fivethirthyeight--2020-07-15--Why Trump — Not Biden — Might Have An Enthusiasm Problem

The Trump campaign has found its silver lining in an avalanche of awful polling numbers : Voters who support Donald Trump are enthusiastic about his candidacy .
Polls consistently show that Trump ’ s supporters are more excited to vote for him than presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden ’ s supporters are to vote for him .
For example , half of Trump supporters in a recent USA Today/Suffolk University poll said they were “ very excited ” about their candidate , compared to just 27 percent of Biden backers .
Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale even described their enthusiasm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important factor in the campaign.
” But the significance of this “ enthusiasm gap ” is exaggerated .
Enthusiastic votes count just as much as unenthusiastic ones , meaning an enthusiasm gap would only really matter in a close election .
And right now , it isn ’ t a close election : Biden leads Trump in national polls by nearly 9 points .
No enthusiasm advantage — no matter how big — could possibly make up for that kind of a gap .
Let ’ s pretend , though , that voter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump and Biden ’ s candidacies .
The Trump campaign would still have a problem , and that ’ s because the 2020 enthusiasm gap is mostly a myth .
First , while Biden voters may not be all that excited about voting for Biden , they ’ re very enthusiastic about voting against Trump .
And that gives Biden a pretty strong edge , because Trump supporters don ’ t despise Biden the way they despised Hillary Clinton in 2016 .
In fact , according to survey data from the Democracy Fund @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Trump voters who rate Biden unfavorably is consistently much lower than the share of Biden voters who rate Trump negatively — nearly 30 percentage points lower as of the last survey conducted at the end of June .
Second , because Trump voters don ’ t dislike Biden as much as Biden voters dislike Trump , Biden actually has an advantage in net enthusiasm ( calculated as the difference between a candidate ’ s “ very favorable ” and “ very unfavorable ” rating ) .
The gap on this metric has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month , too .
What ’ s especially notable here is that Biden ’ s net enthusiasm rating is near zero , which is similar to most major-party presidential candidates ’ ratings from 1980 to 2012 .
Trump ’ s current score of around -20 , on the other hand , has only one historical comparison other than his own campaign four years ago : Hillary Clinton in 2016 .
Trump should know better than anyone that this isn ’ t good .
After all , he won in 2016 in part because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ negative opinions of both major candidates broke decisively in his favor .
But right now , Trump can ’ t count on the “ haters ” to swing the election for him again .
Registered voters with negative opinions of both Trump and Biden preferred Biden to Trump by a whopping 23-point margin in the polling Nationscape conducted in June .
They also rated Biden less negatively overall , with only 33 percent of this group saying they had a very unfavorable opinion of Biden compared to 62 percent who said the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when combined with recent political science research on the power of negative partisanship , suggest that the public ’ s stronger dislike of Trump is probably the more consequential enthusiasm gap in 2020 .
To be sure , that negative enthusiasm gap will almost certainly narrow as Trump ratchets up his attacks on Biden .
But it ’ s unlikely Biden will engender the same level of hatred that Clinton did .
Even though she ’ s spent four years out of the political limelight , Republicans are still more hostile to Clinton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from last month found that 76 percent had a “ strongly unfavorable ” opinion of Clinton , compared to 64 percent of Republicans who held the same opinion of Biden .
Additionally , social science research suggests that antipathy toward the other side is driven in large part by racial and cultural differences between the parties — differences that Clinton and former President Barack Obama exemplify in ways that a 77-year-old white moderate male Democrat doesn ’ t .
As The Atlantic ’ s Adam Serwer astutely put it , “ The notion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provoke the visceral rage that Clinton and Obama did — not in Trump , and not in his supporters.
” So long as Biden ’ s campaign does not evoke such negativity , Trump will likely be the one on the short end of the 2020 enthusiasm gap .

The Trump campaign has found its silver lining in an avalanche of awful polling numbers: Voters who support Donald Trump are enthusiastic about his candidacy.
Polls consistently show that Trump’s supporters are more excited to vote for him than presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden’s supporters are to vote for him. For example, half of Trump supporters in a recent USA Today/Suffolk University poll said they were “very excited” about their candidate, compared to just 27 percent of Biden backers. Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale even described their enthusiasm advantage over Biden as “the most important factor in the campaign.”
‘I’m not sure (enthusiasm) will be enough to save (Trump)’ in 2020: Silver
But the significance of this “enthusiasm gap” is exaggerated. Enthusiastic votes count just as much as unenthusiastic ones, meaning an enthusiasm gap would only really matter in a close election. And right now, it isn’t a close election: Biden leads Trump in national polls by nearly 9 points. No enthusiasm advantage — no matter how big — could possibly make up for that kind of a gap.
[Related: The Latest Presidential Polling Averages]
Let’s pretend, though, that voter enthusiasm is an important metric for understanding Trump and Biden’s candidacies. The Trump campaign would still have a problem, and that’s because the 2020 enthusiasm gap is mostly a myth.
First, while Biden voters may not be all that excited about voting for Biden, they’re very enthusiastic about voting against Trump. And that gives Biden a pretty strong edge, because Trump supporters don’t despise Biden the way they despised Hillary Clinton in 2016. In fact, according to survey data from the Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape project, the share of Trump voters who rate Biden unfavorably is consistently much lower than the share of Biden voters who rate Trump negatively — nearly 30 percentage points lower as of the last survey conducted at the end of June.
Second, because Trump voters don’t dislike Biden as much as Biden voters dislike Trump, Biden actually has an advantage in net enthusiasm (calculated as the difference between a candidate’s “very favorable” and “very unfavorable” rating). The gap on this metric has widened between the two in the past month, too.
What’s especially notable here is that Biden’s net enthusiasm rating is near zero, which is similar to most major-party presidential candidates’ ratings from 1980 to 2012. Trump’s current score of around -20, on the other hand, has only one historical comparison other than his own campaign four years ago: Hillary Clinton in 2016.
[Related: How Popular Is President Donald Trump?]
Trump should know better than anyone that this isn’t good. After all, he won in 2016 in part because the record number of voters who had negative opinions of both major candidates broke decisively in his favor.
But right now, Trump can’t count on the “haters” to swing the election for him again. Registered voters with negative opinions of both Trump and Biden preferred Biden to Trump by a whopping 23-point margin in the polling Nationscape conducted in June. They also rated Biden less negatively overall, with only 33 percent of this group saying they had a very unfavorable opinion of Biden compared to 62 percent who said the same of Trump.
[Related: The Voters Who Don’t Like Trump Or Biden]
These results, especially when combined with recent political science research on the power of negative partisanship, suggest that the public’s stronger dislike of Trump is probably the more consequential enthusiasm gap in 2020.
To be sure, that negative enthusiasm gap will almost certainly narrow as Trump ratchets up his attacks on Biden. But it’s unlikely Biden will engender the same level of hatred that Clinton did. Even though she’s spent four years out of the political limelight, Republicans are still more hostile to Clinton than Biden. A Fox News poll from last month found that 76 percent had a “strongly unfavorable” opinion of Clinton, compared to 64 percent of Republicans who held the same opinion of Biden.
[Related: So … About That Supposed Lack Of Enthusiasm For Biden?]
Additionally, social science research suggests that antipathy toward the other side is driven in large part by racial and cultural differences between the parties — differences that Clinton and former President Barack Obama exemplify in ways that a 77-year-old white moderate male Democrat doesn’t.
As The Atlantic’s Adam Serwer astutely put it, “The notion of a Biden presidency simply does not provoke the visceral rage that Clinton and Obama did — not in Trump, and not in his supporters.” So long as Biden’s campaign does not evoke such negativity, Trump will likely be the one on the short end of the 2020 enthusiasm gap.


fivethirthyeight--2020-07-16--MLB’s Newest Ballpark Is A Shift Away From Retro-Era Stadiums

The opening of Camden Yards in 1992 ushered in a retro era of MLB ballparks .
The downtown Baltimore stadium was a game-changer in design , aesthetics and location .
It sparked the greatest boom period in stadium construction since the openings of Shibe Park in Philadelphia , Sportsman ’ s Park in St. Louis and Forbes Field in Pittsburgh marked the beginning of the concrete-and-steel stadium age more than 80 years earlier .
But the retro era may be over .
The architects of the Texas Rangers ’ new home say its structure is a step forward in ballpark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say , is something new .
When the Rangers begin play at their new home next week , it will mark the 23rd stadium opened since Camden Yards was christened in 1992 , including two that have already been replaced — Turner Field in Atlanta and the Rangers ’ previous home , Globe Life Park .
But the Rangers believe this facility is distinct from the others in this time frame .
While its exterior has been likened to that of a Costco , its interior is what will matter .
When fans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find many seats closer to the field than they are in retro parks — and certainly closer than they were in the Rangers ’ previous home .
Fans will also find the park serving a relatively new function : as the anchor of a suburban , mixed-use development plan .
To illustrate perhaps the most important design advancement of Globe Life Field , Fred Ortiz of the firm HKS , the stadium ’ s principal architect , shared with FiveThirtyEight two images that served as inspiration .
The first was a black-and-white photograph @ @ @ @ @ @ @ third-base side of the long-demolished Griffith Stadium in Washington , D.C. Ortiz noted how intimate the park was , how close fans were to the playing surface , even those in the cheap seats .
The drawback ?
The steel columns that supported the upper-deck overhang and coverings obstructed views of the action .
Ortiz then showed the next image , which was the same photo from the same vantage point , with the same fans wearing the same straw hats .
It was identical , save for one difference : The supporting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the photo .
“ What if we could eliminate those and bring fans closer to the field , ” Ortiz asked , “ to change the dynamic of the cross section of a typical ballpark ?
” Ortiz and his team did just that .
The first row of the upper deck at Globe Life Field is nearly 30 feet closer to the playing surface than the Rangers ’ previous , retro-era home , according to an overlay of their profiles .
The last row is nearly 33 feet closer and just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The first suite level is 39 feet , 7 inches closer , and the closest seating behind home plate is 10 feet closer , just 42 feet from home plate .
The distance is the closest to home plate in all of the major leagues , according to Clem ’ s Baseball stadium database .
Retro ballparks like the Rangers ’ previous home were widely hailed as improvements — both in aesthetics and fan friendliness — over multi-purpose stadiums , many of which were built in the 1960s and 1970s .
Retro parks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an early 20th-century , baseball-only ballpark , with features like asymmetrical dimensions that mimicked the designs of older parks that had been constrained by building within city blocks .
And like those first concrete-and-steel parks that inspired them — only with modern amenities and wider seats — they were often woven into the urban fabric within a city center .
Still , retro parks are not without their flaws .
In order to eliminate obstructed seating and add layers of revenue-generating suites and club levels , many seats in modern stadiums have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ playing surface .
According to a collection of stadium profiles at Clem ’ s Baseball , most fans were never more than 60 feet above the playing surface at the old Tiger Stadium in Detroit .
That elevation was similar to other “ jewel box ” parks of the early 20th century .
But at Comerica Park , Detroit ’ s retro park , the first row of the upper deck is more than 60 feet above the playing surface .
The top rows of the upper decks at Progressive Field , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Globe Life Park are all higher than 120 feet .
Retro parks also pushed fans away from the action .
That can be measured by “ shade ” percentage , or the amount of second deck overhang above the first level of grandstand .
For example , 55 percent of Wrigley Field ’ s lower deck is covered by overhang — the greatest mark in baseball , according to Clem ’ s database .
That means the upper tiers of Wrigley are closer to the playing surface than those of parks that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have an average lower-deck shade of 26 percent .
Ortiz and HKS cantilevered the decks at Globe Life Field to produce more overhang than in the retro parks but without the obstructive steel pillars of the jewel box parks .
This required some clever engineering : The further out the decks hang without beams to hold them up , the more backside support they need .
They also split the decks into what Ortiz called multiple “ trays ” of seating and reduced the rows in each deck .
There are only 22 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Life Field , before the first break in decks — the fewest in MLB .
On average , there are 36.5 rows of first-level seating in the parks that opened from 1992 to 2017 , according to Clem ’ s Baseball stadium database .
While touring the then steel-and-concrete skeleton of the facility last year , Rangers manager Chris Woodward told a team official that it didn ’ t feel like a stadium , rather , “ an arena.
” Ortiz said so many rows in retro-parks have resulted in a lower rise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upper decks and drawing fans away from the action .
In addition to bucking a trend of how they built their current park , the Rangers had already bucked a trend of the retro-era stadiums with where they built their previous park .
They ’ re sticking to that now — with a new twist .
The 22 ballparks that opened between 1992 and 2017 averaged a distance of 3.17 miles from their respective city halls .
The park in Arlington , Texas , was the only site more than 10 miles from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Goldberger noted in his book “ Ballpark : Baseball in the American City ” that the movement toward downtown stadiums began with a minor league park , Pilot Field , that opened in Buffalo , New York , in 1988 .
“ [ It ] sat comfortably within the downtown grid of streets like the ballparks of an earlier era … widely respected as the first postwar example of a baseball park successfully integrated into the urban fabric of an older city.
” Pilot Field created a new model that was followed on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Larry Lucchino , then an Orioles executive , pushed for the retro model over the example of the Chicago White Sox ’ s Guaranteed Rate Field , which opened in 1991 and was viewed immediately as a design failure — a “ suburban stadium placed inside the city , ” as Goldberger described it .
“ A native of Pittsburgh , ” Goldberger wrote , Lucchino “ had seen the lyrical Forbes Field replaced by the multi-use monolith of Three Rivers Stadium , a downgrade that he felt had forever shaped his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advocates of the Camden Yards design — Lucchino , architect Janet Marie Smith and Eli Jacobs , who bought the team in 1989 — “ all loved old-fashioned , dense , walkable cities and the traditional baseball parks that were often a part of them.
” Though there were rumors that the Rangers would move to Dallas — both before the original ballpark in Arlington opened in 1994 and again before this latest park — the team has stayed put in its suburban home , 16.8 miles from the Dallas City Hall .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ Truist Park , just renamed from SunTrust Park — is also in the suburbs , 10.8 miles from the Atlanta City Hall .
They are both largely car dependent , located near interstate arteries .
And both of these stadiums — MLB ’ s two newest — offer a new model : ballparks built as anchors in suburban development plans .
The new parks in Arlington and Atlanta are surrounded by hotels , restaurants and retail that the teams have a stake in .
It ’ s a new lucrative revenue stream @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Braves ’ revenue from development , which includes the mixed-used development around the team ’ s ballpark , was about $ 38 million last year , according to financial filings from the Braves ’ parent company , Liberty Media .
Goldberger wrote of the mixed-use construction projects : “ The commitment to a vibrant and open urbanism that is aspired to ( in retro-era parks ) is threatened by the very latest development in ballparks , the movement away from connecting to the real city in favor of envisioning the ballpark as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theme park.
” This phenomenon isn ’ t just for new stadiums : The owners of the Chicago Cubs recently added similar mixed-use space near Wrigley Field , the second-oldest park in the majors .
“ Sports-anchored mixed use is a tremendous opportunity for the team and the community beyond the game , ” said Byron Chambers , design director of Populous .
The firm , formerly known as HOK Sport Venue Event , designed Truist Park along with many retro stadiums , including Citi Field and the new Yankee Stadium .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see more and more ownership groups look at the ballpark as more than just 81 home dates , and look at the development around that and how [ the ballpark ] can be integral to creating a destination .
I think that ’ s very important from a financial model standpoint.
” The behavior of fans has also changed .
“ We are starting to blur the lines between social experiences , the kind of things you might do on a Friday night that don ’ t involve a sporting event and actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Chambers said .
“ That may mean I ’ m not even in a seat .
It could be a bar-like environment or a party deck .
The idea of watching a game in a stagnant seat still applies to certain people , but baseball is starting to embrace the social nature of the game , the way play stops and starts so frequently.
” It ’ s unclear how COVID-19 might affect behavior in the short term when fans are allowed back in ballparks .
But baseball ’ s static nature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free-flowing action of the NBA or English Premier League — lends itself to people more often getting up and out of their seats and moving around the ballpark .
Globe Life Field has less capacity ( 40,300 ) than the Rangers ’ previous home ( 48,114 ) — another trend in stadium design — in part to allow for its architects to create more common spaces for fans to socialize in .
There are other advancements in Arlington , too .
One of the primary complaints about the former Rangers ’ ballpark was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fans from the summer heat of Texas .
Former part owner and President George W. Bush and former team president Tom Schieffer wanted no roof .
“ [ They ] felt very strongly that baseball is an outdoor sport , and it ’ s meant to be played outside , ” according to David M. Schwarz , who designed that ballpark .
Matwick said this Rangers ownership group wanted a roof but for it to be less visually “ heavy ” than the other retractable roof stadiums .
To reduce the height of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a single-panel roof , a first in MLB stadium history .
It also featured another MLB first : The center section of the roof is translucent , allowing natural light to filter in .
The newest park in baseball will offer a number of firsts .
It will pull fans closer to the action .
But it will also keep them further from nearby city centers , again departing from a key tenet of the retro era .
For better or worse , this might be the beginning of a new era , @ @ @ @ @ @ @

The opening of Camden Yards in 1992 ushered in a retro era of MLB ballparks. The downtown Baltimore stadium was a game-changer in design, aesthetics and location. It sparked the greatest boom period in stadium construction since the openings of Shibe Park in Philadelphia, Sportsman’s Park in St. Louis and Forbes Field in Pittsburgh marked the beginning of the concrete-and-steel stadium age more than 80 years earlier.
But the retro era may be over. The architects of the Texas Rangers’ new home say its structure is a step forward in ballpark design. Globe Life Field, they say, is something new.
When the Rangers begin play at their new home next week, it will mark the 23rd stadium opened since Camden Yards was christened in 1992, including two that have already been replaced — Turner Field in Atlanta and the Rangers’ previous home, Globe Life Park. But the Rangers believe this facility is distinct from the others in this time frame. While its exterior has been likened to that of a Costco, its interior is what will matter. When fans are permitted to enter, they will find many seats closer to the field than they are in retro parks — and certainly closer than they were in the Rangers’ previous home. Fans will also find the park serving a relatively new function: as the anchor of a suburban, mixed-use development plan.
To illustrate perhaps the most important design advancement of Globe Life Field, Fred Ortiz of the firm HKS, the stadium’s principal architect, shared with FiveThirtyEight two images that served as inspiration. The first was a black-and-white photograph taken from the upper deck on the third-base side of the long-demolished Griffith Stadium in Washington, D.C. Ortiz noted how intimate the park was, how close fans were to the playing surface, even those in the cheap seats. The drawback? The steel columns that supported the upper-deck overhang and coverings obstructed views of the action. Ortiz then showed the next image, which was the same photo from the same vantage point, with the same fans wearing the same straw hats. It was identical, save for one difference: The supporting columns and beams had been edited out of the photo.
[Related: The Dodgers’ Legacy May Depend On This Short Season]
“What if we could eliminate those and bring fans closer to the field,” Ortiz asked, “to change the dynamic of the cross section of a typical ballpark?”
Ortiz and his team did just that. The first row of the upper deck at Globe Life Field is nearly 30 feet closer to the playing surface than the Rangers’ previous, retro-era home, according to an overlay of their profiles. The last row is nearly 33 feet closer and just a few feet higher in elevation. The first suite level is 39 feet, 7 inches closer, and the closest seating behind home plate is 10 feet closer, just 42 feet from home plate. The distance is the closest to home plate in all of the major leagues, according to Clem’s Baseball stadium database.
Retro ballparks like the Rangers’ previous home were widely hailed as improvements — both in aesthetics and fan friendliness — over multi-purpose stadiums, many of which were built in the 1960s and 1970s. Retro parks were designed to have the charm of an early 20th-century, baseball-only ballpark, with features like asymmetrical dimensions that mimicked the designs of older parks that had been constrained by building within city blocks. And like those first concrete-and-steel parks that inspired them — only with modern amenities and wider seats — they were often woven into the urban fabric within a city center.
Still, retro parks are not without their flaws.
In order to eliminate obstructed seating and add layers of revenue-generating suites and club levels, many seats in modern stadiums have been pushed further up and away from the playing surface.
According to a collection of stadium profiles at Clem’s Baseball, most fans were never more than 60 feet above the playing surface at the old Tiger Stadium in Detroit. That elevation was similar to other “jewel box” parks of the early 20th century. But at Comerica Park, Detroit’s retro park, the first row of the upper deck is more than 60 feet above the playing surface. The top rows of the upper decks at Progressive Field, the new Yankee Stadium, Minute Maid Park and Globe Life Park are all higher than 120 feet.
[Related: Bernie Williams Deserves More Credit For Making The Yankees A Dynasty]
Retro parks also pushed fans away from the action. That can be measured by “shade” percentage, or the amount of second deck overhang above the first level of grandstand. For example, 55 percent of Wrigley Field’s lower deck is covered by overhang — the greatest mark in baseball, according to Clem’s database. That means the upper tiers of Wrigley are closer to the playing surface than those of parks that opened from 1992 to 2017, which have an average lower-deck shade of 26 percent.
Ortiz and HKS cantilevered the decks at Globe Life Field to produce more overhang than in the retro parks but without the obstructive steel pillars of the jewel box parks. This required some clever engineering: The further out the decks hang without beams to hold them up, the more backside support they need. They also split the decks into what Ortiz called multiple “trays” of seating and reduced the rows in each deck. There are only 22 rows in the field-level grandstand at Globe Life Field, before the first break in decks — the fewest in MLB. On average, there are 36.5 rows of first-level seating in the parks that opened from 1992 to 2017, according to Clem’s Baseball stadium database.
While touring the then steel-and-concrete skeleton of the facility last year, Rangers manager Chris Woodward told a team official that it didn’t feel like a stadium, rather, “an arena.” Ortiz said so many rows in retro-parks have resulted in a lower rise, pushing back the main concourse and upper decks and drawing fans away from the action.
In addition to bucking a trend of how they built their current park, the Rangers had already bucked a trend of the retro-era stadiums with where they built their previous park. They’re sticking to that now — with a new twist.
The 22 ballparks that opened between 1992 and 2017 averaged a distance of 3.17 miles from their respective city halls. The park in Arlington, Texas, was the only site more than 10 miles from its corresponding metropolitan city hall. Paul Goldberger noted in his book “Ballpark: Baseball in the American City” that the movement toward downtown stadiums began with a minor league park, Pilot Field, that opened in Buffalo, New York, in 1988. “[It] sat comfortably within the downtown grid of streets like the ballparks of an earlier era … widely respected as the first postwar example of a baseball park successfully integrated into the urban fabric of an older city.”
Pilot Field created a new model that was followed on a greater scale by the Baltimore Orioles. Larry Lucchino, then an Orioles executive, pushed for the retro model over the example of the Chicago White Sox’s Guaranteed Rate Field, which opened in 1991 and was viewed immediately as a design failure — a “suburban stadium placed inside the city,” as Goldberger described it.
“A native of Pittsburgh,” Goldberger wrote, Lucchino “had seen the lyrical Forbes Field replaced by the multi-use monolith of Three Rivers Stadium, a downgrade that he felt had forever shaped his view of baseball parks.” The chief advocates of the Camden Yards design — Lucchino, architect Janet Marie Smith and Eli Jacobs, who bought the team in 1989 — “all loved old-fashioned, dense, walkable cities and the traditional baseball parks that were often a part of them.”
Though there were rumors that the Rangers would move to Dallas — both before the original ballpark in Arlington opened in 1994 and again before this latest park — the team has stayed put in its suburban home, 16.8 miles from the Dallas City Hall. The other latest ballpark — the Braves’ Truist Park, just renamed from SunTrust Park — is also in the suburbs, 10.8 miles from the Atlanta City Hall. They are both largely car dependent, located near interstate arteries. And both of these stadiums — MLB’s two newest — offer a new model: ballparks built as anchors in suburban development plans.
The new parks in Arlington and Atlanta are surrounded by hotels, restaurants and retail that the teams have a stake in. It’s a new lucrative revenue stream for the owners of MLB teams. The Braves’ revenue from development, which includes the mixed-used development around the team’s ballpark, was about $38 million last year, according to financial filings from the Braves’ parent company, Liberty Media.
Goldberger wrote of the mixed-use construction projects: “The commitment to a vibrant and open urbanism that is aspired to (in retro-era parks) is threatened by the very latest development in ballparks, the movement away from connecting to the real city in favor of envisioning the ballpark as more like the centerpiece of a developer-built theme park.”
This phenomenon isn’t just for new stadiums: The owners of the Chicago Cubs recently added similar mixed-use space near Wrigley Field, the second-oldest park in the majors.
“Sports-anchored mixed use is a tremendous opportunity for the team and the community beyond the game,” said Byron Chambers, design director of Populous. The firm, formerly known as HOK Sport Venue Event, designed Truist Park along with many retro stadiums, including Citi Field and the new Yankee Stadium. “I think you’re going to see more and more ownership groups look at the ballpark as more than just 81 home dates, and look at the development around that and how [the ballpark] can be integral to creating a destination. I think that’s very important from a financial model standpoint.”
The behavior of fans has also changed.
“We are starting to blur the lines between social experiences, the kind of things you might do on a Friday night that don’t involve a sporting event and actually melding them with a sporting event,” Chambers said. “That may mean I’m not even in a seat. It could be a bar-like environment or a party deck. The idea of watching a game in a stagnant seat still applies to certain people, but baseball is starting to embrace the social nature of the game, the way play stops and starts so frequently.”
[Related: For Aspiring Performers, The NBA Is The Best Place To Be A Mascot]
It’s unclear how COVID-19 might affect behavior in the short term when fans are allowed back in ballparks. But baseball’s static nature — compared with, say, the free-flowing action of the NBA or English Premier League — lends itself to people more often getting up and out of their seats and moving around the ballpark. Globe Life Field has less capacity (40,300) than the Rangers’ previous home (48,114) — another trend in stadium design — in part to allow for its architects to create more common spaces for fans to socialize in.
There are other advancements in Arlington, too. One of the primary complaints about the former Rangers’ ballpark was that there was no roof to shield fans from the summer heat of Texas. Former part owner and President George W. Bush and former team president Tom Schieffer wanted no roof. “[They] felt very strongly that baseball is an outdoor sport, and it’s meant to be played outside,” according to David M. Schwarz, who designed that ballpark. Matwick said this Rangers ownership group wanted a roof but for it to be less visually “heavy” than the other retractable roof stadiums. To reduce the height of the roof, Ortiz and HKS created a single-panel roof, a first in MLB stadium history. It also featured another MLB first: The center section of the roof is translucent, allowing natural light to filter in.
The newest park in baseball will offer a number of firsts. It will pull fans closer to the action. But it will also keep them further from nearby city centers, again departing from a key tenet of the retro era. For better or worse, this might be the beginning of a new era, a new standard, of ballparks.
Subscribe to our sports podcast, Hot Takedown


fivethirthyeight--2020-07-16--Why It Took So Long For Politicians To Treat The Child Care Crisis As A Crisis

America is a little matryoshka doll of panic right now ; pop open each layer to reveal a new , worrying scenario .
For months the country was focused on reopening the economy , which had its own complicated set of problems .
But only recently has a broader swath of America tuned into the mess nestled inside it , one that parents have been sitting with for months : what to do with the kids .
There has been no federal plan to help American parents with child care , and they continue to wonder whether schools will really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year .
That lack of action is in direct contrast to other crises that have struck America recently .
After the financial crash of 2008 , there was a bailout and a stimulus plan .
After the protests against police over the last few months , officials in cities and states responded with promises of better actions in the future but also , immediate policy implementation : New York state repealed a law that had shielded police personnel files , while the Minneapolis City Council voted to begin a process that could eventually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police as it ’ s now known .
[ Related : Where The Latest COVID-19 Models Think We ’ re Headed — And Why They Disagree ] But on child care and school , a specific , urgent response has been missing , or at least one that acknowledges our new reality .
President Trump threatened to withhold federal funding for education if schools didn ’ t open back up , counter to schools ’ insistence they need more money to provide a safe education amid the pandemic .
While the CARES Act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into law in late March , gave extra stimulus funding to families with children , schools and child care businesses so they could remain afloat , a Democratic-backed bill to give a $ 50 billion bailout of the child care industry has gotten little attention .
Teachers around the country have voiced doubt that necessary safety measures for in-school teaching will be sufficient , and Los Angeles Unified School District , one of the country ’ s largest school systems , has decided not to reopen classrooms when schools go back in session @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distance learning is safer , socially different children and those without stable internet connections or computers — who are already at the margins in normal times — will fall irrevocably behind .
There is no cohesive solution to America ’ s child care problem .
But the relative inattention to this crisis , one that ’ s so foundational to a functioning society , the economy and family units across the country , is revealing .
It shows that for all the changes that have happened in American life — more female elected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workforce that is around 47 percent female — our power dynamics remain fundamentally skewed .
We are failing to collectively understand what our most critical and pressing problems actually are .
“ Care in general has always been seen as a sideline issue , ” Vicki Shabo of the left-leaning think tank New America said .
“ A nice-to-have and not something that ’ s necessary , and not something that ’ s central for adults to be productive in the economy.
” Of course , now we ’ re seeing how much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a country where most men and women work even when they have children , having child care is inextricably linked to economic productivity — and not having it often hurts women most .
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data from 2015 found that in households with children under 6 , women spent an hour a day doing child care , compared to the 25 minutes of care provided by men .
It ’ s easy to extrapolate this trend for pandemic times : American women will bear the brunt of the school and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : COVID-19 deaths are rising .
What will the U.S. do ?
Yet , child care in particular hasn ’ t often found itself at the forefront of political debate .
Experts and activists I talked to for this story all used the same framing to talk about why : an American narrative that child care problems are individuals ’ problems , not society ’ s .
“ If you think about child care traditionally before the pandemic , you probably didn ’ t think about it too much before you had kids @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of income security and child care at the National Women ’ s Law Center , said .
“ Then you have kids , you ’ re in the most stressful and resource-strapped part of your life : You ’ re operating on three hours of sleep a night , you ’ re financially squeezed , because at the very time you ’ re taking off of work , you have diapers and wipes and formula and whatever else .
You ’ re in this total daze of early motherhood .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ‘ You know what , I ’ m going to call my member of Congress.
’ You ’ re feeling it like a personal issue.
” Child care isn ’ t necessarily seen as a macroeconomic issue or a driver of labor force participation or GDP , Shabo said .
And because of that , she said , it often takes a backseat to economic issues like wages when lobbying efforts happen .
This is not to say that child care issues don ’ t get attention — in the 2020 Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates , child care plans took a more front and center role in the campaign than they had in the past .
One leading candidate , Sen. Elizabeth Warren , co-authored a 2004 book , “ The Two-Income Trap , ” which was about the ways the rising incomes of households with two full-time employed adults belied the heavy costs of essentials like child care .
Warren thought child care costs were among the reasons the American middle class was in an economic crisis .
[ Related : How Americans View The Coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Our workplaces were built for white men , ” said Danielle Atkinson , the founder and director of Mothering Justice , a Detroit-area advocacy group for working families .
The fact that parents are left to fend for themselves from birth to kindergarten and then during the after-school , pre-dinner hours , is an American tradition that seems to assume a readily available , at-home caregiver .
( Atkinson pointed out the inextricable role black women have played in American child care ; enslaved women often took care of white children .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ parent ( usually a mother ) is an ideal that persists , or at the very least lingers in American life : only 18 percent of Americans in a 2018 Pew Research Survey thought it was ideal for both parents to work full time .
“ This conversation about school is really a conversation about work , ” Atkinson said .
“ The conversation about returning to school is not based on health .
It ’ s about returning those workers to working and not looking after their children , so those children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in particular are being forced to make difficult choices about their children ’ s care — many essential-worker jobs are lower wage — and many child care providers are in strapped situations .
The work of child care providers , Atkinson said , is often undervalued — their median annual wage in 2017 was a little more than $ 22,000 annually , which is just above the federal government ’ s poverty line for a family of three — and as Boteach pointed out , those workers could continue to risk greater infection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up .
She highlighted the plan put forth by Senate Democrats , the Child Care Is Essential Act — which would provide a bailout to the suffering industry and additional money for those providers to buy personal protective equipment — and cited an estimate that the U.S. child care industry would need a $ 9.6 billion injection monthly to survive the pandemic .
It ’ s more likely the next governmental nod to parents and their school-age children will come in the next iteration of the omnibus coronavirus relief package .
Congressional Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for schools and universities to purchase PPE and clean their facilities .
Republicans agree about more funds , though it ’ s not clear what their proposed number is — some have argued that since many schools will be operating on a partly virtual basis , less federal funding is needed .
The moral tussling that many parents have been doing — go back to work and risk potential COVID-19 infection at day care or school — will likely continue to be subjected to partisan politics .
Trump and his Secretary of Education @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in recent days about sending children back to school at all costs , much to the chagrin of teachers , many of whom feel ill-prepared for the safety precautions necessary for in-person pandemic teaching .
Ultimately , though , it is parents who are forced to make a choice .
Atkinson , a mother of six , told me she would be keeping her children home in the fall .
For those who focus on child care , the pandemic has perversely presented an opportunity to advance the cause of greater access to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ created greater alignment of experience , potentially , between white middle class folks who saw this as an individual issue that they were struggling with and outraged by but hadn ’ t really taken action on and the longtime , long-standing lived experience of lower wage folks and people of color who have struggled for decades with the unaffordability of child care and the lack of care options to meet their work schedules , ” Shabo said .
Atkinson said she also hoped the individualism narrative would be shattered by the current crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ veil away and help women , especially white women , know that you ’ ve been lied to .
You were sold a bunch of lies : ‘ if you just work harder , if you just slay sexism , you ’ ll be OK. ’ But really , it ’ s a tool to divide , ” she said .
The pandemic has shattered norms and paradigms ever since it arrived in the U.S. — our expectations of child care is no exception .
What some politicians and activists had long sought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working parents and their child care crisis on the center stage of American politics — the virus has done in a matter of months .

America is a little matryoshka doll of panic right now; pop open each layer to reveal a new, worrying scenario. For months the country was focused on reopening the economy, which had its own complicated set of problems. But only recently has a broader swath of America tuned into the mess nestled inside it, one that parents have been sitting with for months: what to do with the kids.
There has been no federal plan to help American parents with child care, and they continue to wonder whether schools will really open their doors come the new school year. That lack of action is in direct contrast to other crises that have struck America recently. After the financial crash of 2008, there was a bailout and a stimulus plan. After the protests against police over the last few months, officials in cities and states responded with promises of better actions in the future but also, immediate policy implementation: New York state repealed a law that had shielded police personnel files, while the Minneapolis City Council voted to begin a process that could eventually lead to the dissolution of the city police as it’s now known.
[Related: Where The Latest COVID-19 Models Think We’re Headed — And Why They Disagree]
But on child care and school, a specific, urgent response has been missing, or at least one that acknowledges our new reality. President Trump threatened to withhold federal funding for education if schools didn’t open back up, counter to schools’ insistence they need more money to provide a safe education amid the pandemic. While the CARES Act, an omnibus COVID-19 relief bill signed into law in late March, gave extra stimulus funding to families with children, schools and child care businesses so they could remain afloat, a Democratic-backed bill to give a $50 billion bailout of the child care industry has gotten little attention. Teachers around the country have voiced doubt that necessary safety measures for in-school teaching will be sufficient, and Los Angeles Unified School District, one of the country’s largest school systems, has decided not to reopen classrooms when schools go back in session in August. Some worry that while distance learning is safer, socially different children and those without stable internet connections or computers — who are already at the margins in normal times — will fall irrevocably behind.
There is no cohesive solution to America’s child care problem. But the relative inattention to this crisis, one that’s so foundational to a functioning society, the economy and family units across the country, is revealing. It shows that for all the changes that have happened in American life — more female elected officials, a MeToo movement and a workforce that is around 47 percent female — our power dynamics remain fundamentally skewed. We are failing to collectively understand what our most critical and pressing problems actually are.
“Care in general has always been seen as a sideline issue,” Vicki Shabo of the left-leaning think tank New America said. “A nice-to-have and not something that’s necessary, and not something that’s central for adults to be productive in the economy.” Of course, now we’re seeing how much of a misunderstanding that is. In a country where most men and women work even when they have children, having child care is inextricably linked to economic productivity — and not having it often hurts women most. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data from 2015 found that in households with children under 6, women spent an hour a day doing child care, compared to the 25 minutes of care provided by men. It’s easy to extrapolate this trend for pandemic times: American women will bear the brunt of the school and child care crisis.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: COVID-19 deaths are rising. What will the U.S. do?
Yet, child care in particular hasn’t often found itself at the forefront of political debate. Experts and activists I talked to for this story all used the same framing to talk about why: an American narrative that child care problems are individuals’ problems, not society’s.
“If you think about child care traditionally before the pandemic, you probably didn’t think about it too much before you had kids,” Melissa Boteach, vice president of income security and child care at the National Women’s Law Center, said. “Then you have kids, you’re in the most stressful and resource-strapped part of your life: You’re operating on three hours of sleep a night, you’re financially squeezed, because at the very time you’re taking off of work, you have diapers and wipes and formula and whatever else. You’re in this total daze of early motherhood. That’s probably not the time when you say, ‘You know what, I’m going to call my member of Congress.’ You’re feeling it like a personal issue.”
Child care isn’t necessarily seen as a macroeconomic issue or a driver of labor force participation or GDP, Shabo said. And because of that, she said, it often takes a backseat to economic issues like wages when lobbying efforts happen. This is not to say that child care issues don’t get attention — in the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries, which featured several female candidates, child care plans took a more front and center role in the campaign than they had in the past. One leading candidate, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, co-authored a 2004 book, “The Two-Income Trap,” which was about the ways the rising incomes of households with two full-time employed adults belied the heavy costs of essentials like child care. Warren thought child care costs were among the reasons the American middle class was in an economic crisis.
[Related: How Americans View The Coronavirus Crisis And Trump’s Response]
“Our workplaces were built for white men,” said Danielle Atkinson, the founder and director of Mothering Justice, a Detroit-area advocacy group for working families. The fact that parents are left to fend for themselves from birth to kindergarten and then during the after-school, pre-dinner hours, is an American tradition that seems to assume a readily available, at-home caregiver. (Atkinson pointed out the inextricable role black women have played in American child care; enslaved women often took care of white children.) The nuclear family with a stay-at-home parent (usually a mother) is an ideal that persists, or at the very least lingers in American life: only 18 percent of Americans in a 2018 Pew Research Survey thought it was ideal for both parents to work full time.
“This conversation about school is really a conversation about work,” Atkinson said. “The conversation about returning to school is not based on health. It’s about returning those workers to working and not looking after their children, so those children have to be somewhere.” Essential workers in particular are being forced to make difficult choices about their children’s care — many essential-worker jobs are lower wage — and many child care providers are in strapped situations. The work of child care providers, Atkinson said, is often undervalued — their median annual wage in 2017 was a little more than $22,000 annually, which is just above the federal government’s poverty line for a family of three — and as Boteach pointed out, those workers could continue to risk greater infection rates as schools and work open back up. She highlighted the plan put forth by Senate Democrats, the Child Care Is Essential Act — which would provide a bailout to the suffering industry and additional money for those providers to buy personal protective equipment — and cited an estimate that the U.S. child care industry would need a $9.6 billion injection monthly to survive the pandemic.
Subscribe to our coronavirus podcast, PODCAST-19
It’s more likely the next governmental nod to parents and their school-age children will come in the next iteration of the omnibus coronavirus relief package. Congressional Democrats have proposed $350 billion in funds for schools and universities to purchase PPE and clean their facilities. Republicans agree about more funds, though it’s not clear what their proposed number is — some have argued that since many schools will be operating on a partly virtual basis, less federal funding is needed.
The moral tussling that many parents have been doing — go back to work and risk potential COVID-19 infection at day care or school — will likely continue to be subjected to partisan politics. Trump and his Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos have been the loudest voices in recent days about sending children back to school at all costs, much to the chagrin of teachers, many of whom feel ill-prepared for the safety precautions necessary for in-person pandemic teaching. Ultimately, though, it is parents who are forced to make a choice. Atkinson, a mother of six, told me she would be keeping her children home in the fall.
[Related: The Latest Political Polls Collected By FiveThirtyEight]
For those who focus on child care, the pandemic has perversely presented an opportunity to advance the cause of greater access to guaranteed services. “This pandemic has created greater alignment of experience, potentially, between white middle class folks who saw this as an individual issue that they were struggling with and outraged by but hadn’t really taken action on and the longtime, long-standing lived experience of lower wage folks and people of color who have struggled for decades with the unaffordability of child care and the lack of care options to meet their work schedules,” Shabo said.
Atkinson said she also hoped the individualism narrative would be shattered by the current crisis. “We want to lift the veil away and help women, especially white women, know that you’ve been lied to. You were sold a bunch of lies: ‘if you just work harder, if you just slay sexism, you’ll be OK.’ But really, it’s a tool to divide,” she said.
The pandemic has shattered norms and paradigms ever since it arrived in the U.S. — our expectations of child care is no exception. What some politicians and activists had long sought to do to no avail — place working parents and their child care crisis on the center stage of American politics — the virus has done in a matter of months.


fivethirthyeight--2020-07-16--Roberts Is The New Swing Justice. That Doesn’t Mean He’s Becoming More Liberal.

This Supreme Court term belonged to John Roberts .
The chief justice was in the majority in nearly every case .
And he quite literally had the last word , as he wrote the opinion for the last two cases released this term , which dealt with President Trump ’ s much sought-after financial records .
The rulings were largely interpreted as a rebuke to Trump , and considering Roberts unexpectedly joined the liberals in several other cases this term , some have speculated that the conservative chief might be moving to the center .
But is Roberts actually becoming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court researchers indicates that Roberts is firmly at the center of the court .
According to this year ’ s Martin-Quinn scores , a prominent measure of the justices ’ ideology , there is an 82 percent chance that Roberts was the median justice in the term that just wrapped .
However , as the chart below shows , there is some uncertainty about where he actually falls — or how much daylight exists between Roberts ’ s ideological position this term and the positions of Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ court does not mean Roberts is becoming a liberal or even a centrist .
Yes , he joined the liberals in several high-profile cases , and according to justice pairing data analyzed by Adam Feldman for SCOTUSBlog , he aligned with Justice Elena Kagan , a liberal , more frequently than with fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas .
But many of the cases where Roberts sided with the liberals were limited in scope or temporary in effect .
Roberts also helped push forward several long-held conservative goals — including dramatically expanding the definition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote in many cases .
Roberts has long been perceived as a conservative , both ideologically and temperamentally — a justice who would prefer to gradually chip away at liberal precedents rather than dispatching them with one swift blow .
And on an increasingly conservative Supreme Court , it ’ s not hard to see how that incrementalist sentiment — combined with a fear of what would happen if the court moved too quickly out of the mainstream — might lead Roberts to some unexpected places and deliver some unwelcome losses to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t mean he ’ s changing in any fundamental way , or that he won ’ t continue to quietly steer the court in a conservative direction .
“ People seem to see Roberts moving to the center of the court and assume that he ’ s becoming more liberal , ” said Melissa Murray , a law professor at New York University .
“ I would read it a different way — that the court is moving to the right.
” The idea that Roberts is becoming more liberal didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the past few years , his ideological position on the court — as measured by the Martin-Quinn scores — has inched toward the center .
In 2005 , when he joined the court , he was basically indistinguishable ideologically from Justice Samuel Alito , who was appointed around the same time .
Now , however , Alito is probably the second most conservative justice on the court , while Roberts is the fifth most conservative .
The easiest way to interpret that trend is simply to conclude that Roberts is becoming more liberal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t be the first Republican-appointed justice to move left over time .
In perhaps the most dramatic example in modern Supreme Court history , a Nixon appointee , Justice Harry Blackmun , started off conservative but was the court ’ s most liberal member by the time he retired in 1994 .
Other factors could explain Roberts ’ s shift , though , starting with a limitation of the Martin-Quinn scores themselves .
The scores are estimates produced by a model based on how the justices vote — they are not a direct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or what ’ s motivating their votes .
The scores also can shift as the composition of the court changes , and the court is still adjusting after the previous longtime swing justice , Anthony Kennedy , retired and was replaced in 2018 by Kavanaugh , who has so far proven to be much more reliably conservative .
[ Related : The Supreme Court ’ s Big Rulings Were Surprisingly Mainstream This Year ] Think about it this way : One justice has to be in the middle of the court .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a more conservative judge , someone else had to take his place in the center .
In this case , that somebody was Roberts .
“ It could be the case that Roberts is actually drifting left , ” said Tom Clark , a political science professor at Emory University .
“ But it could also be an artifact of the statistical model trying to sort out what happens to the space when you add a new person .
At this point , we don ’ t know which one it is.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scores for past years at the end of each term .
The changes can be substantial with new justices , since the model has little data about their positions when they first join the court .
Case in point : In last year ’ s Martin-Quinn data , Kennedy was deemed to be the most likely median justice in 2017 and Kavanaugh took the role in 2018 , not Roberts .
But with the addition of 2019 data , Roberts is now estimated to have actually been the likely median in both years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now have a better understanding of how Kavanaugh tends to rule ; it also reflects the a fairly high probability that Roberts was already the median justice in the 2017 term , because Kennedy hardly swung at all in his final year on the court .
[ Related : John Roberts Will Probably Be The Supreme Court ’ s Next Swing Justice ] Meanwhile , it ’ s also possible that Roberts just appears to be moving to the left because the kinds of cases that make it to the court are shifting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measure and the Martin-Quinn scores can only account for it in a limited way .
But Clark said if the types of cases being brought before the court are changing , that could matter a lot to how liberal or conservative each justice ’ s rulings really are .
Because it could be that the Trump administration and conservative legal advocates , emboldened by the solid slate of conservatives on the court , are simply pushing Roberts to move to the right faster than he ’ s willing to go .
Take one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the justices considered a Louisiana abortion restriction that was functionally identical to a Texas law the court had struck down in 2016 .
In the previous case , Kennedy — who over the course of his career was ideologically unpredictable on a handful of high-salience issues , including the abortion , affirmative action and the death penalty — voted with the liberals against the Texas law .
This year , though , Roberts broke the tie , saying that while he still disagreed with the 2016 ruling , he felt he had to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t mean Roberts ’ s fundamental stance toward abortion changed , though .
Instead , the change in the court ’ s composition put him in a situation where institutional considerations — like not wanting to overturn a recent precedent on an extremely hot-button issue four months before a presidential election — may have trumped his own ideological preferences .
[ Related : The Supreme Court Struck Down A Louisiana Abortion Law .
Here ’ s Where The Fight Could Head Next . ]
That ’ s significant because in the vast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be basically as conservative as he ’ s ever been .
According to The Supreme Court Database , a clearinghouse for data about the court , the share of opinions where he voted in a conservative direction hasn ’ t actually changed much in the past few years — when Kennedy ’ s departure and the addition of Trump ’ s more solidly conservative appointees gave Roberts an increasingly pivotal vote — compared to his opinions between the 2005 and the 2017 terms .
( This data is not yet available for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other words , Roberts is still very conservative .
( For the record , so was Kennedy . )
But several experts told us it ’ s possible that in Kennedy ’ s absence , Roberts may be increasingly willing to rule narrowly with the liberals in certain high-stakes cases .
Part of his motivation is likely that as chief justice , he feels a responsibility to ensure that the court maintains its reputation as an even-handed institution .
This year was a perfect storm for a chief justice trying to keep the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ muck of partisan politics , too .
“ The country is deeply polarized , we ’ re heading into a presidential election , there ’ s a pandemic , an economic crisis , significant social unrest , ” said Marin Levy , a professor at Duke Law who studies chief justices .
“ This is a moment where it ’ s critical to someone like Roberts that the public maintain its faith in the court.
” And in fact , even though this term ’ s docket was full of hot-button issues , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in step with public opinion , thanks in part to Roberts ’ s willingness to join the liberals .
So if Kennedy ’ s forays to the left were motivated by a couple of issues on which his views were more liberal than the rest of the conservative bloc , like gay rights and sometimes abortion , Roberts ’ s recent swings appear to be be driven by more strategic — and even political — considerations .
“ He ’ s concerned about maintaining his own power and the power of the court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ professor of law at the University of Michigan .
It was perhaps a sign of Roberts ’ s success that some of the biggest conservative victories this term mostly flew under the radar , such as when the conservatives continued to expand the circumstances under which religious schools can qualify for public funding , building on a case from 2017 .
Litman and others said that Roberts could follow a similar blueprint for eroding something like abortion rights in the future .
Rather than overturning precedents outright , he might prefer to whittle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to pass a patchwork of restrictions , until landmark precedents on abortion eventually become functionally hollow .
Right now , of course , Roberts is still the closest thing we have to a swing justice .
But he ’ s not really a wild card — especially compared to Kennedy , who was genuinely unpredictable on a handful of issues , including abortion .
Clark said a better description for Roberts might be the “ pivotal ” justice , or the person with the power to broker compromises between left and right , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s direction .
That moniker is especially apt given that Roberts was so frequently in the majority this term .
At SCOTUSBlog , Feldman suggested calling him the “ anchor ” justice for that reason .
The fact that Roberts is chief justice gives him additional power when he votes with the majority , too : He gets to assign the opinion to a specific justice , and that can do a lot to shape the breadth and impact of the final ruling .
[ Related : The Supreme Court Put DACA ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] One thing does seem clear : Roberts is now by far the most powerful person on the Supreme Court .
And he is not willing — at least not yet — to let his fellow conservatives veer sharply to the right .
But his occasional votes with the liberals shouldn ’ t obscure the fact that he ’ s still a very conservative justice overall .
As with Kennedy , the handful of times he swings to the left may come to define his career .
And this term he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal advocates — can ’ t expect him to rubber-stamp any argument they lay at his feet .
But when he does swing , it will likely be political and institutional factors , not a shift in his ideology , that guide his vote .
And that means liberals really can ’ t rely on him to rule their way in the future .
FiveThirtyEight Politics : Conservatives didn ’ t get the SCOTUS they wanted this term

This Supreme Court term belonged to John Roberts. The chief justice was in the majority in nearly every case. And he quite literally had the last word, as he wrote the opinion for the last two cases released this term, which dealt with President Trump’s much sought-after financial records. The rulings were largely interpreted as a rebuke to Trump, and considering Roberts unexpectedly joined the liberals in several other cases this term, some have speculated that the conservative chief might be moving to the center.
But is Roberts actually becoming more liberal?
New data from Supreme Court researchers indicates that Roberts is firmly at the center of the court. According to this year’s Martin-Quinn scores, a prominent measure of the justices’ ideology, there is an 82 percent chance that Roberts was the median justice in the term that just wrapped. However, as the chart below shows, there is some uncertainty about where he actually falls — or how much daylight exists between Roberts’s ideological position this term and the positions of Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch.
But moving to the center of the court does not mean Roberts is becoming a liberal or even a centrist. Yes, he joined the liberals in several high-profile cases, and according to justice pairing data analyzed by Adam Feldman for SCOTUSBlog, he aligned with Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal, more frequently than with fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas. But many of the cases where Roberts sided with the liberals were limited in scope or temporary in effect. Roberts also helped push forward several long-held conservative goals — including dramatically expanding the definition of religious liberty — as the pivotal vote in many cases.
Roberts has long been perceived as a conservative, both ideologically and temperamentally — a justice who would prefer to gradually chip away at liberal precedents rather than dispatching them with one swift blow. And on an increasingly conservative Supreme Court, it’s not hard to see how that incrementalist sentiment — combined with a fear of what would happen if the court moved too quickly out of the mainstream — might lead Roberts to some unexpected places and deliver some unwelcome losses to the conservative legal movement. But that doesn’t mean he’s changing in any fundamental way, or that he won’t continue to quietly steer the court in a conservative direction. “People seem to see Roberts moving to the center of the court and assume that he’s becoming more liberal,” said Melissa Murray, a law professor at New York University. “I would read it a different way — that the court is moving to the right.”
The idea that Roberts is becoming more liberal didn’t come out of nowhere. Over the past few years, his ideological position on the court — as measured by the Martin-Quinn scores — has inched toward the center. In 2005, when he joined the court, he was basically indistinguishable ideologically from Justice Samuel Alito, who was appointed around the same time. Now, however, Alito is probably the second most conservative justice on the court, while Roberts is the fifth most conservative.
The easiest way to interpret that trend is simply to conclude that Roberts is becoming more liberal. After all, he wouldn’t be the first Republican-appointed justice to move left over time. In perhaps the most dramatic example in modern Supreme Court history, a Nixon appointee, Justice Harry Blackmun, started off conservative but was the court’s most liberal member by the time he retired in 1994.
Other factors could explain Roberts’s shift, though, starting with a limitation of the Martin-Quinn scores themselves. The scores are estimates produced by a model based on how the justices vote — they are not a direct window into what the justices actually believe or what’s motivating their votes. The scores also can shift as the composition of the court changes, and the court is still adjusting after the previous longtime swing justice, Anthony Kennedy, retired and was replaced in 2018 by Kavanaugh, who has so far proven to be much more reliably conservative.
[Related: The Supreme Court’s Big Rulings Were Surprisingly Mainstream This Year]
Think about it this way: One justice has to be in the middle of the court. So when Kennedy retired and was replaced by a more conservative judge, someone else had to take his place in the center. In this case, that somebody was Roberts. “It could be the case that Roberts is actually drifting left,” said Tom Clark, a political science professor at Emory University. “But it could also be an artifact of the statistical model trying to sort out what happens to the space when you add a new person. At this point, we don’t know which one it is.”
The model also retroactively updates justices’ scores for past years at the end of each term. The changes can be substantial with new justices, since the model has little data about their positions when they first join the court. Case in point: In last year’s Martin-Quinn data, Kennedy was deemed to be the most likely median justice in 2017 and Kavanaugh took the role in 2018, not Roberts. But with the addition of 2019 data, Roberts is now estimated to have actually been the likely median in both years. That’s partly because we now have a better understanding of how Kavanaugh tends to rule; it also reflects the a fairly high probability that Roberts was already the median justice in the 2017 term, because Kennedy hardly swung at all in his final year on the court.
[Related: John Roberts Will Probably Be The Supreme Court’s Next Swing Justice]
Meanwhile, it’s also possible that Roberts just appears to be moving to the left because the kinds of cases that make it to the court are shifting. This effect is especially difficult to measure and the Martin-Quinn scores can only account for it in a limited way. But Clark said if the types of cases being brought before the court are changing, that could matter a lot to how liberal or conservative each justice’s rulings really are. Because it could be that the Trump administration and conservative legal advocates, emboldened by the solid slate of conservatives on the court, are simply pushing Roberts to move to the right faster than he’s willing to go.
Take one high-profile case from this term, where the justices considered a Louisiana abortion restriction that was functionally identical to a Texas law the court had struck down in 2016. In the previous case, Kennedy — who over the course of his career was ideologically unpredictable on a handful of high-salience issues, including the abortion, affirmative action and the death penalty — voted with the liberals against the Texas law. This year, though, Roberts broke the tie, saying that while he still disagreed with the 2016 ruling, he felt he had to adhere to the precedent. That doesn’t mean Roberts’s fundamental stance toward abortion changed, though. Instead, the change in the court’s composition put him in a situation where institutional considerations — like not wanting to overturn a recent precedent on an extremely hot-button issue four months before a presidential election — may have trumped his own ideological preferences.
[Related: The Supreme Court Struck Down A Louisiana Abortion Law. Here’s Where The Fight Could Head Next.]
That’s significant because in the vast majority of cases, Roberts appears to be basically as conservative as he’s ever been. According to The Supreme Court Database, a clearinghouse for data about the court, the share of opinions where he voted in a conservative direction hasn’t actually changed much in the past few years — when Kennedy’s departure and the addition of Trump’s more solidly conservative appointees gave Roberts an increasingly pivotal vote — compared to his opinions between the 2005 and the 2017 terms. (This data is not yet available for the term that just ended.)
Roberts hasn’t really become more liberal Share of Roberts’s votes that were coded as conservative, before and after the 2016 Supreme Court term Pre-Trump Post-Trump Cases Votes Conservative Rulings Votes Conservative Rulings Diff. Close 198 81.8% 38 78.9% -2.9 All 914 58.2 137 55.5 -2.7 “Pre-Trump” includes case data for the 2005-2016 terms, while “post-Trump” covers the 2017 and 2018 terms. The 2016 term is counted as pre-Trump because it started before Trump was elected, but it ended in 2017. “Close cases” are defined as those in which the majority was four or five and the minority was three or four. Source: The Supreme Court Database
In other words, Roberts is still very conservative. (For the record, so was Kennedy.) But several experts told us it’s possible that in Kennedy’s absence, Roberts may be increasingly willing to rule narrowly with the liberals in certain high-stakes cases. Part of his motivation is likely that as chief justice, he feels a responsibility to ensure that the court maintains its reputation as an even-handed institution.
This year was a perfect storm for a chief justice trying to keep the Supreme Court from being dragged into the muck of partisan politics, too. “The country is deeply polarized, we’re heading into a presidential election, there’s a pandemic, an economic crisis, significant social unrest,” said Marin Levy, a professor at Duke Law who studies chief justices. “This is a moment where it’s critical to someone like Roberts that the public maintain its faith in the court.” And in fact, even though this term’s docket was full of hot-button issues, the court’s rulings were largely in step with public opinion, thanks in part to Roberts’s willingness to join the liberals.
[Related: Justice Kennedy Wasn’t A Moderate]
So if Kennedy’s forays to the left were motivated by a couple of issues on which his views were more liberal than the rest of the conservative bloc, like gay rights and sometimes abortion, Roberts’s recent swings appear to be be driven by more strategic — and even political — considerations. “He’s concerned about maintaining his own power and the power of the court,” said Leah Litman, a professor of law at the University of Michigan. It was perhaps a sign of Roberts’s success that some of the biggest conservative victories this term mostly flew under the radar, such as when the conservatives continued to expand the circumstances under which religious schools can qualify for public funding, building on a case from 2017. Litman and others said that Roberts could follow a similar blueprint for eroding something like abortion rights in the future. Rather than overturning precedents outright, he might prefer to whittle away at abortion access by allowing states to pass a patchwork of restrictions, until landmark precedents on abortion eventually become functionally hollow.
Right now, of course, Roberts is still the closest thing we have to a swing justice. But he’s not really a wild card — especially compared to Kennedy, who was genuinely unpredictable on a handful of issues, including abortion. Clark said a better description for Roberts might be the “pivotal” justice, or the person with the power to broker compromises between left and right, allowing him to determine the court’s direction. That moniker is especially apt given that Roberts was so frequently in the majority this term. At SCOTUSBlog, Feldman suggested calling him the “anchor” justice for that reason. The fact that Roberts is chief justice gives him additional power when he votes with the majority, too: He gets to assign the opinion to a specific justice, and that can do a lot to shape the breadth and impact of the final ruling.
[Related: The Supreme Court Put DACA’s Fate In The Hands Of Voters]
One thing does seem clear: Roberts is now by far the most powerful person on the Supreme Court. And he is not willing — at least not yet — to let his fellow conservatives veer sharply to the right. But his occasional votes with the liberals shouldn’t obscure the fact that he’s still a very conservative justice overall. As with Kennedy, the handful of times he swings to the left may come to define his career. And this term he’s certainly proved that Trump — and conservative legal advocates — can’t expect him to rubber-stamp any argument they lay at his feet. But when he does swing, it will likely be political and institutional factors, not a shift in his ideology, that guide his vote. And that means liberals really can’t rely on him to rule their way in the future.
FiveThirtyEight Politics: Conservatives didn’t get the SCOTUS they wanted this term


fivethirthyeight--2020-07-15--Leicester City Seemed Like A Sure Thing For The Champions League. Not Anymore.

Leicester City looked destined for Champions League qualification for much of the Premier League season .
Leading up to the intense stretch of matches held around Christmas , only Liverpool was outperforming the Foxes on the league table .
Leicester won 12 of its first 16 matches and even had a better goal differential than the pace-setting Reds over that same stretch .
Through matchweek 16 , the Foxes were a shocking 6 points ahead of third-place Manchester City and just 8 points behind Liverpool at the top .
FiveThirtyEight ’ s club soccer prediction model didn ’ t love @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another miraculous title run — it gave the Foxes just a 3 percent chance of winning it all as of Dec. 11 , 2019 — but the model loved Leicester ’ s chances of qualifying for the Champions League .
Even after Leicester ’ s back-to-back holiday defeats to Man City and Liverpool , the model continued to favor the squad above Chelsea , Tottenham , Manchester United and Wolves for Champions League qualification .
From Dec. 4 through July 1 , Leicester ’ s chances to qualify for the continent ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , peaking at 97 percent on Feb. 19 , just days after UEFA banned Manchester City from participating in the 2020-21 and 2021-22 editions of the Champions League for breaching its Financial Fair Play ( FFP ) rules .
With the ban in place , third-place Leicester became England ’ s second-best team in the eyes of UEFA .
If the Foxes looked like a safe bet for Champions League qualification before City ’ s ban , they looked a sure thing in its aftermath .
But since the 4-0 home thrashing it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Liverpool , Leicester has struggled .
Before that loss , the Foxes had collected 39 points from 18 matches ; they ’ ve tallied just 20 points from their subsequent 16 .
Only seven teams — each of which sits on the bottom half of the table , and five of which are battling against relegation — have fewer points than Leicester since matchweek 19 .
To a certain degree , Leicester has been the architect of its own demise .
It has dropped points against Bournemouth , Brighton and Watford in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with three games remaining , and Norwich City , which is already destined for Championship play next season .
Even when Leicester was winning early on in the season , it was doing so more than it should have because it was far outperforming its expected goals ( xG ) stats : From matchweek 1 through matchweek 18 , Leicester City averaged 2.28 goals per 90 minutes despite averaging just 1.92 xG .
This overperformance made folks wonder if Leicester ’ s excellent form was sustainable .
When the goals stopped flying in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ xG since Boxing Day , averaging just 1.41 goals per 90 minutes despite an xG of 1.65 — and when Leicester ’ s defense transformed from the league ’ s stingiest to perfectly average , it became apparent that Leicester ’ s excellent form wasn ’ t just unsustainable , it might just have been a mirage .
Leicester ’ s woes were compounded this week when Man City won its appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport ( CAS ) , which reversed the UEFA ban .
If the ban had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next season ’ s edition of the Champions League would have fallen to the Premier League ’ s fifth-place team .
Leicester ’ s form hasn ’ t been particularly good for six months now , but its odds to qualify for the Champions League remained high as of July 8 because it still looked as though fifth place would be good enough .
But the CAS reversal means fifth place won ’ t cut it this year , and Leicester ’ s odds , along with its form , remain in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Foxes sit in fourth place , owning a goal differential edge over Manchester United , with whom they ’ re tied in points .
But the FiveThirtyEight model gives the Foxes just a 47 percent chance to qualify for the Champions League .
Leicester was a sure thing a week ago ; today , Leicester is no more a sure thing than the results of a coin toss .
It remains to be seen whether manager Brendan Rodgers can right the ship and get Leicester over the line .
Having a hot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Having games against Tottenham , Sheffield United and Manchester United — three clubs with European aspirations of their own — helps a little less .
But Leicester has proved that it ’ s capable of defying expectations before .
The last time it did so , it won the Premier League .
If it doesn ’ t do so this time around , there won ’ t be a parade through the streets of Leicester — only a long , empty trail of what-ifs .

Leicester City looked destined for Champions League qualification for much of the Premier League season. Leading up to the intense stretch of matches held around Christmas, only Liverpool was outperforming the Foxes on the league table. Leicester won 12 of its first 16 matches and even had a better goal differential than the pace-setting Reds over that same stretch. Through matchweek 16, the Foxes were a shocking 6 points ahead of third-place Manchester City and just 8 points behind Liverpool at the top.
FiveThirtyEight’s club soccer prediction model didn’t love Leicester’s chances of pulling off another miraculous title run — it gave the Foxes just a 3 percent chance of winning it all as of Dec. 11, 2019 — but the model loved Leicester’s chances of qualifying for the Champions League. Even after Leicester’s back-to-back holiday defeats to Man City and Liverpool, the model continued to favor the squad above Chelsea, Tottenham, Manchester United and Wolves for Champions League qualification.
From Dec. 4 through July 1, Leicester’s chances to qualify for the continent’s top competition never fell below 84 percent, peaking at 97 percent on Feb. 19, just days after UEFA banned Manchester City from participating in the 2020-21 and 2021-22 editions of the Champions League for breaching its Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules. With the ban in place, third-place Leicester became England’s second-best team in the eyes of UEFA. If the Foxes looked like a safe bet for Champions League qualification before City’s ban, they looked a sure thing in its aftermath.
But since the 4-0 home thrashing it suffered on Boxing Day at the hands of Liverpool, Leicester has struggled. Before that loss, the Foxes had collected 39 points from 18 matches; they’ve tallied just 20 points from their subsequent 16. Only seven teams — each of which sits on the bottom half of the table, and five of which are battling against relegation — have fewer points than Leicester since matchweek 19.
To a certain degree, Leicester has been the architect of its own demise. It has dropped points against Bournemouth, Brighton and Watford in 2020, three teams still fighting relegation with three games remaining, and Norwich City, which is already destined for Championship play next season.
Even when Leicester was winning early on in the season, it was doing so more than it should have because it was far outperforming its expected goals (xG) stats: From matchweek 1 through matchweek 18, Leicester City averaged 2.28 goals per 90 minutes despite averaging just 1.92 xG. This overperformance made folks wonder if Leicester’s excellent form was sustainable. When the goals stopped flying in above expectation — Leicester has underperformed its xG since Boxing Day, averaging just 1.41 goals per 90 minutes despite an xG of 1.65 — and when Leicester’s defense transformed from the league’s stingiest to perfectly average, it became apparent that Leicester’s excellent form wasn’t just unsustainable, it might just have been a mirage.
[Related: Our Club Soccer Predictions]
Leicester’s woes were compounded this week when Man City won its appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which reversed the UEFA ban. If the ban had stood, City’s place in next season’s edition of the Champions League would have fallen to the Premier League’s fifth-place team. Leicester’s form hasn’t been particularly good for six months now, but its odds to qualify for the Champions League remained high as of July 8 because it still looked as though fifth place would be good enough.
But the CAS reversal means fifth place won’t cut it this year, and Leicester’s odds, along with its form, remain in a freefall: With three games left, the Foxes sit in fourth place, owning a goal differential edge over Manchester United, with whom they’re tied in points. But the FiveThirtyEight model gives the Foxes just a 47 percent chance to qualify for the Champions League. Leicester was a sure thing a week ago; today, Leicester is no more a sure thing than the results of a coin toss.
It remains to be seen whether manager Brendan Rodgers can right the ship and get Leicester over the line. Having a hot Jamie Vardy in his squad certainly helps. Having games against Tottenham, Sheffield United and Manchester United — three clubs with European aspirations of their own — helps a little less. But Leicester has proved that it’s capable of defying expectations before. The last time it did so, it won the Premier League. If it doesn’t do so this time around, there won’t be a parade through the streets of Leicester — only a long, empty trail of what-ifs.
Check out our latest soccer predictions.
Subscribe to our sports podcast, Hot Takedown


fivethirthyeight--2020-07-15--COVID-19 Deaths Are Increasing. Americans Disagree With Trump On What To Do About It.

In this week ’ s FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew discusses whether Americans and politicians agree on how to @ @ @ @ @ in coronavirus cases .
They also question what some Democrats took to be the lesson @ @ @ @ @ that the party should focus less on “ identity politics .
”

COVID-19 Deaths Are Increasing. Americans Disagree With Trump On What To Do About It.
In this week’s FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew discusses whether Americans and politicians agree on how to respond to the recent surge in coronavirus cases. They also question what some Democrats took to be the lesson of the 2016 election — that the party should focus less on “identity politics.”


fivethirthyeight--2020-07-15--The Houston Dash Have Something To Prove

The Houston Dash opened the NWSL Challenge Cup with a bang .
It was clear in Rachel Daly ’ s brace and goal-line save , in Shea Groom ’ s superhero-like , flying header or her back-heel assist on Kristie Mewis ’ s goal against the Utah Royals .
The proof was even in the celebrations .
After finishing 7-12-5 last season , the Dash started this year ’ s tournament as the most exciting team to watch .
And they knew a lot of people would be surprised .
“ I think we have that perception and this stigma @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us , and I think we came out and we took that to heart , ” said defender Erin Simon .
“ We brought on this whole new style , a completely new team full of new players and we took this identity of just absolute grittiness , and I think we ’ re taking that to the field.
” The Dash players say they have “ a chip on their shoulder , ” a phrase they use often to describe the mindset with which they entered the tournament .
They felt disrespected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a USWNT roster player , it hasn ’ t made the playoffs in its history and it had a reputation for organizational drama .
Many of the players “ have been traded around , four to five teams now , ” said Groom , who is on her fourth NWSL team since joining the league in 2015 .
“ We ’ re ready to make Houston home and Houston a team that is to be feared and someone you don ’ t want to play against.
” In the first two matches of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressed higher and was newly creative in ways it wasn ’ t in 2019 .
The club , helmed by second-year head coach James Clarkson , went through a roster overhaul in the offseason with a focus on fitness , efficiency in the attack and sturdier defense .
Forward Kealia Watt was traded upon her request after spending the previous six seasons with the Dash , three as the team ’ s captain .
But the Dash found plenty of talent to replace their former star .
They added Katie Stengel and Groom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Katie Naughton .
The team signed Simon and midfielder Bri Visalli .
Daly at forward and goalkeeper Jane Campbell now serve as co-captains .
“ At the end of the day , we ’ re all one unit , ” Campbell said when she received her co-captain armband .
“ We ’ re all one voice , and we ’ ll always work like that.
” Before training began for the 2020 season , Clarkson told the team that everyone , including veterans , would have a clean slate .
The team @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has created and also focused on chemistry during the offseason .
The coronavirus pandemic and subsequent shutdowns cut into in-person bonding to gel the new additions with core returners , but with everybody in Houston isolating before training could continue , communications continued over Zoom .
“ We really worked on keeping everybody connected , working on individual relationships and getting to know one another much better on a human side rather than just looking at them as soccer players , ” Clarkson said .
“ I said it even before preseason started @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year was to be the best team , not necessarily have the best players , the best squad or anything like that , but the camaraderie , the team spirit .
Everything was a huge goal for us because certainly an event like this [ tournament ] , it could be a huge difference maker.
” Through four matches in Utah , the Dash have scored five goals , second in the league behind the North Carolina Courage ’ s seven , on five assists and 22 total shots , including 10 shots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two goals each , and Mewis has added one .
Houston has conceded six goals , on the same pace as last year ’ s squad , but it has improved its success rate on both tackles and passes .
And in this small sample of games , the Dash are converting a much higher percentage of their shots , though they ’ ve taken fewer shots on goal per game .
“ It was taking us far too many shots on goal to score goals , ” Clarkson said , “ so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goal is really important — it ’ s something we ’ ve stressed to the players.
” After scoring five goals in their first two games , the Dash have cooled off considerably — they were held scoreless in losses to Sky Blue FC and the Washington Spirit .
Clarkson said they had hit a “ mental wall , ” citing the stress of the pandemic , civil and social unrest and the pressures of the tournament itself , which includes quarantining at a hotel .
They ’ ve played four matches in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their starters , on turf in Utah ’ s summer heat .
The Dash — and the rest of the NWSL — have a little break now , before the Challenge Cup quarterfinals begin Friday .
Mewis said the team ’ s focus during the time off will be on recovery , but she emphasized confidence and trust in her teammates despite frustration with the last two outings .
Campbell is looking forward to using the next few days to put together a product that will help the team advance to the semifinals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make it .
I think it ’ s gon na be great for us , ” she said .
“ I think we ’ re up for the challenge .
This is such a unique group , such a new group for us .
We can ’ t live in the past as an organization .
We ’ re moving forward and we ’ ve got such a special group here , and I think this quarterfinal for us will be very , very special .
”

The Houston Dash opened the NWSL Challenge Cup with a bang.
It was clear in Rachel Daly’s brace and goal-line save, in Shea Groom’s superhero-like, flying header or her back-heel assist on Kristie Mewis’s goal against the Utah Royals. The proof was even in the celebrations.
After finishing 7-12-5 last season, the Dash started this year’s tournament as the most exciting team to watch. And they knew a lot of people would be surprised.
“I think we have that perception and this stigma about us that no one really likes us, and I think we came out and we took that to heart,” said defender Erin Simon. “We brought on this whole new style, a completely new team full of new players and we took this identity of just absolute grittiness, and I think we’re taking that to the field.”
The Dash players say they have “a chip on their shoulder,” a phrase they use often to describe the mindset with which they entered the tournament. They felt disrespected: The team doesn’t have a USWNT roster player, it hasn’t made the playoffs in its history and it had a reputation for organizational drama.
[Related: Our Club Soccer Predictions]
Many of the players “have been traded around, four to five teams now,” said Groom, who is on her fourth NWSL team since joining the league in 2015. “We’re ready to make Houston home and Houston a team that is to be feared and someone you don’t want to play against.”
In the first two matches of the Cup, Houston defended better, pressed higher and was newly creative in ways it wasn’t in 2019. The club, helmed by second-year head coach James Clarkson, went through a roster overhaul in the offseason with a focus on fitness, efficiency in the attack and sturdier defense.
Forward Kealia Watt was traded upon her request after spending the previous six seasons with the Dash, three as the team’s captain. But the Dash found plenty of talent to replace their former star. They added Katie Stengel and Groom in the attack and centerbacks Megan Oyster and Katie Naughton. The team signed Simon and midfielder Bri Visalli. Daly at forward and goalkeeper Jane Campbell now serve as co-captains.
“At the end of the day, we’re all one unit,” Campbell said when she received her co-captain armband. “We’re all one voice, and we’ll always work like that.”
Before training began for the 2020 season, Clarkson told the team that everyone, including veterans, would have a clean slate. The team has bought into the system the staff has created and also focused on chemistry during the offseason. The coronavirus pandemic and subsequent shutdowns cut into in-person bonding to gel the new additions with core returners, but with everybody in Houston isolating before training could continue, communications continued over Zoom.
“We really worked on keeping everybody connected, working on individual relationships and getting to know one another much better on a human side rather than just looking at them as soccer players,” Clarkson said. “I said it even before preseason started, that one of the goals this year was to be the best team, not necessarily have the best players, the best squad or anything like that, but the camaraderie, the team spirit. Everything was a huge goal for us because certainly an event like this [tournament], it could be a huge difference maker.”
The Dash are making their shots count so far Season-by-season comparison of per-game metrics and success rates for the Houston Dash 2019 2020 Goals for 0.9 1.3 Goals against 1.5 1.5 Assists 0.6 1.3 Shots 9.4 5.5 Shots on goal 4.3 2.5 Tackle success rate 60.6% 69.3% Pass success rate 73.3% 74.8% Conversion rate 9.3% 22.7% Source: NWSL
Through four matches in Utah, the Dash have scored five goals, second in the league behind the North Carolina Courage’s seven, on five assists and 22 total shots, including 10 shots on goal. Groom and Daly have two goals each, and Mewis has added one. Houston has conceded six goals, on the same pace as last year’s squad, but it has improved its success rate on both tackles and passes. And in this small sample of games, the Dash are converting a much higher percentage of their shots, though they’ve taken fewer shots on goal per game.
“It was taking us far too many shots on goal to score goals,” Clarkson said, “so just being more efficient in front of goal is really important — it’s something we’ve stressed to the players.”
After scoring five goals in their first two games, the Dash have cooled off considerably — they were held scoreless in losses to Sky Blue FC and the Washington Spirit. Clarkson said they had hit a “mental wall,” citing the stress of the pandemic, civil and social unrest and the pressures of the tournament itself, which includes quarantining at a hotel. They’ve played four matches in two weeks, with limited rotation of their starters, on turf in Utah’s summer heat.
[Related: Our NWSL Challenge Cup Predictions]
The Dash — and the rest of the NWSL — have a little break now, before the Challenge Cup quarterfinals begin Friday. Mewis said the team’s focus during the time off will be on recovery, but she emphasized confidence and trust in her teammates despite frustration with the last two outings.
Campbell is looking forward to using the next few days to put together a product that will help the team advance to the semifinals.
“Pressure’s what you make it. I think it’s gonna be great for us,” she said. “I think we’re up for the challenge. This is such a unique group, such a new group for us. We can’t live in the past as an organization. We’re moving forward and we’ve got such a special group here, and I think this quarterfinal for us will be very, very special.”
Check out our latest soccer predictions.
Subscribe to our sports podcast, Hot Takedown