fivethirthyeight--2020-11-10--Sue Bird And Megan Rapinoe Have Gotten Better Together

On Oct. 30 , WNBA legend Sue Bird and U.S. soccer star Megan Rapinoe posted the same photo on their Instagram accounts to announce their engagement .
They were in Antigua on vacation , at an infinity pool overlooking the ocean , and Bird had extended her left hand to Rapinoe , who was down on one knee on the pool ledge .
There is perhaps no bigger power couple in all of sports right now than Rapinoe and Bird .
The 35-year-old Rapinoe has won seven individual global awards , including the 2019 Ballon d ’ Or Féminin for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ player , and two Women ’ s World Cups ; and she has ranked in the top 10 in the National Women ’ s Soccer League in goals in two of her past three seasons .
Bird , who turned 40 last month , is a four-time WNBA champion , eight-time All-WNBA selection and 11-time All-Star in her 17 pro seasons .
Combined , the two have five Olympic gold medals and could win two more in Tokyo next summer .
Rapinoe and Bird met at a press event before the 2016 Olympics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rio de Janeiro when Rapinoe and some of her teammates attended the basketball team ’ s party to celebrate its gold medal .
They connected over social media after the Olympics and started dating in fall 2016 .
Despite being in their mid-to-late 30s for most of their relationship , the two have produced some of the biggest accomplishments of their careers while they were dating , including two WNBA titles for Bird and Rapinoe ’ s transcendent 2019 World Cup performance .
They have also worked to advance their respective sports and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a landmark new collective bargaining agreement for the WNBA last winter , and this summer , she had the idea for WNBA players to repudiate Atlanta Dream co-owner and U.S. Sen. Kelly Loeffler by wearing T-shirts backing her opponent , Rev .
Raphael Warnock , in the 2020 election .
Rapinoe has been one of the leaders in Team USA ’ s fight for equal pay , and she hosted an HBO special this summer called “ Seeing America With Megan Rapinoe , ” which also featured U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , journalist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Progress is really hard , and carrying the torch is really hard , ” Rapinoe told InStyle in 2019 , “ but you find a way to manage it and do it.
” Team USA ’ s legal battle for equal pay is ongoing , and the WNBA ’ s new collective bargaining agreement and Rapinoe and Bird ’ s political activism will have ripple effects for years to come .
But in their sports , the immediate impact that both players are making in the supposed twilight of their careers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look at some numbers that show how much both players have elevated their games in the last four years .
From the moment Bird entered the WNBA at age 21 , she was a difference-maker .
In the 2002-15 regular seasons , she made nine All-Star teams , won two championships and averaged 12.3 points and 5.4 assists in 32.4 minutes per game .
Her effective field-goal percentage was just north of 50 percent , and her player efficiency rating of 17.5 was well above the league average of 15.0 .
Yet 15 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ met Rapinoe , Bird found another gear .
From 2017 to this year , she averaged about five fewer minutes and 2 fewer points per game , but her effective field-goal percentage increased to 57.0 percent .
Her 3-point shooting percentage also rose from 37.9 percent to 42.6 percent and became a bigger part of her game , representing 55 percent of her field-goal attempts since 2017 compared with 40 percent pre-Megan .
Bird also upped her assists by an average of 1.2 per game while decreasing turnovers by 0.7 and fouls by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who had her poster on their walls as children .
“ It ’ s all about maximizing your strengths and hiding your weaknesses , ” she told The New York Times this year .
“ Whether you ’ re a role player or the best player on the team , if you can do that , it ’ s a recipe for a long career.
” She has also credited better nutrition , reduced inflammation and better sleep with contributing to her remarkable longevity .
Of course , playing with 2018 WNBA MVP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2016 , is unlikely to hurt Bird ’ s stats .
But teams need multiple star players to win a championship , and Bird has been a star in the playoffs since she and Rapinoe started dating .
From 2017 to 2020 , Bird averaged 7.7 assists against just 1.8 turnovers in the playoffs , compared with 5.2 and 2.1 pre-Megan , and she set a new single-game playoff record with 16 assists less than a month before her 40th birthday .
She also hunted her 3-point shot with extra vigor : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attempts in the 2017-20 playoffs were 3-pointers , up from 42 percent pre-Megan , yet her accuracy decreased by less than 2 percentage points .
As a result , her effective field-goal percentage increased from 46.9 percent to an even 50.0 percent .
Rapinoe burst into the national consciousness with a cross to Abby Wambach in the 122nd minute of a 2011 Women ’ s World Cup match against Brazil .
Rapinoe ’ s production was relatively similar for the national team and her NWSL team , OL Reign , before she began @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through the 2016 Olympics with the national team and spanned the 2013 through 2015 NWSL seasons .
Excluding penalty kick goals , Rapinoe averaged 0.71 goals plus assists per 90 minutes for Team USA and 0.78 for OL Reign .
On Team USA , she produced goals and assists at nearly equal rates ( 0.38 and 0.33 , respectively , per 90 minutes ) , while with OL Reign , she was more of a scorer ( 0.52 goals versus 0.26 assists per 90 minutes ) .
Despite several injuries , Rapinoe ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ team since she and Bird started dating .
She played in the Olympics and the NWSL less than a year after tearing her ACL in December 2015 , and in the 2019 World Cup , she battled hamstring and Achilles tendon issues .
Yet she averaged 1.08 goals plus assists per 90 minutes ( excluding penalty kicks ) for the national team from 2018 to 2020 — a 52 percent increase in production at ages 32 through 34 .
Rapinoe ’ s 2019 World Cup performance cemented her legacy as an American sports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its second consecutive championship and won the Golden Boot as the tournament ’ s top goal scorer and the Golden Ball as the best player .
And she did it all amid criticism of the team for routing Thailand 13-0 and added pressure from President Trump , who reacted to Rapinoe saying that she would reject an invitation to the White House if the team won by tweeting that she should “ WIN first before she TALKS !
” As Vanity Fair put it in a July 2019 headline , “ Megan Rapinoe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cup.
” ( Subtitle : “ She collected every trophy , answered every unfair question , and now returns home as a national icon.
” ) Or , as Bird wrote in her Players ’ Tribune article called “ So the President F*cking Hates My Girlfriend ” : “ You just can not shake that girl .
She ’ s going to do her thing , at her own damn speed , to her own damn rhythm , and she ’ s going to apologize to exactly NO ONE for it .
… @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , all the fallout — coming out on the other side of that is what now makes her seem so unfazed by the assholes of the world.
” Rapinoe ’ s NWSL output hasn ’ t matched her increased Team USA production , with just 0.59 goals plus assists per 90 minutes ( excluding penalty kicks ) in 44 matches .
It has also decreased compared to her production in the pre-Sue era .
In the 2016 through 2019 NWSL seasons , Rapinoe recorded fewer goals ( excluding penalty kicks ) and fewer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from 2013 through 2015 .
In 2019 , she had zero goals and zero assists in five matches after the World Cup , likely due to a combination of injury , fatigue and reacclimating herself to the league nearly 12 months after her last NWSL game .
Despite that comparative drop-off , Rapinoe still finished in the top five in the NWSL in goals per 90 minutes in 2017 and 2018 .
She is one of soccer ’ s biggest names both domestically and globally , and her ascension has largely come while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each relished in the other ’ s success .
Bird missed the entire 2019 WNBA season with a knee injury , which allowed her to be in France for the World Cup final , and pictures of her kissing Rapinoe in the stands became symbols of the team ’ s triumph .
A year later , Rapinoe returned the favor , cheering Bird all the way to a championship inside the WNBA bubble , or “ Wubble.
” “ We are huge fans of each other .
I have become , like , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of course , ” Rapinoe told People magazine last year .
“ I think it is just the understanding of what we have to go through and the appreciation of , you know , each other ’ s skills and lives is really special .
… Neither of us are jealous or weird about each other ’ s careers .
We are just kind of there to support each other.
” In perhaps the understatement of the century , she added , “ I ’ m just a girl in a Wubble dating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” That point guard and that girl in the Wubble have nearly unmatched resumes and medals galore in their respective sports .
Yet , as good as they were individually , they have been even better together .

On Oct. 30, WNBA legend Sue Bird and U.S. soccer star Megan Rapinoe posted the same photo on their Instagram accounts to announce their engagement. They were in Antigua on vacation, at an infinity pool overlooking the ocean, and Bird had extended her left hand to Rapinoe, who was down on one knee on the pool ledge.
There is perhaps no bigger power couple in all of sports right now than Rapinoe and Bird. The 35-year-old Rapinoe has won seven individual global awards, including the 2019 Ballon d’Or Féminin for the world’s best female soccer player, and two Women’s World Cups; and she has ranked in the top 10 in the National Women’s Soccer League in goals in two of her past three seasons. Bird, who turned 40 last month, is a four-time WNBA champion, eight-time All-WNBA selection and 11-time All-Star in her 17 pro seasons. Combined, the two have five Olympic gold medals and could win two more in Tokyo next summer.
Rapinoe and Bird met at a press event before the 2016 Olympics, and they hit it off in Rio de Janeiro when Rapinoe and some of her teammates attended the basketball team’s party to celebrate its gold medal. They connected over social media after the Olympics and started dating in fall 2016.
Despite being in their mid-to-late 30s for most of their relationship, the two have produced some of the biggest accomplishments of their careers while they were dating, including two WNBA titles for Bird and Rapinoe’s transcendent 2019 World Cup performance. They have also worked to advance their respective sports and promote social justice. Bird helped negotiate a landmark new collective bargaining agreement for the WNBA last winter, and this summer, she had the idea for WNBA players to repudiate Atlanta Dream co-owner and U.S. Sen. Kelly Loeffler by wearing T-shirts backing her opponent, Rev. Raphael Warnock, in the 2020 election. Rapinoe has been one of the leaders in Team USA’s fight for equal pay, and she hosted an HBO special this summer called “Seeing America With Megan Rapinoe,” which also featured U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones and television host Hasan Minhaj.
“Progress is really hard, and carrying the torch is really hard,” Rapinoe told InStyle in 2019, “but you find a way to manage it and do it.”
Team USA’s legal battle for equal pay is ongoing, and the WNBA’s new collective bargaining agreement and Rapinoe and Bird’s political activism will have ripple effects for years to come. But in their sports, the immediate impact that both players are making in the supposed twilight of their careers is already obvious. Let’s look at some numbers that show how much both players have elevated their games in the last four years.
Sue Bird
From the moment Bird entered the WNBA at age 21, she was a difference-maker. In the 2002-15 regular seasons, she made nine All-Star teams, won two championships and averaged 12.3 points and 5.4 assists in 32.4 minutes per game. Her effective field-goal percentage was just north of 50 percent, and her player efficiency rating of 17.5 was well above the league average of 15.0.
Yet 15 years after her debut, after she met Rapinoe, Bird found another gear. From 2017 to this year, she averaged about five fewer minutes and 2 fewer points per game, but her effective field-goal percentage increased to 57.0 percent. Her 3-point shooting percentage also rose from 37.9 percent to 42.6 percent and became a bigger part of her game, representing 55 percent of her field-goal attempts since 2017 compared with 40 percent pre-Megan.
Bird also upped her assists by an average of 1.2 per game while decreasing turnovers by 0.7 and fouls by 0.2, while playing against some opponents who had her poster on their walls as children.
“It’s all about maximizing your strengths and hiding your weaknesses,” she told The New York Times this year. “Whether you’re a role player or the best player on the team, if you can do that, it’s a recipe for a long career.” She has also credited better nutrition, reduced inflammation and better sleep with contributing to her remarkable longevity.
Of course, playing with 2018 WNBA MVP Breanna Stewart, whom the Storm drafted in 2016, is unlikely to hurt Bird’s stats. But teams need multiple star players to win a championship, and Bird has been a star in the playoffs since she and Rapinoe started dating.
From 2017 to 2020, Bird averaged 7.7 assists against just 1.8 turnovers in the playoffs, compared with 5.2 and 2.1 pre-Megan, and she set a new single-game playoff record with 16 assists less than a month before her 40th birthday. She also hunted her 3-point shot with extra vigor: 63 percent of Bird’s field-goal attempts in the 2017-20 playoffs were 3-pointers, up from 42 percent pre-Megan, yet her accuracy decreased by less than 2 percentage points. As a result, her effective field-goal percentage increased from 46.9 percent to an even 50.0 percent.
Sue is more efficient with more assists since Megan WNBA stats for Sue Bird before her relationship with Megan Rapinoe (2002-15) vs. during it (2017-20) Regular season Playoffs Before During diff Before During diff 3-point shooting % 37.9 42.6 +4.7 36.0 34.1 -1.9 Effective field-goal % 50.1 57.0 +6.9 46.9 50.0 +3.1 Minutes per game 32.4 27.5 -4.9 34.3 27.8 -6.5 Points per game 12.3 10.3 -2.0 12.6 9.8 -2.8 Assists per game 5.4 6.6 +1.2 5.2 7.7 +2.5 Bird and Rapinoe’s relationship began during the 2016 WNBA season, so that season is excluded. Source: Basketball-Reference.com
Megan Rapinoe
Rapinoe burst into the national consciousness with a cross to Abby Wambach in the 122nd minute of a 2011 Women’s World Cup match against Brazil. Rapinoe’s production was relatively similar for the national team and her NWSL team, OL Reign, before she began dating Bird — an era that lasted through the 2016 Olympics with the national team and spanned the 2013 through 2015 NWSL seasons. Excluding penalty kick goals, Rapinoe averaged 0.71 goals plus assists per 90 minutes for Team USA and 0.78 for OL Reign. On Team USA, she produced goals and assists at nearly equal rates (0.38 and 0.33, respectively, per 90 minutes), while with OL Reign, she was more of a scorer (0.52 goals versus 0.26 assists per 90 minutes).
Despite several injuries, Rapinoe’s star has risen on the national team since she and Bird started dating. She played in the Olympics and the NWSL less than a year after tearing her ACL in December 2015, and in the 2019 World Cup, she battled hamstring and Achilles tendon issues. Yet she averaged 1.08 goals plus assists per 90 minutes (excluding penalty kicks) for the national team from 2018 to 2020 — a 52 percent increase in production at ages 32 through 34.
Rapinoe’s 2019 World Cup performance cemented her legacy as an American sports hero. She led her team to its second consecutive championship and won the Golden Boot as the tournament’s top goal scorer and the Golden Ball as the best player. And she did it all amid criticism of the team for routing Thailand 13-0 and added pressure from President Trump, who reacted to Rapinoe saying that she would reject an invitation to the White House if the team won by tweeting that she should “WIN first before she TALKS!”
As Vanity Fair put it in a July 2019 headline, “Megan Rapinoe Won Every Possible Part of the World Cup.” (Subtitle: “She collected every trophy, answered every unfair question, and now returns home as a national icon.”)
Or, as Bird wrote in her Players’ Tribune article called “So the President F*cking Hates My Girlfriend”:
“You just cannot shake that girl. She’s going to do her thing, at her own damn speed, to her own damn rhythm, and she’s going to apologize to exactly NO ONE for it. … All the threats, all the criticism, all the fallout — coming out on the other side of that is what now makes her seem so unfazed by the assholes of the world.”
Rapinoe’s NWSL output hasn’t matched her increased Team USA production, with just 0.59 goals plus assists per 90 minutes (excluding penalty kicks) in 44 matches. It has also decreased compared to her production in the pre-Sue era. In the 2016 through 2019 NWSL seasons, Rapinoe recorded fewer goals (excluding penalty kicks) and fewer assists per 90 minutes than she did from 2013 through 2015. In 2019, she had zero goals and zero assists in five matches after the World Cup, likely due to a combination of injury, fatigue and reacclimating herself to the league nearly 12 months after her last NWSL game.
Despite that comparative drop-off, Rapinoe still finished in the top five in the NWSL in goals per 90 minutes in 2017 and 2018. She is one of soccer’s biggest names both domestically and globally, and her ascension has largely come while dating Bird.
Megan has made a leap internationally since Sue International and NWSL stats for Megan Rapinoe before her relationship with Sue Bird (2011-16) vs. during it (2016-20) International NWSL Before During diff Before During diff Goals per 90 min. 0.38 0.72 +0.34 0.52 0.53 +0.01 Assists per 90 min. 0.33 0.52 +0.19 0.26 0.21 -0.05 G+A per 90 min. 0.71 1.08 +0.37 0.78 0.59 -0.19 Minutes per match 66.2 69.9 +3.70 77.9 76.6 -1.30 Team goal diff. 37 51 +14.00 — — — Bird and Rapinoe’s relationship began after the 2016 Olympics. Rapinoe’s pre-Bird stats include the 2016 Olympics but not the 2016 NWSL season. Source: FBRef.com
Bird and Rapinoe have each relished in the other’s success. Bird missed the entire 2019 WNBA season with a knee injury, which allowed her to be in France for the World Cup final, and pictures of her kissing Rapinoe in the stands became symbols of the team’s triumph. A year later, Rapinoe returned the favor, cheering Bird all the way to a championship inside the WNBA bubble, or “Wubble.”
“We are huge fans of each other. I have become, like, a Seattle Storm number one superfan, of course,” Rapinoe told People magazine last year. “I think it is just the understanding of what we have to go through and the appreciation of, you know, each other’s skills and lives is really special. … Neither of us are jealous or weird about each other’s careers. We are just kind of there to support each other.”
In perhaps the understatement of the century, she added, “I’m just a girl in a Wubble dating her local team’s point guard.”
That point guard and that girl in the Wubble have nearly unmatched resumes and medals galore in their respective sports. Yet, as good as they were individually, they have been even better together.


fivethirthyeight--2020-11-10--What Happens If the Supreme Court Overturns Obamacare?

The Supreme Court mostly stayed out of the spotlight during the frenzied week after Election Day .
But on Tuesday , the justices are hearing a case that could upend the country ’ s health care system in the midst of a pandemic and leave tens of millions of people without health insurance .
In California v. Texas , a group of 18 Republican-led states and two individuals who live in Texas are challenging the constitutionality of a key component of the Affordable Care Act : the “ individual mandate , ” which required all Americans to obtain health insurance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — that is , before the penalty was reduced to $ 0 by congressional Republicans in the 2017 tax bill .
The law ’ s challengers are backed by the Trump administration .
Of course , this isn ’ t the first time the 10-year-old law has been challenged .
It ’ s outlasted years of Republican-led efforts in Congress to repeal it .
And it ’ s twice survived scrutiny at the Supreme Court , in 2012 and 2015 ( although both times the law was upheld by relatively slim margins ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the law ’ s favor , but it ’ s going up against a more conservative slate of justices now , including Amy Coney Barrett , who has criticized Chief Justice John Roberts ’ s decisive vote to save the law in 2012 .
As a result , the fate of the ACA is more uncertain than it seemed just a few months ago .
If the Supreme Court guts the ACA , though , it could face a steep backlash in the court of public opinion .
The law wasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has steadily grown a lot more popular , with most Americans supporting key elements like protections for people with preexisting conditions .
What ’ s more , the entire health care system has reorganized itself around the ACA , which means that nearly everyone in the country could feel the impact if the law were struck down .
And with control of the Senate in doubt , there are serious questions about Congress ’ s ability to quickly preserve the most popular parts of the law — much less replace it with new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all these reasons and more , many legal experts think that even with the Supreme Court ’ s new conservative tilt , the justices are likely to keep most , if not all , of the law in place .
But the stakes are high — for the court and the country — if a majority of justices do decide to strike the law down .
The most obvious consequence of overturning the ACA would be that more than 20 million people would be at serious risk of losing their health insurance , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the law to sell private plans , or through the expansion of Medicaid in many states .
But there would be myriad other effects , too .
Not only would protections for preexisting conditions be lost , but preventive care — like flu shots , a COVID-19 vaccine and mammography screenings for women over 40 — would no longer have to be covered .
Health care plans also wouldn ’ t be required to cover as many types of care .
And many young adults under age 26 could be booted off their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question that is now before the court , though , is that a key piece of the law ’ s structure has changed since 2012 , when it was first upheld , in ways that call its constitutionality into question .
Back in 2012 , one of the key issues before the Supreme Court was the legality of the “ individual mandate ” — a component of the ACA that required all Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty .
In a narrow 5-4 vote , the justices ruled that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s taxing power .
But then , in 2017 , the Republican-controlled Congress tweaked that provision , setting the penalty for not obtaining health insurance to $ 0 .
Now , the GOP-led coalition that has brought the ACA back to the high court is contending that the mandate is unconstitutional since the “ tax ” attached to not having insurance is nonexistent — and that the mandate can ’ t be separated , or in legal parlance “ severed , ” from the rest of the law , meaning that the entire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an ambitious legal argument , to say the least .
Separate from the question of the constitutionality of the individual mandate , striking down an entire law because of one defective part may not be an especially popular move among some of the conservative justices .
Just this summer , in a 5-4 decision involving the constitutionality of the structure of the Obama-era Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , Roberts summarized what he called the “ settled ” doctrine of severability , writing , “ [ W ] e try to limit the solution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ portions while leaving the remainder intact.
” The assumption , he explained , should be — unless there ’ s “ strong evidence ” to the contrary — that Congress didn ’ t intend for one faulty provision to doom the rest of the law .
In her confirmation hearings in October , too , Barrett seemed to suggest that the individual mandate — if unconstitutional — wouldn ’ t necessarily mean the rest of the ACA would be invalid .
One counterargument against the GOP-led coalition ’ s case is that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mandate .
A friend of the court brief submitted by a group of economists argues that the individual mandate isn ’ t crucial to the functioning of the ACA from an economic perspective since the law has remained fully operational even without a penalty for not buying insurance .
Some health insurers , meanwhile , have argued that invalidating the entire law along with the individual mandate would have scores of “ serious consequences in disparate areas wholly untethered to the mandate.
” There are other legal arguments against the case , too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states even have the ability to bring the lawsuit to court in the first place .
But , so far , lower courts have sided with the law ’ s opponents in varying degrees .
A federal district court judge in Texas struck down the mandate and the rest of the law in late 2018 , and an appeals court partially upheld that decision a year later , ruling that the mandate was unconstitutional .
( However , beyond the ruling on the mandate , it wasn ’ t a clear victory for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appeals court asked the lower court to reconsider the extent to which the mandate could be separated from the ACA . )
But let ’ s say a majority on the Supreme Court do rule that the entire ACA is unconstitutional .
The big question , from a political perspective then , is what Congress could do to deal with the chaos that would inevitably ensue .
The answer is complicated , as control of the Senate most likely hangs on two runoff elections in Georgia in January .
So if Democrats managed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ try to preempt the Supreme Court by changing the penalty to a nominal sum like $ 1 , or repealing the individual mandate entirely .
Or if the Supreme Court did strike down the law with Democrats in control of both houses of Congress and the White House , they could use the decision as an excuse to push for broader health care reform .
But if Republicans maintain control of the Senate , none of those fixes seem likely to happen , leaving the health care system in real jeopardy .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the entire ACA is overturned by the time the current Supreme Court term ends in June seems somewhat unlikely , but understanding the risks of that scenario is important .
The ACA has grown increasingly popular since Obama left office , and even a majority ( 66 percent ) of Republicans want to maintain its protections on people with preexisting conditions , according to an October poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation .
As I ’ ve written before , the Supreme Court can face serious backlash if it gets too far outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at least last term , Roberts seemed studiously determined to avoid .
So , as the justices hear oral arguments today , they may not be thinking only about the legal issues in the case — but about what might happen to the court as an institution if a popular health care law were upended by a handful of unelected judges in the middle of a pandemic .

The Supreme Court mostly stayed out of the spotlight during the frenzied week after Election Day. But on Tuesday, the justices are hearing a case that could upend the country’s health care system in the midst of a pandemic and leave tens of millions of people without health insurance.
In California v. Texas, a group of 18 Republican-led states and two individuals who live in Texas are challenging the constitutionality of a key component of the Affordable Care Act: the “individual mandate,” which required all Americans to obtain health insurance or be subject to a financial penalty — that is, before the penalty was reduced to $0 by congressional Republicans in the 2017 tax bill. The law’s challengers are backed by the Trump administration.
Of course, this isn’t the first time the 10-year-old law has been challenged. It’s outlasted years of Republican-led efforts in Congress to repeal it. And it’s twice survived scrutiny at the Supreme Court, in 2012 and 2015 (although both times the law was upheld by relatively slim margins). That might seem like a point in the law’s favor, but it’s going up against a more conservative slate of justices now, including Amy Coney Barrett, who has criticized Chief Justice John Roberts’s decisive vote to save the law in 2012. As a result, the fate of the ACA is more uncertain than it seemed just a few months ago.
If the Supreme Court guts the ACA, though, it could face a steep backlash in the court of public opinion. The law wasn’t always well liked, but it has steadily grown a lot more popular, with most Americans supporting key elements like protections for people with preexisting conditions. What’s more, the entire health care system has reorganized itself around the ACA, which means that nearly everyone in the country could feel the impact if the law were struck down. And with control of the Senate in doubt, there are serious questions about Congress’s ability to quickly preserve the most popular parts of the law — much less replace it with new, comprehensive health care reform.
For all these reasons and more, many legal experts think that even with the Supreme Court’s new conservative tilt, the justices are likely to keep most, if not all, of the law in place. But the stakes are high — for the court and the country — if a majority of justices do decide to strike the law down.
The most obvious consequence of overturning the ACA would be that more than 20 million people would be at serious risk of losing their health insurance, either through the marketplaces set up under the law to sell private plans, or through the expansion of Medicaid in many states. But there would be myriad other effects, too. Not only would protections for preexisting conditions be lost, but preventive care — like flu shots, a COVID-19 vaccine and mammography screenings for women over 40 — would no longer have to be covered. Health care plans also wouldn’t be required to cover as many types of care. And many young adults under age 26 could be booted off their parents’ health care plans.
A question that is now before the court, though, is that a key piece of the law’s structure has changed since 2012, when it was first upheld, in ways that call its constitutionality into question.
Back in 2012, one of the key issues before the Supreme Court was the legality of the “individual mandate” — a component of the ACA that required all Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty. In a narrow 5-4 vote, the justices ruled that the individual mandate was permissible under Congress’s taxing power. But then, in 2017, the Republican-controlled Congress tweaked that provision, setting the penalty for not obtaining health insurance to $0.
Now, the GOP-led coalition that has brought the ACA back to the high court is contending that the mandate is unconstitutional since the “tax” attached to not having insurance is nonexistent — and that the mandate can’t be separated, or in legal parlance “severed,” from the rest of the law, meaning that the entire ACA is now unconstitutional.
This is an ambitious legal argument, to say the least.
Separate from the question of the constitutionality of the individual mandate, striking down an entire law because of one defective part may not be an especially popular move among some of the conservative justices. Just this summer, in a 5-4 decision involving the constitutionality of the structure of the Obama-era Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Roberts summarized what he called the “settled” doctrine of severability, writing, “[W]e try to limit the solution to the problem, severing any problematic portions while leaving the remainder intact.” The assumption, he explained, should be — unless there’s “strong evidence” to the contrary — that Congress didn’t intend for one faulty provision to doom the rest of the law. In her confirmation hearings in October, too, Barrett seemed to suggest that the individual mandate — if unconstitutional — wouldn’t necessarily mean the rest of the ACA would be invalid.
One counterargument against the GOP-led coalition’s case is that the health care markets can operate without the mandate. A friend of the court brief submitted by a group of economists argues that the individual mandate isn’t crucial to the functioning of the ACA from an economic perspective since the law has remained fully operational even without a penalty for not buying insurance. Some health insurers, meanwhile, have argued that invalidating the entire law along with the individual mandate would have scores of “serious consequences in disparate areas wholly untethered to the mandate.”
There are other legal arguments against the case, too — including the question of whether these states even have the ability to bring the lawsuit to court in the first place. But, so far, lower courts have sided with the law’s opponents in varying degrees. A federal district court judge in Texas struck down the mandate and the rest of the law in late 2018, and an appeals court partially upheld that decision a year later, ruling that the mandate was unconstitutional. (However, beyond the ruling on the mandate, it wasn’t a clear victory for the law’s challengers. The appeals court asked the lower court to reconsider the extent to which the mandate could be separated from the ACA.)
But let’s say a majority on the Supreme Court do rule that the entire ACA is unconstitutional. The big question, from a political perspective then, is what Congress could do to deal with the chaos that would inevitably ensue. The answer is complicated, as control of the Senate most likely hangs on two runoff elections in Georgia in January. So if Democrats managed to win the Senate, they could try to preempt the Supreme Court by changing the penalty to a nominal sum like $1, or repealing the individual mandate entirely. Or if the Supreme Court did strike down the law with Democrats in control of both houses of Congress and the White House, they could use the decision as an excuse to push for broader health care reform. But if Republicans maintain control of the Senate, none of those fixes seem likely to happen, leaving the health care system in real jeopardy.
In other words, a world in which the entire ACA is overturned by the time the current Supreme Court term ends in June seems somewhat unlikely, but understanding the risks of that scenario is important. The ACA has grown increasingly popular since Obama left office, and even a majority (66 percent) of Republicans want to maintain its protections on people with preexisting conditions, according to an October poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation. As I’ve written before, the Supreme Court can face serious backlash if it gets too far outside the bounds of public opinion — which, at least last term, Roberts seemed studiously determined to avoid.
So, as the justices hear oral arguments today, they may not be thinking only about the legal issues in the case — but about what might happen to the court as an institution if a popular health care law were upended by a handful of unelected judges in the middle of a pandemic.


fivethirthyeight--2020-11-10--What’s Wrong With The NFL’s Best Teams?

What’s Wrong With The NFL’s Best Teams?

We start by taking a close look at the top five NFL teams in our model : This week , they are the Kansas City Chiefs , Pittsburgh Steelers , New Orleans Saints , Baltimore Ravens and Green Bay Packers .
They ’ re an odd bunch .
While there have been some murmurs about the Chiefs regressing from their top form last year , Patrick Mahomes and Co. may actually be getting better .
So they remain favorites .
But none of the rest of the top teams are fully shoo-ins to go all the way .
The Steelers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lucky , based on how their offense has performed .
While the Saints absolutely dismantled the Tampa Bay Buccaneers on Sunday , they had been short on truly convincing wins this season , and the arm strength of Drew Brees continues to be a concern .
The Ravens got an important win against a tough Colts team , but we ’ re afraid that opposing defenses have gotten better at containing Lamar Jackson .
And in Green Bay , defensive troubles might make it tough on the offense — even an offense led @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told , it wouldn ’ t surprise us to see any of these teams in the Super Bowl .
But it also wouldn ’ t really shock us if any of them — except perhaps the Chiefs — blows their shot .
Next , we move to college football , in anticipation of the first rankings from the College Football Playoff committee .
Notre Dame ’ s upset of Clemson ( albeit a Clemson sans star quarterback Trevor Lawrence ) stirs the pot and makes an all-SEC/ACC playoff this year at least possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for that to happen .
It also doesn ’ t feel as exciting as it might , given that this was the year the committee really could have expanded the playoffs and chalked up the experiment ( and the obvious opportunity to make more money ) to the pandemic .
They ’ d still likely find a way to keep Group of Five schools out , much to the chagrin of what looks to be a very good Cincinnati team and an at-least-passable BYU team that hasn ’ t had the chance to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ schools stuck to all-conference schedules .
College football is so often underscored by the chance to argue over scenarios that can ’ t really be proved one way or the other , and in this one respect , the 2020 season is no exception .
Finally , in the Rabbit Hole , Neil expands on a fascinating Twitter thread about Mahomes ’ s bid to pass Rodgers in all-time passer rating .
How long will Mahomes stay at the top of that list ?
What we ’ re looking at this week : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real contenders now ?
• Week 9 highlighted the future of the NFL .
• Which teams are where in college football ’ s reranking ?

We start by taking a close look at the top five NFL teams in our model: This week, they are the Kansas City Chiefs, Pittsburgh Steelers, New Orleans Saints, Baltimore Ravens and Green Bay Packers. They’re an odd bunch. While there have been some murmurs about the Chiefs regressing from their top form last year, Patrick Mahomes and Co. may actually be getting better. So they remain favorites. But none of the rest of the top teams are fully shoo-ins to go all the way. The Steelers’ 8-0 record is a little bit lucky, based on how their offense has performed. While the Saints absolutely dismantled the Tampa Bay Buccaneers on Sunday, they had been short on truly convincing wins this season, and the arm strength of Drew Brees continues to be a concern. The Ravens got an important win against a tough Colts team, but we’re afraid that opposing defenses have gotten better at containing Lamar Jackson. And in Green Bay, defensive troubles might make it tough on the offense — even an offense led by a resurgent Aaron Rodgers. All told, it wouldn’t surprise us to see any of these teams in the Super Bowl. But it also wouldn’t really shock us if any of them — except perhaps the Chiefs — blows their shot.
Next, we move to college football, in anticipation of the first rankings from the College Football Playoff committee. Notre Dame’s upset of Clemson (albeit a Clemson sans star quarterback Trevor Lawrence) stirs the pot and makes an all-SEC/ACC playoff this year at least possible. But several dominos have to fall for that to happen. It also doesn’t feel as exciting as it might, given that this was the year the committee really could have expanded the playoffs and chalked up the experiment (and the obvious opportunity to make more money) to the pandemic. They’d still likely find a way to keep Group of Five schools out, much to the chagrin of what looks to be a very good Cincinnati team and an at-least-passable BYU team that hasn’t had the chance to prove itself, given how many big schools stuck to all-conference schedules. College football is so often underscored by the chance to argue over scenarios that can’t really be proved one way or the other, and in this one respect, the 2020 season is no exception.
Finally, in the Rabbit Hole, Neil expands on a fascinating Twitter thread about Mahomes’s bid to pass Rodgers in all-time passer rating. How long will Mahomes stay at the top of that list?
What we’re looking at this week:


fivethirthyeight--2020-11-10--What To Make Of Pfizer’s Big Vaccine Announcement

In this episode of PODCAST-19 , host Anna Rothschild and senior science writer Maggie Koerth talk about Pfizer ’ s @ @ @ @ @ may be more than 90 percent effective .

In this episode of PODCAST-19, host Anna Rothschild and senior science writer Maggie Koerth talk about Pfizer’s announcement that its coronavirus vaccine may be more than 90 percent effective.


fivethirthyeight--2020-11-10--Pfizer’s Vaccine Announcement Was Always Going To Be Political

There ’ s no good time to release new information about a ground-breaking vaccine for a global pandemic in the middle of a hotly contested election .
“ It ’ s the Comey problem , right ?
” said Susan Ellenberg , professor of biostatistics and epidemiology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania , laughing ruefully .
Whether the news breaks before people vote or after , it ’ s doomed to be politicized .
On Monday , Pfizer announced that the vaccine it is working on with German biotechnology company BioNTech could prevent more than 90 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inherently political news .
But it has certainly become that , with the president ’ s son floating conspiracy theories and President Trump and Pfizer publicly disagreeing over how big a role the administration played in this development .
And bad timing isn ’ t the only trust problem here .
We are , after all , talking about extremely promising news from a big pharmaceutical company , in the form of a press release — no data to review , no details to double check .
If you ’ re looking at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raised eyebrow , well … you ’ re not alone .
But the good news is that the Pfizer announcement is actually good news , experts told me .
The study is still ongoing , but at this point , there are 94 trial volunteers who have contracted COVID-19 at least seven days after receiving the second of two doses of the vaccine .
We don ’ t know how many participants in the 43,538-person study had reached that point when this evaluation was done .
Nor do we know how many of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the placebo , although experts said we can infer it ’ s less than 10 if the vaccine efficacy really is greater than 90 percent .
That level of efficacy may not stay the same , but it ’ s a very good sign for a vaccine that would have been accepted by the Food and Drug Administration with just a 50 percent efficacy rate .
“ There ’ s efficacy .
There was no guarantee for that .
Now we know there is a vaccine that is going to work , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vice president of Scripps Research , a nonprofit biomedical research institute .
He ’ s kept a critical eye on the research and development of COVID-19 vaccines , pressuring pharmaceutical companies for more transparency in their process and criticizing the president ’ s past attempts to claim a vaccine would be released to the public before the election .
But he ’ s cautiously hopeful now — with the caveat that there ’ s still a lot of important details we don ’ t yet know .
Topol is particularly interested in knowing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases .
There are no details yet on that , and that matters , Topol said , because what we really want is a vaccine that prevents the worst cases of this disease .
A vaccine that was statistically effective , but primarily only prevented mild cases , would be less useful .
Ellenberg , meanwhile , wants to know more about the vaccine ’ s safety data , because while this trial will likely be long enough to catch the most common side effects , most vaccines are tested over the course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ length of time that allows researchers to spot rare but serious complications that wouldn ’ t necessarily turn up in a shorter study .
And Dr. Paul Offit , director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children ’ s Hospital of Philadelphia , wants to know more about the demographics of the people who contracted the virus , especially their ages .
It ’ s not out of the question that you could end up with a vaccine that was very effective for healthy young people , but not so much for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs the protection .
We don ’ t know any of these things because what ’ s been released is not scientific data .
It is a preliminary efficacy check conducted by an independent review board outside of Pfizer itself .
Even Pfizer scientists don ’ t know the answers to the questions experts outlined to me — at least not yet — because the trial is ongoing and still blinded to them so that the knowledge of who is taking the placebo won ’ t affect final results .
And that independent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outside perspectives are something pharmaceutical industry critics like Topol like to see , because it ’ s another layer of transparency that ensures we ’ re not just taking Pfizer ’ s word .
They ’ re also a normal part of any trial of a medicine for a serious disease , Ellenberg told me .
You don ’ t want to run a trial for years if it ’ s already clear the medication is overwhelmingly effective and could already be saving lives .
But at the same time , you don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lid on the pot and stop the trial when it looks good to you — that would tend to bias you towards stopping whenever things look statistically good , even if that success is a mirage that would have disappeared in a few weeks .
“ So you have these very well constructed statistical plans that say when you get to this particular point and you have this many positive findings , you can conclude it ’ s very unlikely the data are going to change , ” Ellenberg said .
Unfortunately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in this case , a planned external review was on a collision course with the surge in coronavirus cases that hit the nation over the last month .
Between those two things , there was almost no way to stop the timing from being very awkward .
Pfizer was originally supposed to get a peek at the efficacy after 32 volunteers had contracted the disease .
But somewhere along the line , the company and the FDA decided together to wait longer , out of concerns that positive results at 32 cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approval too soon .
The early look was then supposed to happen after the trial hit 62 cases .
But this is where the pandemic itself seems to have collided with the research .
We don ’ t know exactly what was going on between the 62nd case and the 94th — something Topol , for one , definitely wants more information about .
In an email , representatives from Pfizer told FiveThirtyEight there were “ absolutely no political considerations involved in this process.
” What seems to have happened is that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across the United States led to an equally sudden uptick in cases within the study , Offit said .
“ I think probably by the time they submitted all the data , the number had changed , ” he told me .
One reasonable choice and one pandemic surge later , you have Pfizer saying it received the preliminary efficacy rates from the independent reviewers on the Sunday after media networks projected Joe Biden as the president-elect .
Had they decided to release at 32 cases , we probably would have seen this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic been less … pandemic-y … we might not have hit 62 cases ( let alone 94 ) until late November or December .
“ I don ’ t think there was a political angle , ” Offit said .
And while Pfizer certainly could have sat on the information and left a bigger gap between the election and the announcement , that would have been , in its own way , a pretty questionable decision .
“ They could be accused of withholding data , or that the close investors know something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ellenberg said .
So the timing of this has not been perfect .
And the information we know is splotchy .
But it is , even so , a reason to hope .
The current surge in transmission will likely mean the study hits its preplanned end point of 164 cases within the next month , experts predicted .
The full data could be with us very soon .
And that is something the Trump administration should be proud of , Offit said .
While the Pfizer research and development wasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration ’ s Operation Warp Speed program probably provided competition that sped up Pfizer ’ s work , whether or not the first vaccine out of the gate was directly created by it .
“ Operation Warp Speed has been a phenomenal scientific enterprise that they should be proud of , ” he told me .
“ What they shouldn ’ t be proud of is dissing hygienic measures , but this was good work .
”

There’s no good time to release new information about a ground-breaking vaccine for a global pandemic in the middle of a hotly contested election. “It’s the Comey problem, right?” said Susan Ellenberg, professor of biostatistics and epidemiology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, laughing ruefully. Whether the news breaks before people vote or after, it’s doomed to be politicized.
On Monday, Pfizer announced that the vaccine it is working on with German biotechnology company BioNTech could prevent more than 90 percent of infections. That should not be inherently political news. But it has certainly become that, with the president’s son floating conspiracy theories and President Trump and Pfizer publicly disagreeing over how big a role the administration played in this development.
And bad timing isn’t the only trust problem here. We are, after all, talking about extremely promising news from a big pharmaceutical company, in the form of a press release — no data to review, no details to double check. If you’re looking at this announcement with a bit of a raised eyebrow, well … you’re not alone.
But the good news is that the Pfizer announcement is actually good news, experts told me. The study is still ongoing, but at this point, there are 94 trial volunteers who have contracted COVID-19 at least seven days after receiving the second of two doses of the vaccine. We don’t know how many participants in the 43,538-person study had reached that point when this evaluation was done. Nor do we know how many of those 94 got the vaccine as opposed to the placebo, although experts said we can infer it’s less than 10 if the vaccine efficacy really is greater than 90 percent. That level of efficacy may not stay the same, but it’s a very good sign for a vaccine that would have been accepted by the Food and Drug Administration with just a 50 percent efficacy rate.
“There’s efficacy. There was no guarantee for that. Now we know there is a vaccine that is going to work,” said Dr. Eric Topol, executive vice president of Scripps Research, a nonprofit biomedical research institute. He’s kept a critical eye on the research and development of COVID-19 vaccines, pressuring pharmaceutical companies for more transparency in their process and criticizing the president’s past attempts to claim a vaccine would be released to the public before the election. But he’s cautiously hopeful now — with the caveat that there’s still a lot of important details we don’t yet know.
Topol is particularly interested in knowing more about the severity of those 94 cases. There are no details yet on that, and that matters, Topol said, because what we really want is a vaccine that prevents the worst cases of this disease. A vaccine that was statistically effective, but primarily only prevented mild cases, would be less useful.
Ellenberg, meanwhile, wants to know more about the vaccine’s safety data, because while this trial will likely be long enough to catch the most common side effects, most vaccines are tested over the course of years, not months — a length of time that allows researchers to spot rare but serious complications that wouldn’t necessarily turn up in a shorter study.
And Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, wants to know more about the demographics of the people who contracted the virus, especially their ages. It’s not out of the question that you could end up with a vaccine that was very effective for healthy young people, but not so much for the elderly, high-risk population that really needs the protection.
We don’t know any of these things because what’s been released is not scientific data. It is a preliminary efficacy check conducted by an independent review board outside of Pfizer itself. Even Pfizer scientists don’t know the answers to the questions experts outlined to me — at least not yet — because the trial is ongoing and still blinded to them so that the knowledge of who is taking the placebo won’t affect final results.
And that independent review is a good thing. These outside perspectives are something pharmaceutical industry critics like Topol like to see, because it’s another layer of transparency that ensures we’re not just taking Pfizer’s word. They’re also a normal part of any trial of a medicine for a serious disease, Ellenberg told me. You don’t want to run a trial for years if it’s already clear the medication is overwhelmingly effective and could already be saving lives. But at the same time, you don’t want to just randomly lift the lid on the pot and stop the trial when it looks good to you — that would tend to bias you towards stopping whenever things look statistically good, even if that success is a mirage that would have disappeared in a few weeks.
“So you have these very well constructed statistical plans that say when you get to this particular point and you have this many positive findings, you can conclude it’s very unlikely the data are going to change,” Ellenberg said.
Unfortunately, she and other experts told me, in this case, a planned external review was on a collision course with the surge in coronavirus cases that hit the nation over the last month. Between those two things, there was almost no way to stop the timing from being very awkward.
Pfizer was originally supposed to get a peek at the efficacy after 32 volunteers had contracted the disease. But somewhere along the line, the company and the FDA decided together to wait longer, out of concerns that positive results at 32 cases could lead the company to apply for approval too soon. The early look was then supposed to happen after the trial hit 62 cases. But this is where the pandemic itself seems to have collided with the research.
We don’t know exactly what was going on between the 62nd case and the 94th — something Topol, for one, definitely wants more information about. In an email, representatives from Pfizer told FiveThirtyEight there were “absolutely no political considerations involved in this process.” What seems to have happened is that the sudden increase in the spread of coronavirus across the United States led to an equally sudden uptick in cases within the study, Offit said. “I think probably by the time they submitted all the data, the number had changed,” he told me.
One reasonable choice and one pandemic surge later, you have Pfizer saying it received the preliminary efficacy rates from the independent reviewers on the Sunday after media networks projected Joe Biden as the president-elect. Had they decided to release at 32 cases, we probably would have seen this announcement back in October. Had the pandemic been less … pandemic-y … we might not have hit 62 cases (let alone 94) until late November or December. “I don’t think there was a political angle,” Offit said.
And while Pfizer certainly could have sat on the information and left a bigger gap between the election and the announcement, that would have been, in its own way, a pretty questionable decision. “They could be accused of withholding data, or that the close investors know something the public doesn’t,” Ellenberg said.
So the timing of this has not been perfect. And the information we know is splotchy. But it is, even so, a reason to hope. The current surge in transmission will likely mean the study hits its preplanned end point of 164 cases within the next month, experts predicted. The full data could be with us very soon.
And that is something the Trump administration should be proud of, Offit said. While the Pfizer research and development wasn’t funded by the U.S. government, the administration’s Operation Warp Speed program probably provided competition that sped up Pfizer’s work, whether or not the first vaccine out of the gate was directly created by it. “Operation Warp Speed has been a phenomenal scientific enterprise that they should be proud of,” he told me. “What they shouldn’t be proud of is dissing hygienic measures, but this was good work.”
Good work, even if bad timing.


fivethirthyeight--2020-11-11--Young Americans Have Taken Over Golf. Can They Dominate The Masters?

There are few sporting events as resolutely American as the Masters Tournament , a weeklong devotional to piano-tickled marketing materials , polo-and-khaki ensembles and high-definition flora .
If the 2019 Masters gave us an opportunity for apex patriotism , with Tiger Woods completing the ultimate comeback with a win amid the Georgia pines , the 2020 Masters should feature encore potential with plenty of red , white and blue atop the leaderboard .
All but four of the current top 15 golfers in the world were born in the U.S. , which is unusual enough on its own .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Seven of the 11 are under the age of 30 .
From 2000 to 2019 , there was an average of only two under-30 American golfers entering Masters week ranked in the top 15 .
What ’ s unique about this crop of players is how quickly they ’ ve ascended .
Matthew Wolff , 21 , became just the third man to win an NCAA individual title and a PGA Tour event in the same year when he did so in 2019 , and he also became the eighth Tour player since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than five starts .
Collin Morikawa , 23 , only needed six events to collect his first victory , and he is the third-youngest golfer to prevail at the PGA Championship , which was only his second start at a major championship .
The two join Jordan Spieth as the youngest American golfers since at least 2000 to enter Masters week ranked in the top 15 in the world .
But they aren ’ t the only under-30 Americans worth monitoring this weekend .
Patrick Cantlay , Xander Schauffele , Bryson DeChambeau and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10 in Data Golf ’ s true strokes gained metric over the past two years .
And one of the best Americans won ’ t even be playing : Despite being ranked No .
13 , Daniel Berger was left out of the field after qualifiers were decided in March .
But relative to the Tour , measured by true strokes gained , he ’ s played like the fifth-best player in the world over the past year .
Thomas , 27 , has been the measure of American consistency over the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highest-ranked American under the age of 29 and has spent the past 159 weeks ranked inside the top 10 .
In many ways , Thomas has blossomed into what golf pundits expected Spieth to be : an always-in-contention mainstay , leading the young generation of American golfers .
No golfer accumulated more expected wins than Thomas from 2016 to 2020 , according to Data Golf .
And then there ’ s DeChambeau , the reigning U.S. Open champion who captured the sport ’ s attention by berating norms , cameramen and weight-gain standards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a big course , big hitters will dominate the field — and there ’ s no bigger hitter than DeChambeau , who will cut corners off the tee that professionals have never considered .
But while his power surge is unprecedented , he ’ s been an above-average driver for years .
He hasn ’ t always been plus on the green , where he ’ s upgraded his performance considerably .
Last season , DeChambeau averaged 0.658 strokes gained per round with the flat stick , which represented one of the highest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ season in which he improved in the metric .
It ’ s an interesting time for golf in the United States , to say the least .
Thousands of Americans flocked to golf courses in search of a safe outdoor activity during the pandemic , and a golf course was reportedly where President Trump learned he had lost the 2020 presidential election .
American golf courses are also home to some of the brightest professional golfers on the planet .
The 84th installment of the Masters , pushed back to the fall for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ include many of the usual suspects : musty-looking green jackets and Jim Nantz ’ s velvety voice .
But if the world golf rankings are any indication , the tournament that begins Thursday could include a coronation for one of the many young Americans who are pushing the sport forward .

There are few sporting events as resolutely American as the Masters Tournament, a weeklong devotional to piano-tickled marketing materials, polo-and-khaki ensembles and high-definition flora. If the 2019 Masters gave us an opportunity for apex patriotism, with Tiger Woods completing the ultimate comeback with a win amid the Georgia pines, the 2020 Masters should feature encore potential with plenty of red, white and blue atop the leaderboard.
All but four of the current top 15 golfers in the world were born in the U.S., which is unusual enough on its own. But the Americans are also skewing young: Seven of the 11 are under the age of 30. From 2000 to 2019, there was an average of only two under-30 American golfers entering Masters week ranked in the top 15.
What’s unique about this crop of players is how quickly they’ve ascended. Matthew Wolff, 21, became just the third man to win an NCAA individual title and a PGA Tour event in the same year when he did so in 2019, and he also became the eighth Tour player since 1970 to snare a win in fewer than five starts. Collin Morikawa, 23, only needed six events to collect his first victory, and he is the third-youngest golfer to prevail at the PGA Championship, which was only his second start at a major championship.
The two join Jordan Spieth as the youngest American golfers since at least 2000 to enter Masters week ranked in the top 15 in the world.
But they aren’t the only under-30 Americans worth monitoring this weekend. Patrick Cantlay, Xander Schauffele, Bryson DeChambeau and Justin Thomas each rank in the top 10 in Data Golf’s true strokes gained metric over the past two years. And one of the best Americans won’t even be playing: Despite being ranked No. 13, Daniel Berger was left out of the field after qualifiers were decided in March. But relative to the Tour, measured by true strokes gained, he’s played like the fifth-best player in the world over the past year.
Thomas, 27, has been the measure of American consistency over the past five years. He’s the highest-ranked American under the age of 29 and has spent the past 159 weeks ranked inside the top 10. In many ways, Thomas has blossomed into what golf pundits expected Spieth to be: an always-in-contention mainstay, leading the young generation of American golfers. No golfer accumulated more expected wins than Thomas from 2016 to 2020, according to Data Golf.
And then there’s DeChambeau, the reigning U.S. Open champion who captured the sport’s attention by berating norms, cameramen and weight-gain standards. With potential for soft conditions at a big course, big hitters will dominate the field — and there’s no bigger hitter than DeChambeau, who will cut corners off the tee that professionals have never considered. But while his power surge is unprecedented, he’s been an above-average driver for years. He hasn’t always been plus on the green, where he’s upgraded his performance considerably.
Bryson hasn’t only made gains off the tee Average total true strokes gained per round, plus true strokes gained off the tee and putting, for Bryson DeChambeau by season of the PGA Tour Avg. True Strokes Gained Per Round Season Rounds Played Total Off the Tee Putting 2020-21 8 +4.04 +1.43 +0.56 2019-20 73 +1.67 +1.14 +0.74 2018-19 84 +1.51 +0.54 +0.45 2017-18 99 +1.65 +0.72 +0.34 2016-17 89 +0.06 +0.42 -0.16 2015-16 63 -0.01 +0.26 -0.30 2014-15 73 -0.44 +0.25 -0.45 The current season began on Sept. 10, 2020. Source: Data Golf
Last season, DeChambeau averaged 0.658 strokes gained per round with the flat stick, which represented one of the highest marks on tour and the third consecutive season in which he improved in the metric.
It’s an interesting time for golf in the United States, to say the least. Thousands of Americans flocked to golf courses in search of a safe outdoor activity during the pandemic, and a golf course was reportedly where President Trump learned he had lost the 2020 presidential election. American golf courses are also home to some of the brightest professional golfers on the planet.
The 84th installment of the Masters, pushed back to the fall for the first time ever, figures to include many of the usual suspects: musty-looking green jackets and Jim Nantz’s velvety voice. But if the world golf rankings are any indication, the tournament that begins Thursday could include a coronation for one of the many young Americans who are pushing the sport forward.


fivethirthyeight--2020-11-11--Georgia’s Runoffs Will Determine Control Of The Senate. Here’s What We Know So Far.

Election Day 2020 has come and gone , and we still don ’ t know which party will control the Senate next year .
As of Tuesday at 10 p.m. Eastern , it looks as though Democrats will have 48 seats in the next Senate , while Republicans will have 50 .
( We don ’ t yet know who won Alaska , but at this point , it will be very difficult for Democrats to make up their current vote deficit there . )
So that leaves the two Senate seats from Georgia to determine control of the chamber @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two months from now .
So how did one state with fewer than five million voters throw the entire race for control of the Senate into overtime ?
Georgia has an unusual requirement that candidates must receive a majority of the vote to win an election , and if no one does so , the top two finishers advance to a runoff .
We were expecting this to happen in Georgia ’ s special election for Senate , in which 20 candidates were on the ballot .
( In that race , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who has received 32.9 percent of the vote so far , and Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler , who has received 25.9 percent . )
But it also happened in Georgia ’ s regularly scheduled Senate election : Returns currently show Republican Sen. David Perdue at 49.7 percent of the vote and Democrat Jon Ossoff at 48.0 percent .
( Libertarian Shane Hazel took the remaining 2.3 percent . )
So now both races will be decided in a runoff election on Jan. 5 .
If Democrats win both seats , they would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jan. 20 , as Vice President-elect Kamala Harris would have the power to break ties in the chamber .
But just how likely is a double Democratic victory ?
Until recently , it would have looked like a pipe dream , as Georgia went into 2020 with a FiveThirtyEight partisan lean of R+13 .
But the state may be undergoing a transformation .
Democrats came within 1 or 2 percentage points of winning more votes than Republicans in the first round of both elections .
( In the special election , if you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shares by party , Republicans got 49.4 percent of the votes cast , while Democrats got 48.4 percent . )
And at the top of the ticket , Joe Biden appears to have become the first Democratic presidential candidate to carry Georgia since 1992 .
What ’ s more , pollsters — expecting a runoff in the special election — have been asking voters their preference in a Warnock-Loeffler runoff for months , and Warnock has consistently led in those polls .
( We haven ’ t yet seen any polling of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s true that the polls were significantly off in some states this election , they were actually quite accurate in Georgia .
But as promising as those numbers look for Democrats , there are probably more reasons for them to be pessimistic .
First , most of those rosy polls for Warnock were measuring support among the universe of likely voters for the general election , not the runoff .
( Monmouth was an exception , however ; it still found Warnock ahead , by 6 points , among likely runoff voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are an accurate snapshot of the runoff right now , a lot can change in two months .
For example , supporters of Rep. Doug Collins , Loeffler ’ s main Republican rival in the first round , may not have told pollsters they would support Loeffler amid the fall ’ s incredibly bitter campaign , but they probably will come around to her now that she is the only Republican candidate on the ballot .
Remember , partisanship is a powerful indicator of vote choice .
Another reason Democrats might do worse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an off-cycle election that will no longer share the ballot with the presidential race .
Now that Biden is the president-elect , many Democratic voters may feel that their mission has been accomplished and not bother to vote in the runoff .
This is exactly what happened in previous Georgia runoffs — whether for Senate or other statewide offices .
Since the late 1960s , the state has seen eight runoffs between a Democrat and a Republican for statewide office , and as you can see in the table below , in seven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ share margins improved , sometimes substantially so , as turnout fell sharply from the general election vote in November .
So to win one or both Senate runoffs , Democrats will have to do something unusual : improve their vote margin in the runoff .
That ’ s happened only once , in a low-key 1998 race for a seat on the Georgia Public Service Commission .
Otherwise , the GOP advantage after the general election has always grown , notably in high-profile races for Senate and secretary of state .
Take the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similarities with the 2020 election .
Then , Democrat Bill Clinton narrowly carried the state in the presidential race ( much like Biden appears to have done ) ; the Georgia Senate race was also extremely close and moved into runoff territory .
In that race , incumbent Democratic Sen. Wyche Fowler fell just short of a majority in the general , winning 49 percent to Republican Paul Coverdell ’ s 48 percent .
But the runoff ( which was three weeks after Election Day that year ) saw enough of a shift @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Coverdell won by about 1 point .
And in 2008 , the Senate runoff saw an even larger swing toward Republicans , as incumbent Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss led Democrat Jim Martin by 3 points in the general election but won the runoff by a whopping 15 points .
Why have Republicans had such an edge in Georgia runoffs ?
Beyond the state ’ s overall Republican lean , lower turnout and the makeup of the runoff electorate have been major pluses for Republicans .
Runoff turnout has always fallen quite a bit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the only runoff was for a less notable office like a seat on the Georgia Public Service Commission .
But even in the two Senate runoffs , both of which took place in presidential years , turnout fell more than 40 percent from the general election .
And what this has meant practically is that the runoff electorate in Georgia is more Republican-leaning .
Take Black voter turnout , which leans heavily Democratic .
It has been disproportionately lower in runoffs , and is actually one reason why Georgia ’ s majority requirement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argue that the system makes it harder for nonwhite candidates to win , and there ’ s been litigation over its use in Georgia ’ s primaries .
Additionally , more affluent voters , who are already more likely to vote , are more likely to be white , and white voters in Georgia and elsewhere in the South are still pretty Republican-leaning , even though white college-educated voters have trended Democratic nationally .
That said , Georgia has never seen a runoff like this one .
Not only are two high-profile races @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the entire Senate is at stake .
For the next eight weeks , Georgia will be the center of the political universe ; expect both parties to spend tens of millions of dollars and dispatch big-name surrogates to get out the vote .
That could minimize the drop-off in turnout , which in turn could minimize the drop-off in Democratic support .
There ’ s also never been a Black candidate in a Senate runoff , either , which could help keep turnout high among a key part of the Democratic base .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ t know whether the usual playbook for Georgia runoffs still applies .
Until we get more data ( and we will be releasing a polling average for both runoffs ) , it ’ s best to treat both a Democratic or Republican victory as a serious possibility .
Who knows — maybe even the parties will win one seat each !

Election Day 2020 has come and gone, and we still don’t know which party will control the Senate next year. As of Tuesday at 10 p.m. Eastern, it looks as though Democrats will have 48 seats in the next Senate, while Republicans will have 50. (We don’t yet know who won Alaska, but at this point, it will be very difficult for Democrats to make up their current vote deficit there.) So that leaves the two Senate seats from Georgia to determine control of the chamber in a rare double-barreled runoff election nearly two months from now.
Georgia Senate runoffs are in full swing | FiveThirtyEight
So how did one state with fewer than five million voters throw the entire race for control of the Senate into overtime? Georgia has an unusual requirement that candidates must receive a majority of the vote to win an election, and if no one does so, the top two finishers advance to a runoff. We were expecting this to happen in Georgia’s special election for Senate, in which 20 candidates were on the ballot. (In that race, the top two vote-getters were Democrat Raphael Warnock, who has received 32.9 percent of the vote so far, and Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler, who has received 25.9 percent.) But it also happened in Georgia’s regularly scheduled Senate election: Returns currently show Republican Sen. David Perdue at 49.7 percent of the vote and Democrat Jon Ossoff at 48.0 percent. (Libertarian Shane Hazel took the remaining 2.3 percent.)
So now both races will be decided in a runoff election on Jan. 5.
If Democrats win both seats, they would take control of the Senate starting on Jan. 20, as Vice President-elect Kamala Harris would have the power to break ties in the chamber. But just how likely is a double Democratic victory? Until recently, it would have looked like a pipe dream, as Georgia went into 2020 with a FiveThirtyEight partisan lean of R+13. But the state may be undergoing a transformation. Democrats came within 1 or 2 percentage points of winning more votes than Republicans in the first round of both elections. (In the special election, if you add up all the candidates’ vote shares by party, Republicans got 49.4 percent of the votes cast, while Democrats got 48.4 percent.) And at the top of the ticket, Joe Biden appears to have become the first Democratic presidential candidate to carry Georgia since 1992.
[Related: Democrats Needed A Big Blue Wave To Win The Senate, And It Looks Like They Didn’t Get It]
What’s more, pollsters — expecting a runoff in the special election — have been asking voters their preference in a Warnock-Loeffler runoff for months, and Warnock has consistently led in those polls. (We haven’t yet seen any polling of the Perdue-Ossoff runoff.) And while it’s true that the polls were significantly off in some states this election, they were actually quite accurate in Georgia.
In one of Georgia’s runoff races, Democrats lead Polls of Georgia’s special Senate election runoff conducted since Oct. 1 Dates Pollster Warnock Loeffler Margin Oct. 23-27 Monmouth University 51% 45% D+6 Oct. 23-26 Civiqs/Daily Kos 51 37 D+14 Oct. 17-19 Emerson College 47 42 D+5 Oct. 13-19 Siena College/NYT Upshot 45 41 D+4 Oct. 8-12 Quinnipiac University 52 44 D+8 Oct. 8-11 Data for Progress/Indivisible* 44 40 D+4 *Internal Democratic poll. Source: Polls
But as promising as those numbers look for Democrats, there are probably more reasons for them to be pessimistic. First, most of those rosy polls for Warnock were measuring support among the universe of likely voters for the general election, not the runoff. (Monmouth was an exception, however; it still found Warnock ahead, by 6 points, among likely runoff voters.) But even if these polls are an accurate snapshot of the runoff right now, a lot can change in two months. For example, supporters of Rep. Doug Collins, Loeffler’s main Republican rival in the first round, may not have told pollsters they would support Loeffler amid the fall’s incredibly bitter campaign, but they probably will come around to her now that she is the only Republican candidate on the ballot. Remember, partisanship is a powerful indicator of vote choice.
Another reason Democrats might do worse in the runoff: It’s an off-cycle election that will no longer share the ballot with the presidential race. Now that Biden is the president-elect, many Democratic voters may feel that their mission has been accomplished and not bother to vote in the runoff. This is exactly what happened in previous Georgia runoffs — whether for Senate or other statewide offices. Since the late 1960s, the state has seen eight runoffs between a Democrat and a Republican for statewide office, and as you can see in the table below, in seven of the eight runoffs, Republican vote share margins improved, sometimes substantially so, as turnout fell sharply from the general election vote in November.
The GOP usually gains ground in Georgia runoffs Shift in vote margin and percentage change in turnout from the general election to the runoff for statewide races in Georgia Margin Change Year Office General Runoff Turnout Margin 1992 U.S. Senate D+1.6 R+1.3 -44% R+2.9 1992 Public Service Commissioner R+0.7 R+13.6 -43 R+12.9 1998 Public Service Commissioner* D+15.8 D+31.4 -91 D+15.6 2006 Public Service Commissioner D+2.6 R+4.4 -89 R+7.0 2008 U.S. Senate R+2.9 R+14.9 -43 R+12.0 2008 Public Service Commissioner D+0.6 R+13.0 -44 R+13.7 2018 Secretary of State R+0.4 R+3.8 -62 R+3.4 2018 Public Service Commissioner R+2.1 R+3.5 -62 R+1.4 *Special election Georgia rules require a candidate to win a majority of the vote in general elections or special elections; otherwise, there is a runoff between the top-two finishers in the initial vote. If a special election took place on a regular general election date, it is included. In these cases, the Democratic and Republican totals are based on all candidates from the party running. Source: Georgia Secretary of State
So to win one or both Senate runoffs, Democrats will have to do something unusual: improve their vote margin in the runoff. That’s happened only once, in a low-key 1998 race for a seat on the Georgia Public Service Commission. Otherwise, the GOP advantage after the general election has always grown, notably in high-profile races for Senate and secretary of state.
Take the 1992 general election, which shares some similarities with the 2020 election. Then, Democrat Bill Clinton narrowly carried the state in the presidential race (much like Biden appears to have done); the Georgia Senate race was also extremely close and moved into runoff territory. In that race, incumbent Democratic Sen. Wyche Fowler fell just short of a majority in the general, winning 49 percent to Republican Paul Coverdell’s 48 percent. But the runoff (which was three weeks after Election Day that year) saw enough of a shift in the GOP’s direction that Coverdell won by about 1 point. And in 2008, the Senate runoff saw an even larger swing toward Republicans, as incumbent Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss led Democrat Jim Martin by 3 points in the general election but won the runoff by a whopping 15 points.
[Related: Democrats Aren’t Sure Why They Didn’t Do Better In The House And Senate. It Might Not Be Clear For Weeks.]
Why have Republicans had such an edge in Georgia runoffs? Beyond the state’s overall Republican lean, lower turnout and the makeup of the runoff electorate have been major pluses for Republicans. Runoff turnout has always fallen quite a bit from the general election, especially if the only runoff was for a less notable office like a seat on the Georgia Public Service Commission.
But even in the two Senate runoffs, both of which took place in presidential years, turnout fell more than 40 percent from the general election. And what this has meant practically is that the runoff electorate in Georgia is more Republican-leaning. Take Black voter turnout, which leans heavily Democratic. It has been disproportionately lower in runoffs, and is actually one reason why Georgia’s majority requirement is controversial: Opponents of the provision argue that the system makes it harder for nonwhite candidates to win, and there’s been litigation over its use in Georgia’s primaries. Additionally, more affluent voters, who are already more likely to vote, are more likely to be white, and white voters in Georgia and elsewhere in the South are still pretty Republican-leaning, even though white college-educated voters have trended Democratic nationally.
That said, Georgia has never seen a runoff like this one. Not only are two high-profile races on the ballot, but control of the entire Senate is at stake. For the next eight weeks, Georgia will be the center of the political universe; expect both parties to spend tens of millions of dollars and dispatch big-name surrogates to get out the vote. That could minimize the drop-off in turnout, which in turn could minimize the drop-off in Democratic support. There’s also never been a Black candidate in a Senate runoff, either, which could help keep turnout high among a key part of the Democratic base.
In short, we just don’t know whether the usual playbook for Georgia runoffs still applies. Until we get more data (and we will be releasing a polling average for both runoffs), it’s best to treat both a Democratic or Republican victory as a serious possibility. Who knows — maybe even the parties will win one seat each!
Where the rest of the 2020 races stand | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast