fivethirthyeight--2020-06-30--Soccer Commentary Is Full Of Coded Racism

A new paper published by Danish sports data company RunRepeat and backed by the Professional Footballers ’ Association ( PFA ) makes it clear that soccer commentary in the United Kingdom , United States and Canada has a racism problem .
Researchers from RunRepeat sampled 80 games from the 2019-20 seasons of the English Premier League , French Ligue 1 , Italian Serie A and Spanish La Liga — broadcast across seven different networks — and analyzed more than 2,000 statements made by commentators about 643 unique players .
The study included 1,361 comments about players with lighter skin and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The study found that , weighting for the different number of comments made about each group , players with lighter skin were praised more frequently for their intelligence ( 62.6 percent of the comments coded as positive were about players with lighter skin ) , work ethic ( 60.4 percent ) and overall quality ( 62.8 percent ) , while 63.3 percent of criticism about a player ’ s intelligence was aimed at players with darker skin , along with 67.6 percent of criticism about a player ’ s quality .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skin were often reduced to racist tropes about their speed and strength , which is often coded by commentators as “ pace and power.
” “ The study is important as it [ communicates ] what a lot of people already know , ” said Jason Lee , the equalities education executive for the PFA and a former Premier League player , over WhatsApp .
“ Which is that people from different ethnic groups can do exactly the same things in a game and yet be described in a different way.
” While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lee told FiveThirtyEight that it could certainly have included statements from studio segments .
Take , for example , the comments from former Croatia manager and current West Bromwich Albion manager Slaven Bilić after Senegal beat Poland in the 2018 World Cup .
After gesturing toward co-host Patrice Evra — who is Black , and who won five Premier League titles and a Champions League title with Manchester United and two Serie A titles with Juventus — Bilić said : “ Senegal — which is not typical for African teams — they play @ @ @ @ @ @ @ totally [ to win ] .
They didn ’ t make any mistakes.
” Zito Madu scrutinized the media ’ s response to Senegal ’ s victory in a piece for SB Nation : “ As annoying as it always is , it ’ s never surprising to see commentators fall back on coded language when they have to discuss black players , especially Africans , in soccer .
Before Senegal had even kicked the ball , they were being described not by their skill , creativity , or their decision making , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about African teams : Pace , power , physicality , raw talent , tactical naivety , disorganization , swagger , and all the other terms that are part of the same old language that pretends to compliment black players by reducing them to their physical bodies and derides them for not mentally understanding the game .
It ’ s the historical idea of the black man as a senseless brute , repackaged in sporting language.
” In his piece , Madu also noted how seamlessly the racist language slips from commentators to social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example , after Senegal beat Poland , Twitter account Watch LFC — a Liverpool fan account with more than 85,000 followers — tweeted that winger Sadio Mané put in a “ fantastic shift ” for Senegal , citing both his pace and power .
Mané is perhaps the best player on Liverpool , which is perhaps the best soccer team in the world .
His movement off the ball is second to none ; he is relentless while pressing opposition defenders ; he is almost singularly gifted at finding space that doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hardly a more tactically brilliant player in world soccer than Mané .
But as Madu noted , Black players are too frequently reduced to a racist trope by white commentators who fetishize their “ pace and power ” without also celebrating their tactical brilliance .
“ It ’ s not that black players can ’ t be fast and powerful , it ’ s that in soccer , too often , it is the only thing they can be , ” Madu wrote .
[ Related : Liverpool Won It All This Year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ? ]
Bilić ’ s comments aren ’ t the only racist ones that spring to mind , especially from high-profile white commentators .
Former Liverpool and Scotland captain and current Sky Sports soccer pundit Graeme Souness has a history of criticizing the intelligence of Manchester United star Paul Pogba , a French player of Guinean descent , live on broadcasts .
In 2016 , Souness said that Pogba had to “ develop his football brain , ” and that he didn ’ t believe he had “ a great understanding of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he wished Pogba played more like Marouane Fellaini — a Belgian player of Morrocan ancestry , and who Souness referred to as a “ thug ” in the next breath — before calling the Frenchman “ a bit of a YouTuber , ” an apparent critique of the fact that Pogba often does seemingly impossible things with a soccer ball at his feet .
Whenever Souness does compliment Pogba , it isn ’ t about the midfielder ’ s creativity or intelligence , but rather his “ muscularity ” or “ athleticism.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sports In The Middle Of A Pandemic ? ]
Souness and Bilić are hardly the only white soccer pundits peddling this kind of barely coded racism , as we can see in this study .
Lee suggested that all commentators receive unconscious bias training ; a researcher from RunRepeat who worked on the study told FiveThirtyEight that about 94 percent of the commentators and co-commentators analyzed in the study were white .
“ There are Black pundits , but not many — if any — lead presenters or commentators , ” Lee said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ pace and power ” or “ athleticism ” to describe a Black player — without also commenting on their tactical intelligence , skill , creativity or work ethic — they are not only missing the mark in terms of their soccer critique , but also denying Black players ’ humanity .

Soccer Commentary Is Full Of Coded Racism A new study shows players with darker skin are often reduced to physical attributes, while players with lighter skin are praised for mental qualities.
A new paper published by Danish sports data company RunRepeat and backed by the Professional Footballers’ Association (PFA) makes it clear that soccer commentary in the United Kingdom, United States and Canada has a racism problem.
Researchers from RunRepeat sampled 80 games from the 2019-20 seasons of the English Premier League, French Ligue 1, Italian Serie A and Spanish La Liga — broadcast across seven different networks — and analyzed more than 2,000 statements made by commentators about 643 unique players. The study included 1,361 comments about players with lighter skin and 713 comments about players with darker skin. The study found that, weighting for the different number of comments made about each group, players with lighter skin were praised more frequently for their intelligence (62.6 percent of the comments coded as positive were about players with lighter skin), work ethic (60.4 percent) and overall quality (62.8 percent), while 63.3 percent of criticism about a player’s intelligence was aimed at players with darker skin, along with 67.6 percent of criticism about a player’s quality.
The study also found that players with darker skin were often reduced to racist tropes about their speed and strength, which is often coded by commentators as “pace and power.”
“The study is important as it [communicates] what a lot of people already know,” said Jason Lee, the equalities education executive for the PFA and a former Premier League player, over WhatsApp. “Which is that people from different ethnic groups can do exactly the same things in a game and yet be described in a different way.”
[Related: Our Club Soccer Predictions]
While the study focused on in-game statements, Lee told FiveThirtyEight that it could certainly have included statements from studio segments. Take, for example, the comments from former Croatia manager and current West Bromwich Albion manager Slaven Bilić after Senegal beat Poland in the 2018 World Cup. After gesturing toward co-host Patrice Evra — who is Black, and who won five Premier League titles and a Champions League title with Manchester United and two Serie A titles with Juventus — Bilić said: “Senegal — which is not typical for African teams — they play for each other, and they deserved totally [to win]. They didn’t make any mistakes.”
Zito Madu scrutinized the media’s response to Senegal’s victory in a piece for SB Nation:
“As annoying as it always is, it’s never surprising to see commentators fall back on coded language when they have to discuss black players, especially Africans, in soccer. Before Senegal had even kicked the ball, they were being described not by their skill, creativity, or their decision making, but with the standard words you hear about African teams: Pace, power, physicality, raw talent, tactical naivety, disorganization, swagger, and all the other terms that are part of the same old language that pretends to compliment black players by reducing them to their physical bodies and derides them for not mentally understanding the game. It’s the historical idea of the black man as a senseless brute, repackaged in sporting language.”
In his piece, Madu also noted how seamlessly the racist language slips from commentators to social media accounts with massive followings. For example, after Senegal beat Poland, Twitter account Watch LFC — a Liverpool fan account with more than 85,000 followers — tweeted that winger Sadio Mané put in a “fantastic shift” for Senegal, citing both his pace and power.
Mané is perhaps the best player on Liverpool, which is perhaps the best soccer team in the world. His movement off the ball is second to none; he is relentless while pressing opposition defenders; he is almost singularly gifted at finding space that doesn’t seem to exist. There is hardly a more tactically brilliant player in world soccer than Mané. But as Madu noted, Black players are too frequently reduced to a racist trope by white commentators who fetishize their “pace and power” without also celebrating their tactical brilliance.
“It’s not that black players can’t be fast and powerful, it’s that in soccer, too often, it is the only thing they can be,” Madu wrote.
[Related: Liverpool Won It All This Year. Can The Reds Do It Again?]
Bilić’s comments aren’t the only racist ones that spring to mind, especially from high-profile white commentators. Former Liverpool and Scotland captain and current Sky Sports soccer pundit Graeme Souness has a history of criticizing the intelligence of Manchester United star Paul Pogba, a French player of Guinean descent, live on broadcasts.
In 2016, Souness said that Pogba had to “develop his football brain,” and that he didn’t believe he had “a great understanding of the game.” In 2017, Souness said he wished Pogba played more like Marouane Fellaini — a Belgian player of Morrocan ancestry, and who Souness referred to as a “thug” in the next breath — before calling the Frenchman “a bit of a YouTuber,” an apparent critique of the fact that Pogba often does seemingly impossible things with a soccer ball at his feet. Whenever Souness does compliment Pogba, it isn’t about the midfielder’s creativity or intelligence, but rather his “muscularity” or “athleticism.”
[Related: How Do You Play Sports In The Middle Of A Pandemic?]
Souness and Bilić are hardly the only white soccer pundits peddling this kind of barely coded racism, as we can see in this study. Lee suggested that all commentators receive unconscious bias training; a researcher from RunRepeat who worked on the study told FiveThirtyEight that about 94 percent of the commentators and co-commentators analyzed in the study were white. “There are Black pundits, but not many — if any — lead presenters or commentators,” Lee said.
And whenever any white commentator deploys “pace and power” or “athleticism” to describe a Black player — without also commenting on their tactical intelligence, skill, creativity or work ethic — they are not only missing the mark in terms of their soccer critique, but also denying Black players’ humanity.
Subscribe to our sports podcast, Hot Takedown


fivethirthyeight--2020-06-30--Cam Newton Brings Game-Changing Mobility To The Patriots (If He’s Healthy)

Sunday night was surprisingly eventful for the New England Patriots .
Within a span of less than 20 minutes , it was reported that the NFL had docked the Patriots a 2021 third-round draft pick and fined it $ 1.1 million for illegally videotaping the Bengals sideline and — seemingly out of the blue — that New England had signed free-agent quarterback Cam Newton to a one-year deal .
The loss of a third-round pick in next year ’ s draft could end up proving costly for New England .
After all , the presumed starting quarterback prior to Sunday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stidham , a fourth-round pick out of Auburn .
Less than a week ago , one league insider was speculating that Stidham would start all 16 games for the Patriots in 2020 .
But Newton — another Auburn QB and former NFL MVP — has upended that assumption .
In the near term , Newton ’ s addition could improve the Patriots Super Bowl chances : At least one sports book moved the Patriots from a 3.9 percent shot to hoist the Lombardi trophy to 5.3 percent after the signing was reported .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Quarterbacks All Wrong ] Still , signing Cam isn ’ t without risk .
Newton presumably comes with a high chance of future injury , making the prospect of future production uncertain .
He ’ s had a series of surgeries over the past few years , the most recent of which was an operation on his foot in December for a Lisfranc injury .
The injury uncertainty , coupled with reports that teams were unable to work him out because of COVID-19 , may explain why New England was able to sign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But putting injury risk aside , if we assume Cam is healthy enough to start , there is decent evidence that he can be a productive passer for the Patriots .
Based on work by Eric Eager and George Chahrouri of Pro Football Focus , we know that a quarterback ’ s passing performance from a clean pocket is one of the best predictors of his future production , and Newton has been very consistent on those throws throughout his career .
With the exception of 2019 , when he started just two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ QBR below 50 on clean pocket throws since entering the league .
Completion percentage over expected , or CPOE , can also help us forecast future performance , and in 2018 Newton completed passes 4.2 percentage points over what we would expect from a league-average QB , according to NFL Next Gen Stats .
As Newton enters his age-31 season , there ’ s no reason to believe he won ’ t return to his previous form if his health cooperates .
But Cam ’ s passing might just be secondary to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a runner .
Mobile quarterbacks make defenses account for an extra player , negating the numbers advantage in the running game defenses usually enjoy versus pocket passers , who they can often safely ignore .
And Cam ’ s size brings an extra dimension of difficulty to the problem of defending the run because he ’ s so hard to bring down .
Since 2011 , Newton leads NFL quarterbacks with 110 missed tackles forced , according to Pro Football Focus .
But these runs aren ’ t just broken plays and scrambles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ player who a team can trust with option plays like zone read .
Since 2011 , Newton leads the NFL with 13 touchdowns on 242 zone-read rush attempts , the highest number of attempts among quarterbacks in that span .
Smart football analysts believe that the Patriots will adapt their offense to maximize Newton ’ s strengths .
Offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels likely has run concepts from his time in Denver with Tim Tebow that he can dust off and tailor to Cam ’ s specific strengths , and the Patriots defense is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ games close , despite the unpredictability of defensive performance from year to year .
There ’ s a lot that will need to break right for the Patriots to make a deep playoff run in 2020 .
But even if all Newton ’ s signing did was to divert attention away from yet another round of league sanctions for questionable competitive behavior , it may have already been worth it .

Sunday night was surprisingly eventful for the New England Patriots. Within a span of less than 20 minutes, it was reported that the NFL had docked the Patriots a 2021 third-round draft pick and fined it $1.1 million for illegally videotaping the Bengals sideline and — seemingly out of the blue — that New England had signed free-agent quarterback Cam Newton to a one-year deal.
The loss of a third-round pick in next year’s draft could end up proving costly for New England. After all, the presumed starting quarterback prior to Sunday’s signing of Newton was Jarrett Stidham, a fourth-round pick out of Auburn. Less than a week ago, one league insider was speculating that Stidham would start all 16 games for the Patriots in 2020. But Newton — another Auburn QB and former NFL MVP — has upended that assumption. In the near term, Newton’s addition could improve the Patriots Super Bowl chances: At least one sports book moved the Patriots from a 3.9 percent shot to hoist the Lombardi trophy to 5.3 percent after the signing was reported.
[Related: The NFL Is Drafting Quarterbacks All Wrong]
Still, signing Cam isn’t without risk. Newton presumably comes with a high chance of future injury, making the prospect of future production uncertain. He’s had a series of surgeries over the past few years, the most recent of which was an operation on his foot in December for a Lisfranc injury. The injury uncertainty, coupled with reports that teams were unable to work him out because of COVID-19, may explain why New England was able to sign him to a league minimum contract. But putting injury risk aside, if we assume Cam is healthy enough to start, there is decent evidence that he can be a productive passer for the Patriots.
Based on work by Eric Eager and George Chahrouri of Pro Football Focus, we know that a quarterback’s passing performance from a clean pocket is one of the best predictors of his future production, and Newton has been very consistent on those throws throughout his career.
With the exception of 2019, when he started just two games, Cam has not had a QBR below 50 on clean pocket throws since entering the league. Completion percentage over expected, or CPOE, can also help us forecast future performance, and in 2018 Newton completed passes 4.2 percentage points over what we would expect from a league-average QB, according to NFL Next Gen Stats. As Newton enters his age-31 season, there’s no reason to believe he won’t return to his previous form if his health cooperates.
But Cam’s passing might just be secondary to the value he brings to New England as a runner. Mobile quarterbacks make defenses account for an extra player, negating the numbers advantage in the running game defenses usually enjoy versus pocket passers, who they can often safely ignore. And Cam’s size brings an extra dimension of difficulty to the problem of defending the run because he’s so hard to bring down. Since 2011, Newton leads NFL quarterbacks with 110 missed tackles forced, according to Pro Football Focus. But these runs aren’t just broken plays and scrambles: Newton is a smart, instinctual player who a team can trust with option plays like zone read. Since 2011, Newton leads the NFL with 13 touchdowns on 242 zone-read rush attempts, the highest number of attempts among quarterbacks in that span.
Newton is effective at zone read Cam Newton’s regular-season zone read rushing plays, 2011-19, with expected points added (EPA) per play and success rate* Season Zone-Read Rushes Touchdowns EPA/Play Success Rate 2011 22 3 +0.08 54.5% 2012 41 1 +0.07 46.3 2013 21 1 +0.02 47.6 2014 34 0 +0.07 58.8 2015 35 2 +0.05 42.9 2016 20 1 +0.00 47.6 2017 31 3 +0.11 64.5 2018 36 2 +0.05 50.0 2019 2 0 -0.31 0.0 *Successful plays are those with positive expected points added. Source: ESPN Stats & Information Group
Smart football analysts believe that the Patriots will adapt their offense to maximize Newton’s strengths. Offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels likely has run concepts from his time in Denver with Tim Tebow that he can dust off and tailor to Cam’s specific strengths, and the Patriots defense is widely regarded as good enough to keep games close, despite the unpredictability of defensive performance from year to year. There’s a lot that will need to break right for the Patriots to make a deep playoff run in 2020. But even if all Newton’s signing did was to divert attention away from yet another round of league sanctions for questionable competitive behavior, it may have already been worth it.
Subscribe to our sports podcast, Hot Takedown


fivethirthyeight--2020-06-30--For Black Americans, Wearing A Mask Comes With Complicated Anxieties

Over the past few months , mask-wearing in public has become the norm .
In some states , it ’ s even required .
But for Black Americans — and young Black men in particular — wearing a mask can feel like a catch-22 .
Public health experts now say masks are crucial for preventing the spread of the virus , which has disproportionately affected Black people .
But putting on a mask can be an intense source of anxiety for many Black people — particularly Black men — who worry that they ’ ll be harassed or profiled while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Almost immediately after mask-wearing became widespread , there were anecdotal reports of Black men being followed and asked to leave stores because they were wearing masks , ” said ReNika Moore , director of the ACLU ’ s Racial Justice Program .
A new study underscores just how widespread this kind of profiling could be .
Researchers at the University of North Carolina found that in a survey experiment , non-Black respondents who scored high in racial resentment — a measure that ’ s designed to assess negative attitudes toward people of color @ @ @ @ @ @ @ young Black man as threatening or untrustworthy if he was wearing a homemade mask or a bandanna , compared to a white man around the same age .
“ There ’ s no doubt at this point that masks keep people safer from COVID-19 , ” said Marc Hetherington , a political science professor at the University of North Carolina and one of the authors of the study .
“ But certain types of masks may also be putting young Black men in danger of harassment or profiling.
” [ Related : Where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re Headed — And Why They Disagree ] Researchers had all respondents read a short fictitious news story about a young man who said he had been laid off due to the COVID-19 pandemic .
But the photo of the man that accompanied the narrative varied by race ( white or Black ) and face covering .
In some pictures , the man was wearing no mask ; in others , he was wearing a surgical mask , a homemade cloth mask or a bandanna .
The respondents were then asked to rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” the young man was .
The study found that non-Black respondents who scored high in racial resentment were significantly more likely to say the young Black man was threatening or untrustworthy when he was wearing the bandanna or the homemade mask .
Michael Jeffries , a professor of American studies at Wellesley College , said this study further affirms the fears of Black people wearing certain masks in public .
“ Our reactions are based on the way that we ’ re treated .
These are not figments of our imagination.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hunter College , said the findings reminded him of a lively conversation that sprang up in a WhatsApp group earlier in the pandemic .
He and the other Black men on the thread were swapping thoughts on which kinds of masks and bandannas would be safest for them to wear .
“ The standard darker blue or standard red colors were ones that we all kind of said , we ’ re definitely not going to wear that , ” he said , because of the colors ’ associations with street gangs .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision to make — do I wear this mask and potentially be stopped and profiled by the police ?
Or do I not wear it and risk my health and livelihood ?
” he said .
The UNC team ’ s findings have serious health implications , especially given how the coronavirus has disproportionately affected Black people .
But the research has also turned up one potential solution .
Since the researchers found that surgical masks didn ’ t increase negative perceptions of Black men the way homemade masks or bandannas did , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more widely available .
And some places have already done something like this : In Rochester , NY , the city mailed out almost 500,000 surgical masks to residents .
Several experts and activists pointed out , though , that simply mailing out surgical masks won ’ t solve the underlying issues that make some Black people feel unsafe covering their faces in public .
Tyler Whittenburg , chief counsel of the Justice Systems Reform group at the advocacy organization Southern Coalition for Social Justice , said that the anxiety about wearing face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ masks themselves .
It ’ s linked to the larger systemic issues around police violence and the surveillance of Black people that have been raised by protesters across the country in the past month .
“ If you want to help mitigate that anxiety , then listen to the people that are out in the streets , ” he said .
And Lauren Hill , an assistant professor of public health at the University of North Carolina , said it ’ s important that businesses and local governments ensure that Black people aren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of what kind of mask they ’ re wearing .
[ Related : How Americans View The Coronavirus Crisis And Trump ’ s Response ] Smiley told us that listening to Black Americans and paying attention to their experiences is especially important because even if surgical masks don ’ t trigger damaging stereotypes now , that might change .
It ’ s possible , for example , that because they haven ’ t been readily available until recently , the masks — and people who wear them — might be perceived more negatively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And that change could disproportionately impact Black Americans , given the difficulties they already face with other types of face masks .
On a personal level , Smiley has prioritized wearing a mask from the start , since he believes he was actually sick with the virus earlier this year .
And now , he ’ s mostly worried about being harassed on the rare occasions when he forgets to wear a mask .
But he understands many Black people may still feel uncomfortable putting one on — and he said that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem may not have a simple fix .
“ This really is a matter of health and people ’ s lives , so we can ’ t ignore it , ” he said , adding , “ But it is probably going to be more complicated than just finding a neutral mask.
” FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast : Biden Is Currently Competitive In Georgia And Texas

Over the past few months, mask-wearing in public has become the norm. In some states, it’s even required. But for Black Americans — and young Black men in particular — wearing a mask can feel like a catch-22. Public health experts now say masks are crucial for preventing the spread of the virus, which has disproportionately affected Black people. But putting on a mask can be an intense source of anxiety for many Black people — particularly Black men — who worry that they’ll be harassed or profiled while they’re wearing one.
“Almost immediately after mask-wearing became widespread, there were anecdotal reports of Black men being followed and asked to leave stores because they were wearing masks,” said ReNika Moore, director of the ACLU’s Racial Justice Program.
A new study underscores just how widespread this kind of profiling could be. Researchers at the University of North Carolina found that in a survey experiment, non-Black respondents who scored high in racial resentment — a measure that’s designed to assess negative attitudes toward people of color — were much likelier to perceive a young Black man as threatening or untrustworthy if he was wearing a homemade mask or a bandanna, compared to a white man around the same age.
“There’s no doubt at this point that masks keep people safer from COVID-19,” said Marc Hetherington, a political science professor at the University of North Carolina and one of the authors of the study. “But certain types of masks may also be putting young Black men in danger of harassment or profiling.”
[Related: Where The Latest COVID-19 Models Think We’re Headed — And Why They Disagree]
Researchers had all respondents read a short fictitious news story about a young man who said he had been laid off due to the COVID-19 pandemic. But the photo of the man that accompanied the narrative varied by race (white or Black) and face covering. In some pictures, the man was wearing no mask; in others, he was wearing a surgical mask, a homemade cloth mask or a bandanna.
The respondents were then asked to rate how “threatening” and “trustworthy” the young man was. The study found that non-Black respondents who scored high in racial resentment were significantly more likely to say the young Black man was threatening or untrustworthy when he was wearing the bandanna or the homemade mask. Michael Jeffries, a professor of American studies at Wellesley College, said this study further affirms the fears of Black people wearing certain masks in public. “Our reactions are based on the way that we’re treated. These are not figments of our imagination.”
CalvinJohn Smiley, a sociology professor at Hunter College, said the findings reminded him of a lively conversation that sprang up in a WhatsApp group earlier in the pandemic. He and the other Black men on the thread were swapping thoughts on which kinds of masks and bandannas would be safest for them to wear. “The standard darker blue or standard red colors were ones that we all kind of said, we’re definitely not going to wear that,” he said, because of the colors’ associations with street gangs. “It’s really a horrible decision to make — do I wear this mask and potentially be stopped and profiled by the police? Or do I not wear it and risk my health and livelihood?” he said.
Subscribe to our coronavirus podcast, PODCAST-19
The UNC team’s findings have serious health implications, especially given how the coronavirus has disproportionately affected Black people. But the research has also turned up one potential solution. Since the researchers found that surgical masks didn’t increase negative perceptions of Black men the way homemade masks or bandannas did, cities and states could make those masks more widely available. And some places have already done something like this: In Rochester, NY, the city mailed out almost 500,000 surgical masks to residents.
Several experts and activists pointed out, though, that simply mailing out surgical masks won’t solve the underlying issues that make some Black people feel unsafe covering their faces in public. Tyler Whittenburg, chief counsel of the Justice Systems Reform group at the advocacy organization Southern Coalition for Social Justice, said that the anxiety about wearing face masks isn’t just about the masks themselves. It’s linked to the larger systemic issues around police violence and the surveillance of Black people that have been raised by protesters across the country in the past month. “If you want to help mitigate that anxiety, then listen to the people that are out in the streets,” he said. And Lauren Hill, an assistant professor of public health at the University of North Carolina, said it’s important that businesses and local governments ensure that Black people aren’t harassed in public, regardless of what kind of mask they’re wearing.
[Related: How Americans View The Coronavirus Crisis And Trump’s Response]
Smiley told us that listening to Black Americans and paying attention to their experiences is especially important because even if surgical masks don’t trigger damaging stereotypes now, that might change. It’s possible, for example, that because they haven’t been readily available until recently, the masks — and people who wear them — might be perceived more negatively if masks start being distributed for free. And that change could disproportionately impact Black Americans, given the difficulties they already face with other types of face masks.
On a personal level, Smiley has prioritized wearing a mask from the start, since he believes he was actually sick with the virus earlier this year. And now, he’s mostly worried about being harassed on the rare occasions when he forgets to wear a mask. But he understands many Black people may still feel uncomfortable putting one on — and he said that complexity and ambivalence is one reason this problem may not have a simple fix. “This really is a matter of health and people’s lives, so we can’t ignore it,” he said, adding, “But it is probably going to be more complicated than just finding a neutral mask.”
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: Biden Is Currently Competitive In Georgia And Texas


fivethirthyeight--2020-06-30--If Texas Is Competitive, Trump Has Problems

In this week ’ s FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the team looks at new polling that clarifies the presidential race @ @ @ @

If Texas Is Competitive, Trump Has Problems
In this week’s FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the team looks at new polling that clarifies the presidential race in battleground states.


fivethirthyeight--2020-06-30--What You Need To Know About Today’s Elections In Colorado, Oklahoma And Utah

30On Tuesday , primary voters in three states decide who will take on some of the nation ’ s most vulnerable incumbents .
In Colorado , Sen. Cory Gardner is generally considered an underdog in November , but would he be replaced by a moderate Democrat or someone further left ?
And in Oklahoma and Utah , Republicans pretty much have to defeat Reps. Kendra Horn and Ben McAdams if they have any hope of taking back the House .
Whom will the GOP nominate ?
We hope to bring you the answers tomorrow — depending on how fast we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long-awaited results from Kentucky and New York .
Remember John Hickenlooper ?
After he dropped out of the Democratic presidential race in August 2019 , the former Colorado governor announced he would instead run for U.S. Senate at the behest of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee .
His entry into the race mostly cleared what had been a crowded primary field , with attention soon turning to whether Hickenlooper could beat Gardner in the general election .
( The answer seems to be yes . )
But Hickenlooper still faces a primary challenge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House Speaker Andrew Romanoff .
While Romanoff had a fairly centrist record in the legislature , he has recently embraced progressive policies like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal in an effort to position himself to the left of Hickenlooper , who governed and ran for president as a moderate .
Hickenlooper outspent Romanoff $ 6.7 million to $ 2.2 million through June 10 , but as the campaign has drawn to a close , Hickenlooper has run into trouble .
On June 5 , the Colorado Independent Ethics Commission ruled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paid for by corporations had violated a state law prohibiting elected officials from receiving gifts .
Hickenlooper also drew bad headlines when the commission initially held him in contempt for defying a subpoena to testify in the case ( he quickly changed his mind ) .
In addition , Hickenlooper stumbled over answers to questions about racial justice , saying “ every life matters ” and referencing the “ shooting of George Floyd ” ( a Minneapolis police officer killed Floyd by kneeling on his neck for nearly nine minutes ) .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from 2014 in which he compared the relationship between a politician and a scheduling staffer to that of a slave and a master .
[ Related : John Hickenlooper Is Running For Senate .
But Did He Miss His Chance ? ]
Romanoff is now cleverly using a new TV commercial that riffs off a well-known Hickenlooper ad from 2010 to attack Hickenlooper on these very issues , and Republicans have started their negative ad campaigns early too , which could redound to Romanoff ’ s benefit in the primary .
But the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s rescue : A mysterious new PAC has dropped more than $ 1 million on TV ads attacking Romanoff for overseeing the passage of strict anti-immigration laws in the legislature , and the last two weeks have seen $ 1.1 million in TV ad spending from Hickenlooper ’ s campaign and at least $ 1.6 million from his allies at Senate Majority PAC .
At the end of the day , Hickenlooper ’ s money and name recognition may be too much for Romanoff to overcome : The latest poll , conducted June @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hickenlooper a 58 percent to 28 percent lead .
It ’ s not a primary , but the biggest race on Oklahoma ’ s ballot today is arguably State Question 802 , a ballot measure that would expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act .
Currently , Oklahoma is one of 14 states that has not expanded Medicaid , and supporters of the measure say that it would make about 200,000 Oklahomans eligible for Medicaid benefits .
Medicaid expansion generally polls pretty well , even in red states ( three of them passed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , and early on at least , Oklahoma ’ s proposal was no exception : A February poll by Change Research found that 67 percent supported expanding Medicaid in Oklahoma .
( However , there are two pretty big caveats : The poll was paid for the Yes on 802 campaign and ballot measures tend to lose support over the course of the campaign . )
In terms of actual primaries , there ’ s one we ’ ll be keeping a close eye on : the GOP primary in Oklahoma ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a huge shock on election night 2018 when Democrat Kendra Horn flipped this district that voted for President Trump by 13 points in 2016 .
Now , sensing an opening , nine Republicans are lining up to face Horn in this Oklahoma City-based district .
For a party that has struggled to elect female members of Congress , it ’ s notable that three of the four most serious candidates are women : state Sen. Stephanie Bice , businesswoman Terry Neese and former state Superintendent of Public Instruction Janet Barresi .
[ Related @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Few Women ] Bice has spent the most money on the race ( $ 854,946 as of June 10 ) and enjoys the endorsement of two groups trying to elect more Republican women , but she ’ s also been on the receiving end of some nasty attack ads by the Club for Growth , including one obliquely tying her to convicted rapist Harvey Weinstein .
With the help of $ 450,000 of her own money , Neese has spent the second-most , at $ 629,419 .
Barresi has also almost entirely self-funded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , businessman David Hill , has narrowly outspent her , $ 389,047 to $ 383,718 .
On paper , Bice has the strongest chance to beat Horn , as she ’ s an elected official who already represents part of the district and ran ahead of Trump ’ s 2016 vote share in her 2018 reelection campaign .
Someone like Barresi may have a harder time : During her one term as state schools chief , she faced a revolt over the adoption of new educational standards ( she initially supported , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and lost reelection in the primary .
Local political observers told Bloomberg Government that some suburban voters may still hold her tenure against her .
Barresi is also the only one of the top four candidates not identified by the National Republican Congressional Committee ’ s “ Young Guns ” program as a potentially competitive contender .
If no candidate wins a majority today , the top two finishers will advance to a runoff on Aug. 25 .
Utah Republicans , meanwhile , are abuzz over three competitive Republican primaries .
Two races @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mansion , one for a House seat — have major consequences for November , given the jurisdictions ’ deep-red hues , while the third is liable to be competitive .
The GOP primary for Utah governor is shaping up to be a close race between Lt. Gov .
Spencer Cox and former Gov .
Jon Huntsman , though former state House Speaker Greg Hughes is also in the mix .
Huntsman has been targeted for his connection to former President Barack Obama , which could play poorly in the conservative state .
An @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has sent mailers to voters attacking Huntsman for leaving Utah to become Obama ’ s ambassador to China , arguing that Utah needs a leader “ who will be there for us.
” ( Huntsman later served as President Trump ’ s ambassador to Russia . )
Still , Huntsman was quite popular during his time as governor , as his job approval sometimes topped 80 percent .
However , Cox has the backing of popular Republican Gov .
Gary Herbert , who took over for Huntsman , as well as many business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the contest ’ s third man , has tried to run to the right of Cox and Huntsman as head of the self-proclaimed “ conservative ticket ” for governor .
Recent public surveys show a race that is too close to predict .
Last week , a poll by Dan Jones & Associates , sponsored by Salt Lake City ’ s chamber of commerce , found Cox at 30 percent and Huntsman at 29 percent , while a Y2 Analytics survey from the week prior put Cox up 4 points , 34 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in line with surveys over the last couple of months , though Hughes was within shouting distance in the most recent polls , garnering between 15 and 26 percent support , so he could pull off a surprise upset .
There is a fourth contender in the race — former state GOP chair Thomas Wright — but he ’ s mostly polled in the single digits .
We ’ re also keeping an eye on who wins the Republican primary in Utah ’ s 1st Congressional District , as like the gubernatorial race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — no Democrat has won more than 30 percent of the vote here in recent years .
Perhaps it ’ s no surprise , then , that there ’ s a crowded Republican race to replace outgoing Rep .
Rob Bishop , who is now running for lieutenant governor on Wright ’ s ticket .
All four candidates appear to have a chance , too , but the race has offered plenty of negative headlines .
Kaysville Mayor Katie Witt was censured by her city council because she supported hosting a public concert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , businessman Blake Moore has drawn accusations of being a carpetbagger , as he does not live in this northern Utah district .
Former Weber County Commissioner Kerry Gibson has attracted controversy over the years , including accusations of helping a company win a state contract to grow medical marijuana while he was Utah ’ s agricultural commissioner and misappropriating funds as a county commissioner .
These controversies might be good news for Davis County Commissioner Bob Stevenson , who led in the most recent public poll of the race not sponsored by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Y2 Analytics survey found Stevenson at 38 percent , followed by Witt at 26 percent , Gibson at 20 percent and Moore at 16 percent , but the poll had a very small sample size ( just 127 respondents ) and a big margin of error .
A more recent internal poll from Moore ’ s campaign found him and Stevenson tied with 16 percent , with Gibson at 13 percent , Witt at 7 percent and a whopping 48 percent of respondents undecided .
( But since this was from an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about reading too much into it . )
As no single candidate has dominated the fundraising game , the money figures also point to an uncertain outcome .
Moore and Stevenson have raised a bit more than Witt or Gibson , but not by much .
Lastly , Utah ’ s 4th Congressional District is one of the few elections in the state that will be really competitive in November .
And on Tuesday , Republicans decide who will face Democratic Rep. Ben McAdams in this swing seat .
There ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Former NFL player Burgess Owens , a regular guest on Fox News , has raised the most money .
But state Rep. Kim Coleman isn ’ t that far behind Owens , and she ’ s also earned the endorsement of former Rep. Mia Love , who narrowly lost to McAdams in 2018 .
Owens and Coleman both qualified for the primary through the party convention process in April , suggesting they may have the most ardent conservative support .
But don ’ t discount the other two contenders in the race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who goes by “ JayMac ” ) came up short at the convention but he still gathered enough signatures to make the primary ballot , and while he hasn ’ t attracted as much financial support , he may have a fair bit of name recognition from his time on the airwaves .
Nonprofit CEO Trent Christensen is also in the race , though he hasn ’ t raised much money .
The only public poll we have here is , like in the 1st District , a small-sample survey ( 148 respondents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at 36 percent , McFarland at 28 percent , Coleman at 23 percent and Christensen at 13 percent .
Whoever wins will take on McAdams in the least Republican seat in Utah , which Trump won with 39 percent to Hillary Clinton ’ s 32 percent in 2016 ( independent Evan McMullin garnered 22 percent of the vote ) .
[ Related : The Elections In Kentucky And New York Are High-Stakes For The Progressive Movement ] So there ’ s a lot to keep an eye on today , including results from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and New York .
We ’ ll be back on Wednesday with quick reactions to the available results and what they might mean for November .
CORRECTION ( June 30 , 2020 , 10:08 a.m. ) : An earlier version of this article incorrectly said Huntsman led Cox in a Y2 Analytics survey by 4 percentage points .
But it was Cox who led Huntsman by 4 points .

30On Tuesday, primary voters in three states decide who will take on some of the nation’s most vulnerable incumbents. In Colorado, Sen. Cory Gardner is generally considered an underdog in November, but would he be replaced by a moderate Democrat or someone further left? And in Oklahoma and Utah, Republicans pretty much have to defeat Reps. Kendra Horn and Ben McAdams if they have any hope of taking back the House. Whom will the GOP nominate? We hope to bring you the answers tomorrow — depending on how fast we get results — as well as the long-awaited results from Kentucky and New York.
Colorado
Remember John Hickenlooper? After he dropped out of the Democratic presidential race in August 2019, the former Colorado governor announced he would instead run for U.S. Senate at the behest of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. His entry into the race mostly cleared what had been a crowded primary field, with attention soon turning to whether Hickenlooper could beat Gardner in the general election. (The answer seems to be yes.)
But Hickenlooper still faces a primary challenge from one high-profile candidate: former state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff. While Romanoff had a fairly centrist record in the legislature, he has recently embraced progressive policies like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal in an effort to position himself to the left of Hickenlooper, who governed and ran for president as a moderate.
Hickenlooper outspent Romanoff $6.7 million to $2.2 million through June 10, but as the campaign has drawn to a close, Hickenlooper has run into trouble. On June 5, the Colorado Independent Ethics Commission ruled that two trips he took as governor paid for by corporations had violated a state law prohibiting elected officials from receiving gifts. Hickenlooper also drew bad headlines when the commission initially held him in contempt for defying a subpoena to testify in the case (he quickly changed his mind). In addition, Hickenlooper stumbled over answers to questions about racial justice, saying “every life matters” and referencing the “shooting of George Floyd” (a Minneapolis police officer killed Floyd by kneeling on his neck for nearly nine minutes). He also had to apologize for a video from 2014 in which he compared the relationship between a politician and a scheduling staffer to that of a slave and a master.
[Related: John Hickenlooper Is Running For Senate. But Did He Miss His Chance?]
Romanoff is now cleverly using a new TV commercial that riffs off a well-known Hickenlooper ad from 2010 to attack Hickenlooper on these very issues, and Republicans have started their negative ad campaigns early too, which could redound to Romanoff’s benefit in the primary. But the cavalry has recently come to Hickenlooper’s rescue: A mysterious new PAC has dropped more than $1 million on TV ads attacking Romanoff for overseeing the passage of strict anti-immigration laws in the legislature, and the last two weeks have seen $1.1 million in TV ad spending from Hickenlooper’s campaign and at least $1.6 million from his allies at Senate Majority PAC.
At the end of the day, Hickenlooper’s money and name recognition may be too much for Romanoff to overcome: The latest poll, conducted June 19-24 by SurveyUSA for KUSA-TV, gave Hickenlooper a 58 percent to 28 percent lead.
Oklahoma
It’s not a primary, but the biggest race on Oklahoma’s ballot today is arguably State Question 802, a ballot measure that would expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Currently, Oklahoma is one of 14 states that has not expanded Medicaid, and supporters of the measure say that it would make about 200,000 Oklahomans eligible for Medicaid benefits. Medicaid expansion generally polls pretty well, even in red states (three of them passed it at the ballot box in 2018), and early on at least, Oklahoma’s proposal was no exception: A February poll by Change Research found that 67 percent supported expanding Medicaid in Oklahoma. (However, there are two pretty big caveats: The poll was paid for the Yes on 802 campaign and ballot measures tend to lose support over the course of the campaign.)
In terms of actual primaries, there’s one we’ll be keeping a close eye on: the GOP primary in Oklahoma’s 5th Congressional District. It was a huge shock on election night 2018 when Democrat Kendra Horn flipped this district that voted for President Trump by 13 points in 2016. Now, sensing an opening, nine Republicans are lining up to face Horn in this Oklahoma City-based district. For a party that has struggled to elect female members of Congress, it’s notable that three of the four most serious candidates are women: state Sen. Stephanie Bice, businesswoman Terry Neese and former state Superintendent of Public Instruction Janet Barresi.
[Related: Why The Republican Party Elects So Few Women]
Bice has spent the most money on the race ($854,946 as of June 10) and enjoys the endorsement of two groups trying to elect more Republican women, but she’s also been on the receiving end of some nasty attack ads by the Club for Growth, including one obliquely tying her to convicted rapist Harvey Weinstein. With the help of $450,000 of her own money, Neese has spent the second-most, at $629,419. Barresi has also almost entirely self-funded her campaign, but a fourth contender, businessman David Hill, has narrowly outspent her, $389,047 to $383,718.
On paper, Bice has the strongest chance to beat Horn, as she’s an elected official who already represents part of the district and ran ahead of Trump’s 2016 vote share in her 2018 reelection campaign. Someone like Barresi may have a harder time: During her one term as state schools chief, she faced a revolt over the adoption of new educational standards (she initially supported, then backed away from, Common Core) and lost reelection in the primary. Local political observers told Bloomberg Government that some suburban voters may still hold her tenure against her. Barresi is also the only one of the top four candidates not identified by the National Republican Congressional Committee’s “Young Guns” program as a potentially competitive contender.
If no candidate wins a majority today, the top two finishers will advance to a runoff on Aug. 25.
Utah
Utah Republicans, meanwhile, are abuzz over three competitive Republican primaries. Two races — one for the governor’s mansion, one for a House seat — have major consequences for November, given the jurisdictions’ deep-red hues, while the third is liable to be competitive.
The GOP primary for Utah governor is shaping up to be a close race between Lt. Gov. Spencer Cox and former Gov. Jon Huntsman, though former state House Speaker Greg Hughes is also in the mix.
Huntsman has been targeted for his connection to former President Barack Obama, which could play poorly in the conservative state. An outside group, Protecting Our Constitution, has sent mailers to voters attacking Huntsman for leaving Utah to become Obama’s ambassador to China, arguing that Utah needs a leader “who will be there for us.” (Huntsman later served as President Trump’s ambassador to Russia.) Still, Huntsman was quite popular during his time as governor, as his job approval sometimes topped 80 percent. However, Cox has the backing of popular Republican Gov. Gary Herbert, who took over for Huntsman, as well as many business leaders in the state. Hughes, the contest’s third man, has tried to run to the right of Cox and Huntsman as head of the self-proclaimed “conservative ticket” for governor.
Recent public surveys show a race that is too close to predict. Last week, a poll by Dan Jones & Associates, sponsored by Salt Lake City’s chamber of commerce, found Cox at 30 percent and Huntsman at 29 percent, while a Y2 Analytics survey from the week prior put Cox up 4 points, 34 percent to 30 percent. These are largely in line with surveys over the last couple of months, though Hughes was within shouting distance in the most recent polls, garnering between 15 and 26 percent support, so he could pull off a surprise upset. There is a fourth contender in the race — former state GOP chair Thomas Wright — but he’s mostly polled in the single digits.
[Related: Our 2020 National Polling Averages]
We’re also keeping an eye on who wins the Republican primary in Utah’s 1st Congressional District, as like the gubernatorial race, they will likely win in November — no Democrat has won more than 30 percent of the vote here in recent years. Perhaps it’s no surprise, then, that there’s a crowded Republican race to replace outgoing Rep. Rob Bishop, who is now running for lieutenant governor on Wright’s ticket. All four candidates appear to have a chance, too, but the race has offered plenty of negative headlines. Kaysville Mayor Katie Witt was censured by her city council because she supported hosting a public concert aimed at protesting coronavirus-related restrictions. Meanwhile, businessman Blake Moore has drawn accusations of being a carpetbagger, as he does not live in this northern Utah district. Former Weber County Commissioner Kerry Gibson has attracted controversy over the years, including accusations of helping a company win a state contract to grow medical marijuana while he was Utah’s agricultural commissioner and misappropriating funds as a county commissioner.
These controversies might be good news for Davis County Commissioner Bob Stevenson, who led in the most recent public poll of the race not sponsored by a campaign: In late May, a Y2 Analytics survey found Stevenson at 38 percent, followed by Witt at 26 percent, Gibson at 20 percent and Moore at 16 percent, but the poll had a very small sample size (just 127 respondents) and a big margin of error. A more recent internal poll from Moore’s campaign found him and Stevenson tied with 16 percent, with Gibson at 13 percent, Witt at 7 percent and a whopping 48 percent of respondents undecided. (But since this was from an internal poll, we should be cautious about reading too much into it.) As no single candidate has dominated the fundraising game, the money figures also point to an uncertain outcome. Moore and Stevenson have raised a bit more than Witt or Gibson, but not by much.
Lastly, Utah’s 4th Congressional District is one of the few elections in the state that will be really competitive in November. And on Tuesday, Republicans decide who will face Democratic Rep. Ben McAdams in this swing seat. There’s a crowded four-way primary race here, too.
Former NFL player Burgess Owens, a regular guest on Fox News, has raised the most money. But state Rep. Kim Coleman isn’t that far behind Owens, and she’s also earned the endorsement of former Rep. Mia Love, who narrowly lost to McAdams in 2018. Owens and Coleman both qualified for the primary through the party convention process in April, suggesting they may have the most ardent conservative support. But don’t discount the other two contenders in the race. Former radio host Jay Mcfarland (who goes by “JayMac”) came up short at the convention but he still gathered enough signatures to make the primary ballot, and while he hasn’t attracted as much financial support, he may have a fair bit of name recognition from his time on the airwaves. Nonprofit CEO Trent Christensen is also in the race, though he hasn’t raised much money.
The only public poll we have here is, like in the 1st District, a small-sample survey (148 respondents) from Y2 Analytics that put Owens at 36 percent, McFarland at 28 percent, Coleman at 23 percent and Christensen at 13 percent. Whoever wins will take on McAdams in the least Republican seat in Utah, which Trump won with 39 percent to Hillary Clinton’s 32 percent in 2016 (independent Evan McMullin garnered 22 percent of the vote).
[Related: The Elections In Kentucky And New York Are High-Stakes For The Progressive Movement]
So there’s a lot to keep an eye on today, including results from elections that happened last week in Kentucky and New York. We’ll be back on Wednesday with quick reactions to the available results and what they might mean for November.
‘Trump’s getting into underdog territory’: Nate Silver
CORRECTION (June 30, 2020, 10:08 a.m.): An earlier version of this article incorrectly said Huntsman led Cox in a Y2 Analytics survey by 4 percentage points. But it was Cox who led Huntsman by 4 points.


fivethirthyeight--2020-06-30--In 2008, Everyone Thought The Recession Was Bad. But in 2020, Many Americans’ Views Depend On Their

The U.S. economy is objectively awful right now .
The unemployment rate is at levels not seen since the Great Depression and this quarter ’ s decline in gross domestic product is expected to be the worst on record .
Most economists believe it will take years to recover from this recession .
Not everyone thinks the economy is doing so poorly , though .
In the most recent Quinnipiac University national survey , 69 percent of Republicans described the U.S. economy as “ excellent ” or “ good.
” Similarly , nearly two-thirds of Republicans in both Civiqs ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ June 11-15 Associated Press/NORC Poll said that the nation ’ s current economy is at least leaning toward good .
By contrast , only around 10 percent of Democrats thought that the national economy was doing well in those surveys .
In fact , a closer look at Civiqs ’ data shows that Democrats ’ and Republicans ’ views of the economy are more polarized now than they ’ ve been at any point during President Trump ’ s time in office .
That isn ’ t to say that Democrats and Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy at previous points in Trump ’ s presidency .
They haven ’ t .
As you can see in the chart above , there has been a fairly large — and persistent — gap in how Democrats and Republicans think about the economy .
However , that gap did shrink after the pandemic ’ s dire economic effects became apparent , and by early May , only one-third of Republicans still thought that the economy was in good shape .
Republicans ’ economic optimism , however , quickly rebounded in June as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ May jobs report was released with better-than-expected news .
Even when Republicans ’ outlook on the economy was at its lowest point this year , according to Civiqs data , they still felt more upbeat about the state of the economy than at any point in 2016 before Trump was elected , when the economy was objectively better .
[ Related : What Economists Fear Most During This Recovery ] This isn ’ t necessarily surprising , though , as political science research has found that a strong economy might not benefit a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in part because voters ’ views on whether the economy is healthy tend to be linked to whether their preferred party is in power .
That says a lot about how polarized our politics have become , and it also underscores a key point that John Sides , Lynn Vavreck , and I have repeatedly made about the 2016 election : The widespread economic dissatisfaction and anxiety driving much of the media narrative about Trump ’ s political rise and the 2016 presidential campaign wasn ’ t a reflection of actual economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of partisanship .
Of course , the difficulty is that these attitudes aren ’ t just partisanship either .
After eight years of Obama ’ s presidency , racial and economic anxiety became increasingly intertwined to the point that racial resentment was a much stronger predictor of economic pessimism under Obama than it had been under George W. Bush .
That is , white people — especially white Trump voters — believed that Black people were getting ahead while they were left behind .
Take the 2016 American National Election Studies survey .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ racial discrimination white people thought their own group faced , the more likely they were to say that the economy was worse than it had been a year earlier .
These voters largely voted for Trump .
But under Trump ’ s presidency , a similar poll found that white voters were less likely to say the economy had gotten worse if they believed white people faced high levels of racial discrimination .
In addition , nearly three-quarters of the 69,000 respondents surveyed for the Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape in the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is worse than it was a year ago .
But only around half of white respondents who think their racial group faces a lot or a great deal of discrimination shared this economic pessimism .
( This was true even after controlling for several other factors , such as partisanship and income . )
In other words , Americans ’ political allegiances and views on race influence their views of the economy .
That marks a significant departure from the last time there was an economic downturn during a presidential election campaign .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ racial attitudes , universally thought the economy was in terrible shape after the financial collapse in 2008 .
But that isn ’ t the case now .
So why is the coronavirus recession so different ?
[ Related : The Economy Is A Mess .
So Why Isn ’ t The Stock Market ? ]
One reason is that even though the national economy is in shambles , it ’ s also ticking back up .
It ’ s unclear how fast the economy will recover , but this uncertainty opens the door @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and racialized explanations for the economy ’ s performance .
Additionally , in a presidential election where the incumbent had long planned to base his case for reelection on a strong economy , Americans are all the more motivated to view the economy through political lenses .
Not to mention , Trump has also tried to bend the country ’ s bleak economic reality to his will .
He has said that the economy is springing back from the coronavirus recession like “ a rocket ship , ” claiming that the economic recovery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history.
” This is very different from 2008 , when few Republicans made the case that the economy was in good shape .
At the time , GOP presidential nominee John McCain was even widely mocked for saying “ the fundamentals of our economy are strong ” before quickly reversing his position to say the economy was in “ total crisis.
” But now the fact that most economists disagree with the president ’ s optimism about a quick rebound may not matter .
As we ’ ve seen with the Civiqs data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in good shape now than thought so in 2016 .
And a long line of social science research shows that when political elites are sharply divided — as they are now over the economy — the public follows the lead of the elites .
That is , partisan messaging is now so powerful that Americans tend to adopt their party ’ s standpoint even when that position runs counter to science or objective facts .
And that ’ s what makes the coronavirus recession so different .
Americans are increasingly unlikely to abandon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy .
So as long as Trump projects economic confidence , Republicans will likely continue to have a much more positive view of the economy than Democrats do .
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast : Biden Is Currently Competitive In Georgia And Texas

In 2008, Everyone Thought The Recession Was Bad. But in 2020, Many Americans’ Views Depend On Their Party.
The U.S. economy is objectively awful right now. The unemployment rate is at levels not seen since the Great Depression and this quarter’s decline in gross domestic product is expected to be the worst on record. Most economists believe it will take years to recover from this recession.
Not everyone thinks the economy is doing so poorly, though.
In the most recent Quinnipiac University national survey, 69 percent of Republicans described the U.S. economy as “excellent” or “good.” Similarly, nearly two-thirds of Republicans in both Civiqs’s daily tracking polls and in a June 11-15 Associated Press/NORC Poll said that the nation’s current economy is at least leaning toward good. By contrast, only around 10 percent of Democrats thought that the national economy was doing well in those surveys.
In fact, a closer look at Civiqs’ data shows that Democrats’ and Republicans’ views of the economy are more polarized now than they’ve been at any point during President Trump’s time in office.
That isn’t to say that Democrats and Republicans have seen eye to eye on the economy at previous points in Trump’s presidency. They haven’t.
As you can see in the chart above, there has been a fairly large — and persistent — gap in how Democrats and Republicans think about the economy. However, that gap did shrink after the pandemic’s dire economic effects became apparent, and by early May, only one-third of Republicans still thought that the economy was in good shape.
Republicans’ economic optimism, however, quickly rebounded in June as states allowed businesses to reopen and the May jobs report was released with better-than-expected news.
Even when Republicans’ outlook on the economy was at its lowest point this year, according to Civiqs data, they still felt more upbeat about the state of the economy than at any point in 2016 before Trump was elected, when the economy was objectively better.
[Related: What Economists Fear Most During This Recovery]
This isn’t necessarily surprising, though, as political science research has found that a strong economy might not benefit a president as much as it once did, in part because voters’ views on whether the economy is healthy tend to be linked to whether their preferred party is in power. That says a lot about how polarized our politics have become, and it also underscores a key point that John Sides, Lynn Vavreck, and I have repeatedly made about the 2016 election: The widespread economic dissatisfaction and anxiety driving much of the media narrative about Trump’s political rise and the 2016 presidential campaign wasn’t a reflection of actual economic realities, it was largely a consequence of partisanship.
Of course, the difficulty is that these attitudes aren’t just partisanship either. After eight years of Obama’s presidency, racial and economic anxiety became increasingly intertwined to the point that racial resentment was a much stronger predictor of economic pessimism under Obama than it had been under George W. Bush. That is, white people — especially white Trump voters — believed that Black people were getting ahead while they were left behind.
Take the 2016 American National Election Studies survey. Before Trump took office, the more racial discrimination white people thought their own group faced, the more likely they were to say that the economy was worse than it had been a year earlier. These voters largely voted for Trump. But under Trump’s presidency, a similar poll found that white voters were less likely to say the economy had gotten worse if they believed white people faced high levels of racial discrimination.
In addition, nearly three-quarters of the 69,000 respondents surveyed for the Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape in the past three months have said that the economy is worse than it was a year ago. But only around half of white respondents who think their racial group faces a lot or a great deal of discrimination shared this economic pessimism. (This was true even after controlling for several other factors, such as partisanship and income.)
In other words, Americans’ political allegiances and views on race influence their views of the economy. That marks a significant departure from the last time there was an economic downturn during a presidential election campaign. Americans, regardless of their partisanship and racial attitudes, universally thought the economy was in terrible shape after the financial collapse in 2008.
But that isn’t the case now. So why is the coronavirus recession so different?
[Related: The Economy Is A Mess. So Why Isn’t The Stock Market?]
One reason is that even though the national economy is in shambles, it’s also ticking back up. It’s unclear how fast the economy will recover, but this uncertainty opens the door for voters to adopt their own partisan and racialized explanations for the economy’s performance. Additionally, in a presidential election where the incumbent had long planned to base his case for reelection on a strong economy, Americans are all the more motivated to view the economy through political lenses.
Not to mention, Trump has also tried to bend the country’s bleak economic reality to his will. He has said that the economy is springing back from the coronavirus recession like “a rocket ship,” claiming that the economic recovery is “the greatest comeback in American history.” This is very different from 2008, when few Republicans made the case that the economy was in good shape. At the time, GOP presidential nominee John McCain was even widely mocked for saying “the fundamentals of our economy are strong” before quickly reversing his position to say the economy was in “total crisis.”
[Related: Our 2020 National Polling Averages]
But now the fact that most economists disagree with the president’s optimism about a quick rebound may not matter. As we’ve seen with the Civiqs data, more Republicans think the economy is in good shape now than thought so in 2016. And a long line of social science research shows that when political elites are sharply divided — as they are now over the economy — the public follows the lead of the elites. That is, partisan messaging is now so powerful that Americans tend to adopt their party’s standpoint even when that position runs counter to science or objective facts.
And that’s what makes the coronavirus recession so different. Americans are increasingly unlikely to abandon their partisan and racialized views of the economy. So as long as Trump projects economic confidence, Republicans will likely continue to have a much more positive view of the economy than Democrats do.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: Biden Is Currently Competitive In Georgia And Texas


fivethirthyeight--2020-06-29--Politics Podcast: Biden Is Currently Competitive In Georgia And Texas

A slew of new , high-quality polls provides the clearest picture yet of the presidential race in swing states , @ @ @ @ @ looking good for President Trump .
In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden leading in every swing state and essentially tied in Georgia and Texas .
@ @ @ @ @ how Republican politicians are responding to new outbreaks of COVID-19 across the Sun Belt .
@ @ @ @ @ Is Currently Competitive In Georgia And Texas You can listen to the episode by clicking @ @ @ @ @ in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes , the ESPN App @ @ @ @ @ .
If you are new to podcasts , learn how to listen .
The FiveThirtyEight @ @ @ @ @ Thursdays .
Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review @ @ @ @ @ comment , question or suggestion for “ good polling vs. bad polling ” ?
Get @ @ @ @ @ on Twitter or in the comments .

A slew of new, high-quality polls provides the clearest picture yet of the presidential race in swing states, and it isn’t looking good for President Trump. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew discusses polling showing Joe Biden leading in every swing state and essentially tied in Georgia and Texas. The team also looks at how Republican politicians are responding to new outbreaks of COVID-19 across the Sun Belt.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: Biden Is Currently Competitive In Georgia And Texas
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.


fivethirthyeight--2020-06-29--The Supreme Court Struck Down A Louisiana Abortion Law. Here’s Where The Fight Could Head Next.

On Monday morning , Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court ’ s liberals yet again to strike down a restrictive Louisiana abortion law that could have left the state with a single clinic .
This case was one of the most-watched items on the docket this term for a reason .
It was the first ruling on abortion since President Trump appointed two new justices to the court , which meant abortion-rights opponents were optimistic that a new conservative majority might be willing to undo past decisions on abortion rights — even though the Louisiana law was basically identical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down by the court in 2016 .
The laws banned doctors from providing abortions unless they had admitting privileges at a local hospital .
[ Related : The Supreme Court Put DACA ’ s Fate In The Hands Of Voters ] It turned out this was a bad bet .
Roberts ultimately wasn ’ t willing to backtrack on what the court had so recently decided .
“ The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law , for the same reasons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opinion from the majority .
“ Therefore Louisiana ’ s law can not stand under our precedents.
” But this could turn out to be only a temporary setback for anti-abortion activists .
Roberts made it clear that he still thinks the 2016 ruling was incorrect .
This means abortion rights will likely be back on the Supreme Court ’ s docket soon , and it ’ s very possible that in a future case , Roberts will be willing to uphold other restrictions that could severely limit access to the procedure .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have passed plenty of different types of restrictions already .
Today ’ s ruling means that the center of gravity in the abortion debate will likely shift away from requirements placed on clinics — particularly those that are similar to the ones struck down in Texas and Louisiana .
According to the Guttmacher institute , a research organization that supports legal abortion , 14 states , including Louisiana and Texas , have passed admitting-privileges restrictions since 2011 .
The Supreme Court striking those laws down is a significant victory for abortion-rights supporters , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ onerous for doctors to comply with .
A ruling in favor of Louisiana in this case would have almost certainly made it even harder to get an abortion in the state — and perhaps also in other parts of the country .
But as you can see in the chart above , there are still hundreds of other laws that limit abortion rights on the books .
And a few kinds of laws that several Republican-controlled legislatures have recently passed could turn into the next big front in the abortion wars .
[ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Electoral College Vote However It Wants , Will Chaos Ensue ? ]
One such category includes bans on a specific second-trimester abortion procedure that involves dilating the patient ’ s cervix and removing the fetus in pieces ( on the chart , these are represented by the blue dots — the category for restrictions on a certain type of abortion or for specific reasons ) .
And according to Mary Ziegler , a professor at Florida State University College of Law and the author of “ Abortion and the Law in America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” anti-abortion advocates could argue that these bans are in line with a Supreme Court case decided in 2007 , where the court upheld a federal ban on another commonly used method of second-trimester abortion .
Another possibility is that anti-abortion opponents will start to focus on laws that ban abortion solely for specific reasons — like when the fetus has genetic abnormalities , or if the goal is to ensure a child of a specific sex or race ( these are also represented by blue dots on the chart ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these bans last year , leaving the possibility that they could return to the court in the future .
[ Related : Here ’ s Why The Anti-Abortion Movement Is Escalating ] There are also many outright bans on abortion at different stages of pregnancy — including laws like the one passed earlier this month in Tennessee , which would prevent a woman from obtaining an abortion starting around the sixth week of pregnancy .
As I wrote last year , these types of bans are increasingly popular in the anti-abortion movement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from a legal perspective , because they directly challenge the court ’ s original precedent in Roe v. Wade — and they ’ re also not really in line with most Americans ’ views about when abortion should be legal .
That is , most Americans think Roe v. Wade should not be reversed , and many think abortion should be legal in the first trimester .
[ Related : Will The Supreme Court Finally Force Trump ’ s Tax Returns To Be Released ? ]
So another option that could be more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general public — is a set of restrictions that land closer to the threshold for fetal viability , which is around 22 weeks .
That wouldn ’ t necessarily involve a full-scale reversal of precedent , which Roberts seems reluctant to consider at this point .
For instance , in today ’ s case the court brushed aside anti-abortion advocates ’ request to revisit several decades of precedent that allows abortion doctors to sue to protect or expand abortion rights on behalf of their patients , rather than forcing patients themselves to sue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which of these restrictions are most likely to end up at the Supreme Court or how quickly that would happen .
But Leah Litman , a law professor at the University of Michigan , said that while Roberts ’ s emphasis on maintaining precedent may prompt anti-abortion advocates to change their strategy , some of these other laws could get a warmer reception from the chief justice .
“ There are just so many varieties of restrictions on abortion that the Supreme Court hasn ’ t definitively weighed in on , ” she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an invitation to bring them different kinds of restrictions.
” FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast : Biden Is Currently Competitive In Georgia And Texas

On Monday morning, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s liberals yet again to strike down a restrictive Louisiana abortion law that could have left the state with a single clinic.
This case was one of the most-watched items on the docket this term for a reason. It was the first ruling on abortion since President Trump appointed two new justices to the court, which meant abortion-rights opponents were optimistic that a new conservative majority might be willing to undo past decisions on abortion rights — even though the Louisiana law was basically identical to a Texas restriction that was struck down by the court in 2016. The laws banned doctors from providing abortions unless they had admitting privileges at a local hospital.
[Related: The Supreme Court Put DACA’s Fate In The Hands Of Voters]
It turned out this was a bad bet. Roberts ultimately wasn’t willing to backtrack on what the court had so recently decided. “The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons,” he wrote in a separate opinion from the majority. “Therefore Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents.”
But this could turn out to be only a temporary setback for anti-abortion activists. Roberts made it clear that he still thinks the 2016 ruling was incorrect. This means abortion rights will likely be back on the Supreme Court’s docket soon, and it’s very possible that in a future case, Roberts will be willing to uphold other restrictions that could severely limit access to the procedure.
As the map below shows, states have passed plenty of different types of restrictions already.
Today’s ruling means that the center of gravity in the abortion debate will likely shift away from requirements placed on clinics — particularly those that are similar to the ones struck down in Texas and Louisiana. According to the Guttmacher institute, a research organization that supports legal abortion, 14 states, including Louisiana and Texas, have passed admitting-privileges restrictions since 2011. The Supreme Court striking those laws down is a significant victory for abortion-rights supporters, because those types of restrictions were very onerous for doctors to comply with. A ruling in favor of Louisiana in this case would have almost certainly made it even harder to get an abortion in the state — and perhaps also in other parts of the country.
But as you can see in the chart above, there are still hundreds of other laws that limit abortion rights on the books. And a few kinds of laws that several Republican-controlled legislatures have recently passed could turn into the next big front in the abortion wars.
[Related: If The Supreme Court Lets The Electoral College Vote However It Wants, Will Chaos Ensue?]
One such category includes bans on a specific second-trimester abortion procedure that involves dilating the patient’s cervix and removing the fetus in pieces (on the chart, these are represented by the blue dots — the category for restrictions on a certain type of abortion or for specific reasons). And according to Mary Ziegler, a professor at Florida State University College of Law and the author of “Abortion and the Law in America: Roe v. Wade to the Present,” anti-abortion advocates could argue that these bans are in line with a Supreme Court case decided in 2007, where the court upheld a federal ban on another commonly used method of second-trimester abortion.
Another possibility is that anti-abortion opponents will start to focus on laws that ban abortion solely for specific reasons — like when the fetus has genetic abnormalities, or if the goal is to ensure a child of a specific sex or race (these are also represented by blue dots on the chart). The Supreme Court sidestepped ruling on one of these bans last year, leaving the possibility that they could return to the court in the future.
[Related: Here’s Why The Anti-Abortion Movement Is Escalating]
There are also many outright bans on abortion at different stages of pregnancy — including laws like the one passed earlier this month in Tennessee, which would prevent a woman from obtaining an abortion starting around the sixth week of pregnancy.
As I wrote last year, these types of bans are increasingly popular in the anti-abortion movement. But they’re riskier propositions from a legal perspective, because they directly challenge the court’s original precedent in Roe v. Wade — and they’re also not really in line with most Americans’ views about when abortion should be legal. That is, most Americans think Roe v. Wade should not be reversed, and many think abortion should be legal in the first trimester.
[Related: Will The Supreme Court Finally Force Trump’s Tax Returns To Be Released?]
So another option that could be more palatable — both to Roberts and the general public — is a set of restrictions that land closer to the threshold for fetal viability, which is around 22 weeks. That wouldn’t necessarily involve a full-scale reversal of precedent, which Roberts seems reluctant to consider at this point. For instance, in today’s case the court brushed aside anti-abortion advocates’ request to revisit several decades of precedent that allows abortion doctors to sue to protect or expand abortion rights on behalf of their patients, rather than forcing patients themselves to sue.
It’s hard to predict which of these restrictions are most likely to end up at the Supreme Court or how quickly that would happen. But Leah Litman, a law professor at the University of Michigan, said that while Roberts’s emphasis on maintaining precedent may prompt anti-abortion advocates to change their strategy, some of these other laws could get a warmer reception from the chief justice. “There are just so many varieties of restrictions on abortion that the Supreme Court hasn’t definitively weighed in on,” she said. “This kind of ruling is an invitation to bring them different kinds of restrictions.”
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: Biden Is Currently Competitive In Georgia And Texas