously suggesting that he’s gaining or losing ground.
Do I buy that there are these microfluctations between neighboring states? I’m not sure that I do, particularly since you have a different mix of pollsters from state to state. Florida and Georgia could use one or two more high-quality polls.
For the time being, though, Biden’s small lead in our Georgia polling average (+1.4) nearly equals his lead in Florida (also +1.4) and North Carolina (+2.1). That means Georgia needs to be taken seriously as a plausible — if unlikely — tipping-point state. It’s going to be the focus of a lot of resource expenditures over the final few days of the campaign, especially since it also has two competitive Senate races. Texas is a step or two away from the rest of the Southern group, meanwhile, as Trump leads in our polling average by 1.8 points there.
Next up on our whirlwind tour of America … the West:
Polls of Western states since the final debate Polls conducted entirely (or mostly) after the Oct. 22 debate compared to the last poll from the same pollster Biden lead Pollster Now Before change AZ Gravis Marketing +4.0 +2.0 +2.0 AZ Ipsos +1.0 +3.5 -2.5 AZ Justice Collaborative Institute* +6.0 +4.0 +2.0 AZ OH Predictive Insights +3.0 +3.5 -0.5 AZ Patinkin Research Strategies* +7.0 +4.0 +3.0 MT Public Policy Polling -2.0 -6.0 +4.0 NV NYT/Siena College +6.0 +6.0 +0.0 Average +3.6 +2.4 +1.1 * The firm had not previously polled the state and the change is based on the FiveThirtyEight average as of the Oct. 22 debate. Source: Polls
This is a decent set of polls for Biden, including in Arizona, where Biden’s lead has oscillated between 3 and 5 points in our polling average for most of the year. It’s in the lower-to-mid part of that range now, at 3.5 points in our official polling average, although the raw average of post-debate Arizona polls is slightly better for him at +4.2.
I realize this might seem like splitting hairs, but Arizona is an important state for Biden, insofar as it’s probably his best backup option if he loses Pennsylvania. (If Biden loses Pennsylvania but wins Arizona, Michigan and Wisconsin, he’d also need to find one more electoral vote somewhere to break a 269-269 Electoral College tie, but he’d probably get that in Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District, where he’s favored.)
In a world where Arizona is polling at Biden +5, it’s really almost as though he has a Plan A1 (Pennsylvania) and Plan A2 (Arizona plus NE-2). That would make his map more robust. In a world where Arizona is Biden +2 or Biden +3, conversely, it doesn’t really stand out from his other backup options, such as North Carolina and Florida, so it would be as though Biden has one Plan A (Pennsylvania) and a bunch of Plan Cs.
Now to the Midwest:
Polls of Midwestern states since the final debate Polls conducted entirely (or mostly) after the Oct. 22 debate compared to the last poll from the same pollster Biden lead Pollster Now Before change IA RABA Research +4.0 +2.0 +2.0 MI ABC News/Washington Post* +7.0 +8.0 -1.0 MI Glengariff Group +8.0 +9.0 -1.0 MI Gravis Marketing +13.0 +9.0 +4.0 MI NYT Upshot/Siena +8.0 +8.0 +0.0 MI Reuters/Ipsos +9.5 +8.0 +1.5 MN Gravis Marketing +14.0 +16.0 -2.0 WI ABC News/Washington Post +17.0 +6.0 +11.0 WI Gravis Marketing +11.0 +8.0 +3.0 WI Marquette Law School +5.0 +5.0 +0.0 Average +9.6 +7.9 +1.7 * The firm had not previously polled the state and the change is based on the FiveThirtyEight average as of the Oct. 22 debate. Source: polls
FiveThirtyEight’s Nathaniel Rakich covered this region this morning, so I’ll be brief here. This is the one part of the country where you can’t really say the race is steady; instead, this has been a strong set of polling for Biden, and he’s gained an average of 1.7 points in surveys in this region versus the pre-debate polls.
No, Trump probably doesn’t trail in Wisconsin by 17 points, as he does in the ABC News/Washington Post poll. (Good pollsters publish their outliers instead of sitting on them, and sometimes they turn out not to be outliers at all.) But average the ABC News poll with the three other post-debate polls of Wisconsin, and Biden is still ahead by 10.5 points there.
Biden’s polling gains may reflect that the COVID-19 outbreak in the Upper Midwest is bad right now, especially in Wisconsin. There is some evidence that the polls tend to shift against Trump following spikes in COVID-19 cases in a state, potentially a foreboding indicator for Trump as COVID-19 cases are also now rising sharply in many other states.
Finally, to the Northeast:
Polls of Northeastern states since the final debate Polls conducted entirely (or mostly) after the Oct. 22 debate compared to the last poll from the same pollster Biden lead Pollster Now Before change ME Colby College +13.0 +11.0 +2.0 PA Civiqs +7.0 +6.0 +1.0 PA Gravis Marketing +7.0 +3.0 +4.0 PA InsiderAdvantage -3.0 +3.0 -6.0 PA Reuters/Ipsos +5.0 +4.0 +1.0 Average +5.8 +5.4 +0.4 Source: polls
By the Northeast, as you can see from the chart above, I really just mean … Pennsylvania, plus one stray poll of Maine. This region has been underpolled. There haven’t been any live-caller polls of Pennsylvania since the debate, and the online and IVR polls show highly disparate results there. New Hampshire has had no post-debate polling at all, meanwhile.
We go back and forth here at FiveThirtyEight about whether Pennsylvania counts as part of the Northeast or the Midwest. I’ve usually been a proponent of the theory that for political purposes, Pennsylvania behaves like a Midwestern state. There are some important geographic, demographic and cultural differences between Pennsylvania and the Upper Midwest, however, and this year, the polling in Pennsylvania hasn’t tracked the numbers in Wisconsin and Michigan that well. Pennsylvania is also not currently experiencing as bad of a COVID-19 outbreak as those other states. So it may be less correlated with them than usual.
But one way or another, the final round of high-quality, live-caller polls in Pennsylvania is likely to make a big difference to our model. Pennsylvania is by far the most likely tipping-point state. If Biden gets up to, say, a 6- or 7-point lead there, he’ll be in a much safer position overall in the Electoral College than if he gets knocked down to a 4-point lead here instead. More polling of the Keystone State is surely to come soon.
How the media projects the winner of an election | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-28--How The Electorate Will Be Different In 2020 Compared With 2016

In this episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew takes a closer look at who is voting and @ @ @ @ @ stayed the same , compared with four years ago .

How The Electorate Will Be Different In 2020 Compared With 2016
In this episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew takes a closer look at who is voting and how preferences have changed or stayed the same, compared with four years ago.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-28--Politics Podcast: How We Expect The Electorate To Look In 2020

There are six days until Election Day and more than 75 million Americans have already voted .
In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew takes a closer look at who exactly is voting and how their preferences have changed or stayed the same , compared with four years ago .
After the 2016 election , for example , a major theme was the educational divide , as white voters without a college degree swung towards Trump and those with college degrees moved toward Clinton .
There was also a sizable gender gap , and lower turnout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with past elections .
The team discusses whether those trends are once again present and what some of the emerging trends of 2020 may be .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comment , question or suggestion for “ good polling vs. bad polling ” ?
Get in touch by email , on Twitter or in the comments .

There are six days until Election Day and more than 75 million Americans have already voted. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew takes a closer look at who exactly is voting and how their preferences have changed or stayed the same, compared with four years ago.
After the 2016 election, for example, a major theme was the educational divide, as white voters without a college degree swung towards Trump and those with college degrees moved toward Clinton. There was also a sizable gender gap, and lower turnout among Black Americans and young people compared with past elections. The team discusses whether those trends are once again present and what some of the emerging trends of 2020 may be.
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.