fivethirthyeight--2020-06-19--Can You Flip The Magic Coin?

Can You Flip The Magic Coin?

Welcome to The Riddler .
Every week , I offer up problems related to the things we hold dear around here : math , logic and probability .
Two puzzles are presented each week : the Riddler Express for those of you who want something bite-size and the Riddler Classic for those of you in the slow-puzzle movement .
Submit a correct answer for either , and you may get a shoutout in next week ’ s column .
If you need a hint or have a favorite puzzle collecting dust in your attic , find me on Twitter .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the front and a moon on the back .
I claim that on most days , it ’ s a fair coin , with a 50 percent chance of landing on either the sun or the moon .
But once a year , on the summer solstice , the coin absorbs the sun ’ s rays and exhibits a strange power : It always comes up the opposite side as the previous flip .
Of course , you are skeptical of my claim .
You figure there ’ s a 1 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 99 percent chance that it ’ s just an ordinary fair coin .
You then ask me to “ prove ” the coin is magical by flipping it some number of times .
How many successfully alternating coin flips will it take for you to think there ’ s a 99 percent chance the coin is magical ( or , more likely , that I ’ ve rigged it in some way so it always alternates ) ?
From Dean Ballard comes a riddle of radiant spheres and fatherhood , just in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Day : King Auric adored his most prized possession : a set of perfect spheres of solid gold .
There was one of each size , with diameters of 1 centimeter , 2 centimeters , 3 centimeters , and so on .
Their brilliant beauty brought joy to his heart .
After many years , he felt the time had finally come to pass the golden spheres down to the next generation — his three children .
He decided it was best to give each child precisely one-third of the total @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a difficult time determining just how to do that .
After some trial and error , he managed to divide his spheres into three groups of equal weight .
He was further amused when he realized that his collection contained the minimum number of spheres needed for this division .
How many golden spheres did King Auric have ?
Extra credit : How many spheres would the king have needed to be able to divide his collection among other numbers of children : two , four , five , six or even more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 👏 of Oxford , Mississippi , winner of last week ’ s Riddler Express .
Last week , you tried your hand at a technique for rolling dice called “ bowling , ” in which you placed your index finger and thumb on two opposite sides of the die and rolled it along the table .
When done correctly , the die never landed on the faces on which you held the die , leaving you with a 25 percent chance of landing on each of the remaining four faces .
You had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chances of rolling a 7 or 11 in a game of craps .
With a standard rolling technique , your chances were about 22.2 percent .
But if you bowled the dice one at a time ( i.e.
, you knew the outcome of the first die before rolling the second ) , what were your chances of rolling a 7 or 11 ?
If your first roll had been a 1 , 2 , 3 or 4 , then the only way to win was to have the two rolls add up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of reach , since the maximum roll was 6 .
But if your first roll was a 5 , then you could win with a second roll that was a 2 or 6 .
And if your first roll was a 6 , then you could win with a second roll that was a 1 or 5 .
So with the first roll , you wanted to get a 5 or 6 , since that doubled your chances of winning .
At this point , it was helpful to write out the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll call A , B and C , keeping in mind that opposing faces of a standard die always add up to 7 : • A : Place your fingers on the 1 and the 6 , resulting in a 25 percent chance of rolling a 2 , 3 , 4 or 5 .
• B : Place your fingers on the 2 and the 5 , resulting in a 25 percent chance of rolling a 1 , 3 , 4 or 6 .
• C : Place your fingers on the 3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 25 percent chance of rolling a 1 , 2 , 5 or 6 .
As noted by solver Carolyn Phillips , strategy C gave you the best chances of rolling a 5 or 6 , so that should have been your first roll .
And the result of your first roll determined your strategy for the second roll : • If you rolled a 1 , then you needed a 6 .
Strategies B and C both had a 25 percent chance of resulting in a 6 .
• If you rolled a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Strategies A and C both had a 25 percent chance of resulting in a 5 .
• If you rolled a 5 , then you needed a 2 or 6 .
Strategy C had a 50 percent chance of resulting in a 2 or 6 .
• If you rolled a 6 , then you needed a 1 or 5 .
Strategy C had a 50 percent chance of resulting in a 1 or 5 .
Averaging these four equally likely cases together , your chances of winning were 3/8 , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ improvement over the 22.2 percent chance you had with a standard rolling technique .
For extra credit , you still wanted to roll a 7 or 11 ( earning you a point ) , but you also wanted to avoid rolling a 2 , 3 or 12 ( losing you a point ) .
With a standard rolling technique , your average score would have been one-ninth of a point .
But if you “ bowled ” to maximize your expected score , what was that average ?
Once again , you could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second roll based on your first .
For example , if your first roll was a 6 , you wanted your second roll to be a 1 or a 5 ( giving you a total of 7 or 11 ) , but not a 6 ( giving you a total of 12 ) .
Your best bets for the second roll would have been strategies A or C ; either netted you 0.25 points on average .
If you did this analysis for each of the first rolls , you found that if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ d get 0 points on average .
If your first roll was a 2 , 3 , 4 or 6 , you ’ d get 0.25 points on average .
And if you were fortunate enough to get a 5 on your first roll , you ’ d get 0.5 points on average .
Putting these all together , your best option for the first roll was Strategy A , netting you an average of 5/16 points .
That was about three times better than how you would have done with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this problem one step further , wondering what would happen if you bowled non-standard dice where the numbers on opposing sides did not have to add up to 7 .
Based on his analysis , your average point total jumped up to 3/8 — the exact same result as the original problem .
If there ’ s a lesson to be learned in all this , it ’ s that it pays to cheat in dice games .
No , that can ’ t be right .
Congratulations to 👏 Dan Upper 👏 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last week ’ s Riddler Classic .
Last week , you were studying a new strain of bacteria , Riddlerium classicum .
Each R. classicum bacterium did one of two things : split into two copies of itself or die .
There was an 80 percent chance of the former and a 20 percent chance of the latter .
If you started with a single R. classicum bacterium , what was the probability that it would lead to an everlasting colony ( i.e.
, the colony would theoretically persist for an infinite amount @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is so good that it ’ s worth solving twice .
After posting this puzzle last week , I learned that a very similar variation — the extra credit , in fact , in which the 80 percent was replaced by probability p — previously appeared on the Riddler column .
It ’ s also on page 83 of “ The Riddler ” book .
Nevertheless , it ’ s a truly excellent puzzle , and I would like to acknowledge a few solvers from this past week who had never seen it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bacterium had a 20 percent chance of dying outright , which meant the answer was at most 80 percent .
After that , things got hairy .
As with many Riddler Classics , it was tempting to start with simulations in order to gain some intuition for what was happening .
However , how could a finite simulation truly determine whether a colony was “ everlasting ?
” Solver Greg Y. and a team who identified as the “ MassMutual Crew ” both tried their hand at this , each running 1 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ colony lasted 100 generations .
It turned out that approximately 750,000 of those 1 million colonies made it , suggesting the answer was close to 75 percent .
Meanwhile , Jason Ash modeled the problem as an absorbing Markov chain and assumed that once the colony reached a population of 500 it was effectively guaranteed everlasting survival .
With this approach , along with some code to construct the transition matrix , Jason approximated the answer as 75.00000000000211 percent .
Emma Knight solved the problem analytically and head-on , directly solving for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each generation and then summing all those infinite probabilities .
That sum is the total probability the colony dies out , so 1 minus the sum is the probability of survival .
But many solvers , including Alain Bruguières , Hector Pefo , Josh Silverman and the international team ( from Manila , Philippines and Ottawa , Canada ) of Erin and Nicole , discovered a roundabout method that got to the answer in far fewer steps .
They first defined x as the probability of extinction , when starting from a single @ @ @ @ @ @ @ x was , you had enough information to determine the probability that two such bacteria would go both extinct .
Since they were independent events , this probability was x2 .
Returning to our single bacterium , what was the probability it led to an everlasting colony ?
By definition , it was 1−x .
But it was also the probability that it divided into two bacteria , which did not both go extinct .
And that probability was 0.8 ( 1−x2 ) .
Setting those probabilities equal gave the equality 1−x = @ @ @ @ @ @ @ x was equal to 0.25 and 1−x was 0.75 .
Frankly , it was remarkable that any solvable equation popped out at all , given the infinities inherent to this puzzle .
And sure enough , the answer turned out to be 75 percent , just as the simulations predicted .
For extra credit , you were asked to solve the problem when the probability each bacterium divided was p , rather than 80 percent .
The above reasoning worked just as well for this general case , leading to the equation 1−x @ @ @ @ @ @ @ p was between 0.5 and 1 , the answer was 2−1/p .
But when p was less than 0.5 ( i.e.
, when the value of 2−1/p dipped negative ) , x was 1 , meaning the colony never survived .
This was a truly bizarre result .
Imagine two strains of bacteria , one with a 50 percent chance of dividing and the other with a 50.0000000001 percent chance of dividing .
Only the latter has any chance of forming an everlasting colony .
Until I apply some antibacterial soap , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you lucky ?
There ’ s a whole book full of the best puzzles from this column and some never-before-seen head-scratchers .
It ’ s called “ The Riddler , ” and it ’ s in stores now !

Welcome to The Riddler. Every week, I offer up problems related to the things we hold dear around here: math, logic and probability. Two puzzles are presented each week: the Riddler Express for those of you who want something bite-size and the Riddler Classic for those of you in the slow-puzzle movement. Submit a correct answer for either, and you may get a shoutout in next week’s column. If you need a hint or have a favorite puzzle collecting dust in your attic, find me on Twitter.
Riddler Express
I have a coin with a sun on the front and a moon on the back. I claim that on most days, it’s a fair coin, with a 50 percent chance of landing on either the sun or the moon.
But once a year, on the summer solstice, the coin absorbs the sun’s rays and exhibits a strange power: It always comes up the opposite side as the previous flip.
Of course, you are skeptical of my claim. You figure there’s a 1 percent chance that the coin is magical and a 99 percent chance that it’s just an ordinary fair coin. You then ask me to “prove” the coin is magical by flipping it some number of times.
How many successfully alternating coin flips will it take for you to think there’s a 99 percent chance the coin is magical (or, more likely, that I’ve rigged it in some way so it always alternates)?
The solution to this Riddler Express can be found in the following week’s column.
Riddler Classic
From Dean Ballard comes a riddle of radiant spheres and fatherhood, just in time for the summer solstice and Father’s Day:
King Auric adored his most prized possession: a set of perfect spheres of solid gold. There was one of each size, with diameters of 1 centimeter, 2 centimeters, 3 centimeters, and so on. Their brilliant beauty brought joy to his heart. After many years, he felt the time had finally come to pass the golden spheres down to the next generation — his three children.
He decided it was best to give each child precisely one-third of the total gold by weight, but he had a difficult time determining just how to do that. After some trial and error, he managed to divide his spheres into three groups of equal weight. He was further amused when he realized that his collection contained the minimum number of spheres needed for this division. How many golden spheres did King Auric have?
Extra credit: How many spheres would the king have needed to be able to divide his collection among other numbers of children: two, four, five, six or even more?
The solution to this Riddler Classic can be found in the following week’s column.
Solution to last week’s Riddler Express
Congratulations to 👏 Christopher R. Green 👏 of Oxford, Mississippi, winner of last week’s Riddler Express.
Last week, you tried your hand at a technique for rolling dice called “bowling,” in which you placed your index finger and thumb on two opposite sides of the die and rolled it along the table. When done correctly, the die never landed on the faces on which you held the die, leaving you with a 25 percent chance of landing on each of the remaining four faces.
You had to apply this technique to optimize your chances of rolling a 7 or 11 in a game of craps. With a standard rolling technique, your chances were about 22.2 percent. But if you bowled the dice one at a time (i.e., you knew the outcome of the first die before rolling the second), what were your chances of rolling a 7 or 11?
If your first roll had been a 1, 2, 3 or 4, then the only way to win was to have the two rolls add up to 7 — 11 would have been out of reach, since the maximum roll was 6. But if your first roll was a 5, then you could win with a second roll that was a 2 or 6. And if your first roll was a 6, then you could win with a second roll that was a 1 or 5. So with the first roll, you wanted to get a 5 or 6, since that doubled your chances of winning.
At this point, it was helpful to write out the three possible strategies, which we’ll call A, B and C, keeping in mind that opposing faces of a standard die always add up to 7:
A : Place your fingers on the 1 and the 6, resulting in a 25 percent chance of rolling a 2, 3, 4 or 5.
: Place your fingers on the 1 and the 6, resulting in a 25 percent chance of rolling a 2, 3, 4 or 5. B : Place your fingers on the 2 and the 5, resulting in a 25 percent chance of rolling a 1, 3, 4 or 6.
: Place your fingers on the 2 and the 5, resulting in a 25 percent chance of rolling a 1, 3, 4 or 6. C: Place your fingers on the 3 and the 4, resulting in a 25 percent chance of rolling a 1, 2, 5 or 6.
As noted by solver Carolyn Phillips, strategy C gave you the best chances of rolling a 5 or 6, so that should have been your first roll. And the result of your first roll determined your strategy for the second roll:
If you rolled a 1, then you needed a 6. Strategies B and C both had a 25 percent chance of resulting in a 6.
If you rolled a 2, then you needed a 5. Strategies A and C both had a 25 percent chance of resulting in a 5.
If you rolled a 5, then you needed a 2 or 6. Strategy C had a 50 percent chance of resulting in a 2 or 6.
If you rolled a 6, then you needed a 1 or 5. Strategy C had a 50 percent chance of resulting in a 1 or 5.
Averaging these four equally likely cases together, your chances of winning were 3/8, or 37.5 percent. That was quite the improvement over the 22.2 percent chance you had with a standard rolling technique.
For extra credit, you still wanted to roll a 7 or 11 (earning you a point), but you also wanted to avoid rolling a 2, 3 or 12 (losing you a point). With a standard rolling technique, your average score would have been one-ninth of a point. But if you “bowled” to maximize your expected score, what was that average?
Once again, you could determine the optimal strategy by determining your second roll based on your first. For example, if your first roll was a 6, you wanted your second roll to be a 1 or a 5 (giving you a total of 7 or 11), but not a 6 (giving you a total of 12). Your best bets for the second roll would have been strategies A or C; either netted you 0.25 points on average.
If you did this analysis for each of the first rolls, you found that if your first roll was a 1, you’d get 0 points on average. If your first roll was a 2, 3, 4 or 6, you’d get 0.25 points on average. And if you were fortunate enough to get a 5 on your first roll, you’d get 0.5 points on average.
Putting these all together, your best option for the first roll was Strategy A, netting you an average of 5/16 points. That was about three times better than how you would have done with standard rolling.
Solver David Alpert took this problem one step further, wondering what would happen if you bowled non-standard dice where the numbers on opposing sides did not have to add up to 7. Based on his analysis, your average point total jumped up to 3/8 — the exact same result as the original problem.
If there’s a lesson to be learned in all this, it’s that it pays to cheat in dice games. No, that can’t be right.
Solution to last week’s Riddler Classic
Congratulations to 👏 Dan Upper 👏 of Corvallis, Oregon, winner of last week’s Riddler Classic.
Last week, you were studying a new strain of bacteria, Riddlerium classicum. Each R. classicum bacterium did one of two things: split into two copies of itself or die. There was an 80 percent chance of the former and a 20 percent chance of the latter.
If you started with a single R. classicum bacterium, what was the probability that it would lead to an everlasting colony (i.e., the colony would theoretically persist for an infinite amount of time)?
Sometimes a puzzle is so good that it’s worth solving twice. After posting this puzzle last week, I learned that a very similar variation — the extra credit, in fact, in which the 80 percent was replaced by probability p — previously appeared on the Riddler column. It’s also on page 83 of “The Riddler” book.
Nevertheless, it’s a truly excellent puzzle, and I would like to acknowledge a few solvers from this past week who had never seen it before.
First off, the first bacterium had a 20 percent chance of dying outright, which meant the answer was at most 80 percent. After that, things got hairy.
As with many Riddler Classics, it was tempting to start with simulations in order to gain some intuition for what was happening. However, how could a finite simulation truly determine whether a colony was “everlasting?” Solver Greg Y. and a team who identified as the “MassMutual Crew” both tried their hand at this, each running 1 million simulations and seeing how many times the colony lasted 100 generations. It turned out that approximately 750,000 of those 1 million colonies made it, suggesting the answer was close to 75 percent.
Meanwhile, Jason Ash modeled the problem as an absorbing Markov chain and assumed that once the colony reached a population of 500 it was effectively guaranteed everlasting survival. With this approach, along with some code to construct the transition matrix, Jason approximated the answer as 75.00000000000211 percent.
Emma Knight solved the problem analytically and head-on, directly solving for the probability that the colony dies out with each generation and then summing all those infinite probabilities. That sum is the total probability the colony dies out, so 1 minus the sum is the probability of survival.
But many solvers, including Alain Bruguières, Hector Pefo, Josh Silverman and the international team (from Manila, Philippines and Ottawa, Canada) of Erin and Nicole, discovered a roundabout method that got to the answer in far fewer steps. They first defined x as the probability of extinction, when starting from a single bacterium. Without yet knowing exactly what x was, you had enough information to determine the probability that two such bacteria would go both extinct. Since they were independent events, this probability was x2.
Returning to our single bacterium, what was the probability it led to an everlasting colony? By definition, it was 1−x. But it was also the probability that it divided into two bacteria, which did not both go extinct. And that probability was 0.8(1−x2). Setting those probabilities equal gave the equality 1−x = 0.8(1−x2), which meant x was equal to 0.25 and 1−x was 0.75. Frankly, it was remarkable that any solvable equation popped out at all, given the infinities inherent to this puzzle. And sure enough, the answer turned out to be 75 percent, just as the simulations predicted.
For extra credit, you were asked to solve the problem when the probability each bacterium divided was p, rather than 80 percent. The above reasoning worked just as well for this general case, leading to the equation 1−x = p(1−x2). When p was between 0.5 and 1, the answer was 2−1/p. But when p was less than 0.5 (i.e., when the value of 2−1/p dipped negative), x was 1, meaning the colony never survived.
This was a truly bizarre result. Imagine two strains of bacteria, one with a 50 percent chance of dividing and the other with a 50.0000000001 percent chance of dividing. Only the latter has any chance of forming an everlasting colony. Until I apply some antibacterial soap, that is.
Want more riddles?
Well, aren’t you lucky? There’s a whole book full of the best puzzles from this column and some never-before-seen head-scratchers. It’s called “The Riddler,” and it’s in stores now!
Want to submit a riddle?
Email Zach Wissner-Gross at riddlercolumn@gmail.com.


fivethirthyeight--2020-06-19--Sammy Sosa And Mark McGwire, Welcome To Our Hall Of Pretty Damn Good Players

Our Hall of Pretty Damn Good Players is a space for all of those great players from history who , for whatever reason , won ’ t make their sport ’ s official Hall of Fame .
That can be because the player was underrated or exceled in an aspect of the game that wouldn ’ t be fully appreciated until years later .
But that doesn ’ t always have to be the case .
Today , it ’ s time to focus on a pair of baseball players who will always be linked by history — but who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because they played central roles in one of MLB ’ s most notorious scandals .
As detailed in ESPN ’ s recent documentary “ Long Gone Summer , ” Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire will forever be remembered for their parallel bids to break Roger Maris ’ s 37-year-old single-season home run record during the summer of 1998 .
Though McGwire eventually got the better of Sosa that year , both players did wind up surpassing Maris ’ s record by season ’ s end .
And despite losing the HR duel , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in large part because his Chicago Cubs made the playoffs ( 6½ games clear of McGwire ’ s St. Louis Cardinals , who didn ’ t ) .
Their rivalry was both competitive and friendly ; although its importance in helping baseball recover from the 1994 strike is often overstated , the home run chase was a genuine phenomenon .
In that moment , McGwire and Sosa had become sports icons on nearly the same level as Michael Jordan .
Of course , we know now that their accomplishments were aided by admitted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth that will likely keep both out of the Hall of Fame forever .
But as is the case with all players from the Steroid Era , that doesn ’ t mean we can ’ t also assess their performances relative to the environment in which they played .
And by that standard , Sosa and McGwire ’ s preposterous numbers deserve our appreciation .
Both men had seen their whole careers lead up to that special 1998 season .
Sosa was signed as an amateur free agent out of the Dominican Republic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rangers and Chicago White Sox with little success ( 1.3 wins above replacement in four seasons ) before finally breaking through in 1993 , his second year with the crosstown Cubs .
He blew through his first 20-homer season that year , finishing with 33 , and crossed the 40-homer threshold in 1996 .
He also compiled 21.4 WAR in a five-season stretch from 1993 to 1997 .
But few would have predicted the kind of record-chasing performance Sosa ended up putting on in ’ 98 .
McGwire , for his part , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ game ’ s premier power hitter — when healthy .
He led his league in home run frequency ( per at bat ) five times from 1987 through 1996 , launching a dinger once every 12.4 at-bats over that span .
Before being traded to St. Louis in 1997 , McGwire ’ s gargantuan homers with Oakland were already the stuff of legend : But he also missed an average of 59.4 games per season from 1992 through 1996 , sitting out with a variety of foot injuries .
McGwire did recover enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ 96 and ’ 97 combined , though , setting the stage for a colossal year in 1998 .
Neither McGwire nor Sosa would disappoint .
The Cardinal first baseman homered in four straight games to start the season , kicking off an early stretch in which he ’ d hit 27 by the end of May .
Sosa started slower , with just six homers through April and 13 through May , but in June he set MLB ’ s all-time record for most home runs in a single month with 20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day .
By the end of the month , Sosa ( 33 homers ) had vaulted himself into the race alongside more established names like McGwire ( 37 ) and Ken Griffey Jr. ( 33 ) .
From there , the chase for Maris was on .
Sosa beat McGwire 9-8 in July , and on Aug. 10 , the Cubs ’ right fielder belted a pair of homers to finish the day tied with McGwire at 46 .
McGwire reclaimed the lead the next day , and the two began pushing each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continued .
A disappointing August ( six HRs ) saw Griffey fall out of the race , but both Sosa and McGwire cracked double digits in the month , and the pair ended August tied at exactly 55 home runs — six behind Maris with a month to go .
A furious stretch of five homers in the first four games of September brought McGwire within one of Maris ( with 60 HRs to Sosa ’ s 58 ) when — of all teams !
— Sosa and the Cubs arrived in St. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 7 .
That afternoon , McGwire tied Maris ’ s record ; the next night , he broke it .
And yet , the home run chase was not over !
With McGwire camped on 62 homers for the next six games , Sosa blasted four more home runs to tie the new record himself , and the two kept pace with each other over the next 12 days , each hitting four more homers .
Sosa even briefly led McGwire , 66-65 , on Sept. 25 before McGwire tied him later in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would hit four more ( while Sosa was held homerless ) to win the single-season home run crown , 70-66 .
There have been better all-around seasons in history : Mike Trout creates more value in a typical season ( 9.1 WAR per year since 2012 , his first full season ) than either McGwire ( 8.0 WAR ) or Sosa ( 6.8 ) did in 1998 .
While ’ 98 was the top season of McGwire ’ s career , Sosa would go on to have a much better — dare I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year in 2001 , with 10.1 WAR .
But both players were extremely productive during the period in and around 1998 .
Out of the eight 60-homer seasons in MLB history , Sosa and McGwire own five of them .
Sosa alone broke Maris ’ s fabled record three different times — in 1998 ( 66 HRs ) , 1999 ( 63 ) and 2001 ( 64 ) .
It was a checkered era , but for better and for worse , McGwire and Sosa were the faces of it .
One of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it allows us to compare players across history by looking at their stats relative to the eras in which they played .
And while Sosa and McGwire were arguably the central characters of the Steroid Era — legend has it that their record chase in ’ 98 even pushed Barry Bonds to seek performance enhancements and reclaim his status as baseball ’ s biggest star — they also stood out within it .
McGwire ’ s career adjusted on-base plus slugging ( OPS+ ) of 163 , which accounts for leaguewide averages , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Sosa ’ s is a bit lower — tied for 197th with a 128 OPS+ — but he was more valuable defensively and had the higher peak value , with more WAR in his seven best seasons than McGwire had .
In fact , Sosa is one of only 32 players since 1901 to record a double-digit WAR season , for that monster 2001 campaign ( which was overshadowed by Bonds breaking McGwire ’ s record the same year ) : .328 AVG , 64 HRs , 160 RBIs , .437 OBP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ above an average right fielder , 10.1 WAR .
The raw numbers pop out , but so do the ones adjusted for the era .
So , by the numbers — whether conventional or WAR-based — Sosa and McGwire should have had solid Hall of Fame credentials .
According to our method of translating traditional qualifications into a Hall of Fame probability , Sosa ’ s Cooperstown odds would be 89 percent and McGwire ’ s 59 percent .
According to JAWS , an average of career and peak wins above replacement , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 48 percent of right fielders already in the Hall ( since 1901 ) ; McGwire would rank higher than just over 41 percent of first basemen .
But of course , the dark cloud of steroids hung over each player ’ s candidacy .
McGwire never garnered more than 23.7 percent of the vote in any ballot , dropping off in 2016 after 10 appearances .
Sosa just picked up 13.9 percent support in 2020 , the highest he ’ s gotten in his eight appearances — but based on past voting patterns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting to the necessary 75 percent in either of his final two ballots .
Maybe that ’ s fair .
According to polls we ’ ve conducted , most fans think steroid users should see at least some of their stats adjusted downward — by an average of about a third — which would substantially affect Sosa and McGwire ’ s Cooperstown bona fides .
But it ’ s also clear that the duo has been condemned for a problem that was much bigger than them .
“ I think that those two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blame ] in a way that they don ’ t deserve , ” author Jay Jaffe said in “ Long Gone Summer.
” “ The steroid problem wasn ’ t just a matter of individual bad actors ; it was a complete institutional failure on the part of the owners , the union , the players , to some extent the media .
I don ’ t think you can just say it ’ s Mark McGwire or Sammy Sosa ’ s fault .
It ’ s everybody ’ s fault.
” Cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s are partly what the Hall of Pretty Damn Good Players is for , anyway .
It ’ s a haven for those who have been excluded from the real Hall of Fame , regardless of the reason .
During one shining summer , this pair of larger-than-life sluggers put on one of the most exciting , must-watch performances in baseball history .
That ’ s something that can never be taken away , even though the full story is messier than we knew at the time .

Our Hall of Pretty Damn Good Players is a space for all of those great players from history who, for whatever reason, won’t make their sport’s official Hall of Fame. That can be because the player was underrated or exceled in an aspect of the game that wouldn’t be fully appreciated until years later. But that doesn’t always have to be the case. Today, it’s time to focus on a pair of baseball players who will always be linked by history — but who have also seen their Cooperstown chances evaporate because they played central roles in one of MLB’s most notorious scandals.
HOF resumes: Sammy Sosa (RF) and Mark McGwire (1B) Sammy Sosa Mark McGwire Category Value Rank at Pos. Value Rank at Pos. Career WAR 61.6 18 65.3 12 Peak WAR 44.9 13 43.7 14 JAWS 53.2 15 54.5 14 HOF Monitor 202 11 170 13 HOF Standards 52 16 42 20 Black Ink Test 28 13 36 8 Gray Ink Test 138 23 110 39 Implied HOF% 89% 13 59% 18 Years on ballot 8 — 10 — Vote share 13.9% — 12.3% — HOF track <0.1% — — — Implied Hall of Frame probability is based on traditional stats. Hall of Fame track probability is based on most recent vote share and years on the ballot. Sources: Baseball-Reference.com, FanGraphs
As detailed in ESPN’s recent documentary “Long Gone Summer,” Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire will forever be remembered for their parallel bids to break Roger Maris’s 37-year-old single-season home run record during the summer of 1998. Though McGwire eventually got the better of Sosa that year, both players did wind up surpassing Maris’s record by season’s end. And despite losing the HR duel, Sosa was named National League MVP, in large part because his Chicago Cubs made the playoffs (6½ games clear of McGwire’s St. Louis Cardinals, who didn’t). Their rivalry was both competitive and friendly; although its importance in helping baseball recover from the 1994 strike is often overstated, the home run chase was a genuine phenomenon.
In that moment, McGwire and Sosa had become sports icons on nearly the same level as Michael Jordan. Of course, we know now that their accomplishments were aided by admitted or reported steroid use — an unavoidable truth that will likely keep both out of the Hall of Fame forever. But as is the case with all players from the Steroid Era, that doesn’t mean we can’t also assess their performances relative to the environment in which they played. And by that standard, Sosa and McGwire’s preposterous numbers deserve our appreciation.
Both men had seen their whole careers lead up to that special 1998 season. Sosa was signed as an amateur free agent out of the Dominican Republic in 1985, bouncing between the Texas Rangers and Chicago White Sox with little success (1.3 wins above replacement in four seasons) before finally breaking through in 1993, his second year with the crosstown Cubs. He blew through his first 20-homer season that year, finishing with 33, and crossed the 40-homer threshold in 1996. He also compiled 21.4 WAR in a five-season stretch from 1993 to 1997. But few would have predicted the kind of record-chasing performance Sosa ended up putting on in ’98.
McGwire, for his part, had long established himself as perhaps the game’s premier power hitter — when healthy. He led his league in home run frequency (per at bat) five times from 1987 through 1996, launching a dinger once every 12.4 at-bats over that span. Before being traded to St. Louis in 1997, McGwire’s gargantuan homers with Oakland were already the stuff of legend:
But he also missed an average of 59.4 games per season from 1992 through 1996, sitting out with a variety of foot injuries. McGwire did recover enough to crush 110 total home runs in ’96 and ’97 combined, though, setting the stage for a colossal year in 1998.
Neither McGwire nor Sosa would disappoint. The Cardinal first baseman homered in four straight games to start the season, kicking off an early stretch in which he’d hit 27 by the end of May. Sosa started slower, with just six homers through April and 13 through May, but in June he set MLB’s all-time record for most home runs in a single month with 20 — a record that stands to this day. By the end of the month, Sosa (33 homers) had vaulted himself into the race alongside more established names like McGwire (37) and Ken Griffey Jr. (33).
From there, the chase for Maris was on. Sosa beat McGwire 9-8 in July, and on Aug. 10, the Cubs’ right fielder belted a pair of homers to finish the day tied with McGwire at 46. McGwire reclaimed the lead the next day, and the two began pushing each other to new heights as the summer continued. A disappointing August (six HRs) saw Griffey fall out of the race, but both Sosa and McGwire cracked double digits in the month, and the pair ended August tied at exactly 55 home runs — six behind Maris with a month to go.
A furious stretch of five homers in the first four games of September brought McGwire within one of Maris (with 60 HRs to Sosa’s 58) when — of all teams! — Sosa and the Cubs arrived in St. Louis for a two-game series on Sept. 7. That afternoon, McGwire tied Maris’s record; the next night, he broke it.
And yet, the home run chase was not over! With McGwire camped on 62 homers for the next six games, Sosa blasted four more home runs to tie the new record himself, and the two kept pace with each other over the next 12 days, each hitting four more homers. Sosa even briefly led McGwire, 66-65, on Sept. 25 before McGwire tied him later in the evening. From there, McGwire would hit four more (while Sosa was held homerless) to win the single-season home run crown, 70-66.
There have been better all-around seasons in history: Mike Trout creates more value in a typical season (9.1 WAR per year since 2012, his first full season) than either McGwire (8.0 WAR) or Sosa (6.8) did in 1998. While ’98 was the top season of McGwire’s career, Sosa would go on to have a much better — dare I even say all-time great caliber? — year in 2001, with 10.1 WAR. But both players were extremely productive during the period in and around 1998. Out of the eight 60-homer seasons in MLB history, Sosa and McGwire own five of them. Sosa alone broke Maris’s fabled record three different times — in 1998 (66 HRs), 1999 (63) and 2001 (64).
It was a checkered era, but for better and for worse, McGwire and Sosa were the faces of it.
One of the benefits of sabermetric analysis is that it allows us to compare players across history by looking at their stats relative to the eras in which they played. And while Sosa and McGwire were arguably the central characters of the Steroid Era — legend has it that their record chase in ’98 even pushed Barry Bonds to seek performance enhancements and reclaim his status as baseball’s biggest star — they also stood out within it. McGwire’s career adjusted on-base plus slugging (OPS+) of 163, which accounts for leaguewide averages, is tied for 11th in MLB history. Sosa’s is a bit lower — tied for 197th with a 128 OPS+ — but he was more valuable defensively and had the higher peak value, with more WAR in his seven best seasons than McGwire had.
In fact, Sosa is one of only 32 players since 1901 to record a double-digit WAR season, for that monster 2001 campaign (which was overshadowed by Bonds breaking McGwire’s record the same year): .328 AVG, 64 HRs, 160 RBIs, .437 OBP, 203 OPS+, +6.2 defensive runs above an average right fielder, 10.1 WAR. The raw numbers pop out, but so do the ones adjusted for the era.
So, by the numbers — whether conventional or WAR-based — Sosa and McGwire should have had solid Hall of Fame credentials. According to our method of translating traditional qualifications into a Hall of Fame probability, Sosa’s Cooperstown odds would be 89 percent and McGwire’s 59 percent. According to JAWS, an average of career and peak wins above replacement, Sosa would rank higher than just under 48 percent of right fielders already in the Hall (since 1901); McGwire would rank higher than just over 41 percent of first basemen.
But of course, the dark cloud of steroids hung over each player’s candidacy. McGwire never garnered more than 23.7 percent of the vote in any ballot, dropping off in 2016 after 10 appearances. Sosa just picked up 13.9 percent support in 2020, the highest he’s gotten in his eight appearances — but based on past voting patterns, he has practically no chance of getting to the necessary 75 percent in either of his final two ballots.
Maybe that’s fair. According to polls we’ve conducted, most fans think steroid users should see at least some of their stats adjusted downward — by an average of about a third — which would substantially affect Sosa and McGwire’s Cooperstown bona fides. But it’s also clear that the duo has been condemned for a problem that was much bigger than them.
“I think that those two have borne the brunt [of the blame] in a way that they don’t deserve,” author Jay Jaffe said in “Long Gone Summer.” “The steroid problem wasn’t just a matter of individual bad actors; it was a complete institutional failure on the part of the owners, the union, the players, to some extent the media. I don’t think you can just say it’s Mark McGwire or Sammy Sosa’s fault. It’s everybody’s fault.”
Cases like Sosa’s and McGwire’s are partly what the Hall of Pretty Damn Good Players is for, anyway. It’s a haven for those who have been excluded from the real Hall of Fame, regardless of the reason. During one shining summer, this pair of larger-than-life sluggers put on one of the most exciting, must-watch performances in baseball history. That’s something that can never be taken away, even though the full story is messier than we knew at the time.
Subscribe to our sports podcast, Hot Takedown


fivethirthyeight--2020-06-19--How Americans Feel About ‘Defunding The Police’

Welcome to Pollapalooza , our weekly polling roundup .
“ Defund the police.
” In the last several weeks , this slogan has entered the mainstream amid nationwide protests against police violence .
However , there ’ s some disagreement about what exactly the slogan means .
Some activists actually do want to disband police departments entirely , while others argue that police budgets should be radically decreased , but not brought down to zero .
But even among those who want to abolish the police , some say they want to do so over time .
But while the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it doesn ’ t poll well .
Four polls conducted in the past two weeks found that Americans opposed the “ defund the police ” movement or “ defunding police departments ” 58 percent to 31 percent , on average .
The slogan is unpopular with most demographic groups , too , with two notable exceptions : Black Americans and Democrats .
In the two polls where results were broken down by race , Black respondents said they supported defunding the police by an average of 45 percent to 28 percent , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 61 percent to 23 percent .
This is in line with other polls that have consistently shown that white people mostly see police in a favorable light , while Black people are likelier to have experienced mistreatment at officers ’ hands and take the problem of police violence seriously .
So what we ’ re seeing here may be another reflection of Black and white Americans ’ different experiences with police .
Similarly , in the three polls with breakdowns by party , Democrats on average supported the “ defund the police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Republicans on average opposed it 84 percent to 11 percent .
Granted , only about a quarter of Democrats “ strongly ” supported it , per Morning Consult/Politico and Reuters/Ipsos , but three-quarters of Republicans “ strongly ” opposed it .
However , “ defund the police ” is also a simplistic slogan , and the poll results above do not capture public opinion on the movement ’ s more concrete policy goals .
Specifically , defunding the police is only half of its goal ; activists also want to reallocate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parts of the social safety net .
Indeed , in those very same polls , some of these policy ideas enjoy far more backing among the American public than the slogan does — though the level of support does vary pretty widely depending on the details of the proposal .
For instance , when Reuters/Ipsos queried people about “ proposals to move some money currently going to police budgets into better officer training , local programs for homelessness , mental health assistance , and domestic violence , ” a whopping 76 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supported them , with only 22 percent opposed .
Democrats and independents supported these proposals in huge numbers while Republicans were split , 51 percent in favor to 47 percent opposed .
Meanwhile , Morning Consult/Politico asked respondents whether they supported “ redirecting funding for the police department in [ their ] local community to support community development programs , ” and just 43 percent of register voters said they supported it , while 42 percent opposed it .
Still , this was a significant increase in support from the pollster ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ‘ defund the police ’ ” ( which , to reiterate , was 28 percent support vs. 58 percent opposition ) .
Overall , questions that seemed to emphasize how police departments would be affected found less support .
Reuters/Ipsos respondents who were familiar with “ proposals to completely dismantle police departments and give more financial support to address homelessness , mental health , and domestic violence ” said they opposed those proposals , 58 percent to 39 percent .
That was virtually identical to the way respondents broke down in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ defund the police ’ movement.
” And finally , per ABC News/Ipsos , 39 percent supported and 60 percent opposed “ reducing the budget of the police department in your community , even if that means fewer police officers , if the money is shifted to programs related to mental health , housing , and education.
” That made the specific proposal slightly more popular than “ the movement to ‘ defund the police ’ ” ( 34 percent support vs. 64 percent opposition ) , but the difference was well within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The idea of redirecting funding from police departments is a new one to most Americans , so the contours of the debate are still being defined — and so is public opinion .
While the “ defund the police ” slogan itself is quite unpopular , there does appear to be some support for rethinking police departments ’ role in local budgets and the community , so public opinion on this issue could very well lead to policy change .
• A new poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation highlighted many of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their race .
A full 71 percent of non-Hispanic Black respondents said they had been subjected to discrimination or violence because of their race , including 48 percent who said they had feared for their lives .
For non-Hispanic white respondents , those numbers were 23 percent and 16 percent , respectively .
• After National Football League commissioner Roger Goodell admitted the league was wrong to bar players from kneeling during the national anthem to protest racial injustice , Morning Consult found that fewer Americans believed this was an unacceptable form @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 48 percent thought kneeling was unacceptable ; this month , 39 percent thought so .
However , that doesn ’ t mean more Americans think this action is acceptable : That figure now sits at 38 percent , virtually unchanged from 2017 .
Instead , the share who say they don ’ t know whether kneeling during the anthem is acceptable has risen from 13 percent to 23 percent .
• According to the latest Gallup tracker of national pride , 63 percent of American adults said they were “ extremely ” or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American .
However , that number is the lowest Gallup has found since it began asking this question in 2001 .
National pride has been on a steady downward slope since 2013 , when 85 percent said they were extremely or very proud to be an American .
• Researchers at Harvard , Stanford and the University of Texas at Austin are out with a cool YouGov poll surveying Americans on the cases before the Supreme Court this term .
For example , respondents said 83 percent to 17 percent that they believed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be fired because of their sexual orientation , the subject of Bostock v. Clayton County , Georgia .
Respondents also favored keeping the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program , the subject of Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California , 61 percent to 39 percent .
And this week , the court sided with the American public on both cases .
• One of 2020 ’ s highest-quality state polls to date suggests that President Trump and Senate Republicans are in serious electoral danger .
The latest Des @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gave Trump 44 percent and former Vice President Joe Biden 43 percent in Iowa ; it also showed Democrat Theresa Greenfield at 46 percent and Republican Sen. Joni Ernst at 43 percent .
Given that Iowa has become a Republican-leaning state in recent years , Trump and Biden being virtually tied there shows just how robust Biden ’ s national lead is .
And if Democrats do indeed lead in the Senate race there , they are probably well on their way to the three or four pick-ups they need to take control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monmouth University , 63 percent of Americans were planning to take a summer vacation before the coronavirus pandemic hit .
Now , only 14 percent say they either definitely or probably will stick with those plans , and only 26 percent say they either definitely or probably will take a summer vacation at all .
Of those who changed or might change their travel plans , 96 percent cited the pandemic as the main reason for their decision .
According to FiveThirtyEight ’ s presidential approval tracker , 41.2 percent of Americans approve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president , while 55.2 percent disapprove ( a net approval rating of -14.0 points ) .
At this time last week , 40.9 percent approved and 54.8 percent disapproved ( a net approval rating of -13.9 points ) .
One month ago , Trump had an approval rating of 43.8 percent and a disapproval rating of 51.9 percent , for a net approval rating of -8.1 points .
In our average of polls of the generic congressional ballot , Democrats currently lead by 7.9 percentage points ( 48.6 percent to 40.7 percent ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans by 7.9 points ( 48.5 percent to 40.6 percent ) .
At this time last month , voters also preferred Democrats by 7.9 points ( 48.4 percent to 40.5 percent ) .
Check out all the polls we ’ ve been collecting ahead of the 2020 elections .
Juneteenth recognized by more states , companies as a holiday

Welcome to Pollapalooza, our weekly polling roundup.
Poll(s) of the week
“Defund the police.” In the last several weeks, this slogan has entered the mainstream amid nationwide protests against police violence.
However, there’s some disagreement about what exactly the slogan means. Some activists actually do want to disband police departments entirely, while others argue that police budgets should be radically decreased, but not brought down to zero. But even among those who want to abolish the police, some say they want to do so over time.
But while the slogan is suddenly everywhere, so far it doesn’t poll well. Four polls conducted in the past two weeks found that Americans opposed the “defund the police” movement or “defunding police departments” 58 percent to 31 percent, on average.
Most Americans balk at defunding the police Recent polls asking people whether they support or oppose the “defund the police” movement or “defunding police departments” Dates Pollster Support Oppose June 14-16 The Economist/YouGov 24% 53% June 12-14 Morning Consult/Politico 28 58 June 10-11 ABC News/Ipsos 34 64 June 9-10 Reuters/Ipsos* 39 57 Average 31 58 *Question only asked of those who said they were very or somewhat familiar with the “defund the police” movement. All polls are of adults, except the Morning Consult/Politico poll, which is of registered voters. Source: Polls
The slogan is unpopular with most demographic groups, too, with two notable exceptions: Black Americans and Democrats. In the two polls where results were broken down by race, Black respondents said they supported defunding the police by an average of 45 percent to 28 percent, while white respondents opposed it by an average of 61 percent to 23 percent. This is in line with other polls that have consistently shown that white people mostly see police in a favorable light, while Black people are likelier to have experienced mistreatment at officers’ hands and take the problem of police violence seriously. So what we’re seeing here may be another reflection of Black and white Americans’ different experiences with police.
Similarly, in the three polls with breakdowns by party, Democrats on average supported the “defund the police” movement 50 percent to 34 percent, and Republicans on average opposed it 84 percent to 11 percent. Granted, only about a quarter of Democrats “strongly” supported it, per Morning Consult/Politico and Reuters/Ipsos, but three-quarters of Republicans “strongly” opposed it.
However, “defund the police” is also a simplistic slogan, and the poll results above do not capture public opinion on the movement’s more concrete policy goals. Specifically, defunding the police is only half of its goal; activists also want to reallocate the money spent on policing to other parts of the social safety net. Indeed, in those very same polls, some of these policy ideas enjoy far more backing among the American public than the slogan does — though the level of support does vary pretty widely depending on the details of the proposal.
For instance, when Reuters/Ipsos queried people about “proposals to move some money currently going to police budgets into better officer training, local programs for homelessness, mental health assistance, and domestic violence,” a whopping 76 percent of people who were familiar with those proposals supported them, with only 22 percent opposed. Democrats and independents supported these proposals in huge numbers while Republicans were split, 51 percent in favor to 47 percent opposed.
Meanwhile, Morning Consult/Politico asked respondents whether they supported “redirecting funding for the police department in [their] local community to support community development programs,” and just 43 percent of register voters said they supported it, while 42 percent opposed it. Still, this was a significant increase in support from the pollster’s question about support for the “movement to ‘defund the police’” (which, to reiterate, was 28 percent support vs. 58 percent opposition).
Overall, questions that seemed to emphasize how police departments would be affected found less support. Reuters/Ipsos respondents who were familiar with “proposals to completely dismantle police departments and give more financial support to address homelessness, mental health, and domestic violence” said they opposed those proposals, 58 percent to 39 percent. That was virtually identical to the way respondents broke down in the pollster’s question about the “‘defund the police’ movement.” And finally, per ABC News/Ipsos, 39 percent supported and 60 percent opposed “reducing the budget of the police department in your community, even if that means fewer police officers, if the money is shifted to programs related to mental health, housing, and education.” That made the specific proposal slightly more popular than “the movement to ‘defund the police’” (34 percent support vs. 64 percent opposition), but the difference was well within the pollster’s margin of error.
The idea of redirecting funding from police departments is a new one to most Americans, so the contours of the debate are still being defined — and so is public opinion. While the “defund the police” slogan itself is quite unpopular, there does appear to be some support for rethinking police departments’ role in local budgets and the community, so public opinion on this issue could very well lead to policy change.
Other polling bites
A new poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation highlighted many of the ways Americans are treated differently because of their race. A full 71 percent of non-Hispanic Black respondents said they had been subjected to discrimination or violence because of their race, including 48 percent who said they had feared for their lives. For non-Hispanic white respondents, those numbers were 23 percent and 16 percent, respectively.
After National Football League commissioner Roger Goodell admitted the league was wrong to bar players from kneeling during the national anthem to protest racial injustice, Morning Consult found that fewer Americans believed this was an unacceptable form of protest. In September 2017, 48 percent thought kneeling was unacceptable; this month, 39 percent thought so. However, that doesn’t mean more Americans think this action is acceptable: That figure now sits at 38 percent, virtually unchanged from 2017. Instead, the share who say they don’t know whether kneeling during the anthem is acceptable has risen from 13 percent to 23 percent.
According to the latest Gallup tracker of national pride, 63 percent of American adults said they were “extremely” or “very” proud to be an American. However, that number is the lowest Gallup has found since it began asking this question in 2001. National pride has been on a steady downward slope since 2013, when 85 percent said they were extremely or very proud to be an American.
Researchers at Harvard, Stanford and the University of Texas at Austin are out with a cool YouGov poll surveying Americans on the cases before the Supreme Court this term. For example, respondents said 83 percent to 17 percent that they believed it should be illegal for employees to be fired because of their sexual orientation, the subject of Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia. Respondents also favored keeping the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, the subject of Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, 61 percent to 39 percent. And this week, the court sided with the American public on both cases.
One of 2020’s highest-quality state polls to date suggests that President Trump and Senate Republicans are in serious electoral danger. The latest Des Moines Register/Mediacom poll by Selzer and Co. gave Trump 44 percent and former Vice President Joe Biden 43 percent in Iowa; it also showed Democrat Theresa Greenfield at 46 percent and Republican Sen. Joni Ernst at 43 percent. Given that Iowa has become a Republican-leaning state in recent years, Trump and Biden being virtually tied there shows just how robust Biden’s national lead is. And if Democrats do indeed lead in the Senate race there, they are probably well on their way to the three or four pick-ups they need to take control of that chamber.
According to Monmouth University, 63 percent of Americans were planning to take a summer vacation before the coronavirus pandemic hit. Now, only 14 percent say they either definitely or probably will stick with those plans, and only 26 percent say they either definitely or probably will take a summer vacation at all. Of those who changed or might change their travel plans, 96 percent cited the pandemic as the main reason for their decision.
Trump approval
According to FiveThirtyEight’s presidential approval tracker, 41.2 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing as president, while 55.2 percent disapprove (a net approval rating of -14.0 points). At this time last week, 40.9 percent approved and 54.8 percent disapproved (a net approval rating of -13.9 points). One month ago, Trump had an approval rating of 43.8 percent and a disapproval rating of 51.9 percent, for a net approval rating of -8.1 points.
Generic ballot
In our average of polls of the generic congressional ballot, Democrats currently lead by 7.9 percentage points (48.6 percent to 40.7 percent). A week ago, Democrats led Republicans by 7.9 points (48.5 percent to 40.6 percent). At this time last month, voters also preferred Democrats by 7.9 points (48.4 percent to 40.5 percent).
Check out all the polls we’ve been collecting ahead of the 2020 elections.
Juneteenth recognized by more states, companies as a holiday


fivethirthyeight--2020-06-18--Does A Short-Season MLB Champ Deserve An Asterisk?

Major League Baseball commissioner Rob Manfred and union chief Tony Clark met in Arizona on Tuesday for the first time during the sport ’ s contentious labor negotiations , a conclave that represented progress after Manfred had described the stalled talks as “ a disaster ” to ESPN earlier this week .
The new proposal from Manfred would see a 2020 season starting as early as July 19 that includes a universal designated hitter , which would be extended into the next season as well .
To add revenue in a year in which there could be no fans in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ playoffs to 16 teams — and keep the format in 2021 — and are proposing placing ads on jerseys .
But perhaps the most important development — as it relates to getting baseball back this summer — was that the owners moved toward the player camp by agreeing to full prorated pay and proposing a 60-game schedule , though players would have to drop their right to file a grievance over the number of games played .
The length of the season remains a sticking point — whether it ’ s closer to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the players ’ latest proposal for 70 — and that number of games will make a difference to baseball fans , too .
A season so truncated — regardless of how many games end up getting played — will be deemed by some to be illegitimate .
After all , if a batter hits .400 in a season less than half its normal length , that record can ’ t possibly mean as much .
But what about the World Series ?
Could title-winning players who celebrate in an empty stadium in October @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t derail the season — unabashedly enjoy the moment ?
Would the champion be seen as a legitimate winner , given the unusual path it would have taken ?
We were curious about how a shorter schedule would have played out in previous seasons — which playoff teams would have made the postseason regardless of season length .
We know that a smaller sample of games helps underdogs , but how much ?
To find out , we examined the past 25 years — since wild cards were first used , in 1995 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out on top if the seasons had been just 50 , 60 or 70 games long .
In the wild-card era , teams in the top 10 of win percentage at the end of the season have made the playoffs 81 percent of the time .
Before 2012 , when only eight teams made the playoffs , the share was 76 percent ; it ’ s been 93 percent since the playoffs expanded to 10 teams .
So how did the best teams at earlier points in the season fare ?
Teams in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 70 games went on to secure playoff berths 62.5 percent of the time , according to Baseball-Reference.com data analyzed by FiveThirtyEight .
Through 60 games , that only dropped off to 60.1 percent .
If players and owners can not work out a deal , Manfred could eventually impose a season thought to range between 48 and 54 games .
But even a 50-game season might have fewer surprises than some might expect : 56.4 percent of clubs in the top 10 for win percentage through 50 games went on to advance to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ divisions at the 50- , 60- and 70-game mark — by win percentage — were even more likely to go on to make the playoffs .
Just over 72 percent of teams leading their respective divisions through 70 games went on to make the postseason , compared with 67.7 percent through 60 games and 63 percent through 50 games .
The more games that are played , the better picture we get of who the best teams are ; but as seen at the 50-game mark , most division winners establish themselves early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win the World Series ?
Only two eventual title winners since 1995 did not have a winning record through 50 , 60 or 70 games : the 2003 Florida Marlins and the 2019 Washington Nationals , which had losing records at all three thresholds .
The average number of wins for title winners through 50 games was 29.9 , or a .598 win percentage .
That was 36.2 wins through 60 games ( .603 win percentage ) and 41.8 wins through 70 games ( .597 win percentage ) .
Some teams , obviously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the postseason if past seasons had been shortened .
But there ’ s a remedy in place : the owners ’ proposal for an expanded playoff .
More spots in the postseason would likely help good teams that get off to slow starts in 2020 .
In past years , almost all eventual title winners would have been in an expanded playoff field like the proposed 2020 format .
Though added chances in the postseason could give a less-worthy team the title — which could add to concerns about an illegitimate season — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the hunt .
A shortened season will be complicated to execute amid a pandemic , and its legacy will be difficult to grapple with .
Individual records may need to be tossed out .
But perhaps a shortened season wouldn ’ t be as watered down as we might have thought .
Perhaps hoisting the Commissioner ’ s Trophy in 2020 would still be something to celebrate .

Major League Baseball commissioner Rob Manfred and union chief Tony Clark met in Arizona on Tuesday for the first time during the sport’s contentious labor negotiations, a conclave that represented progress after Manfred had described the stalled talks as “a disaster” to ESPN earlier this week. The new proposal from Manfred would see a 2020 season starting as early as July 19 that includes a universal designated hitter, which would be extended into the next season as well. To add revenue in a year in which there could be no fans in stadiums, owners want to expand the playoffs to 16 teams — and keep the format in 2021 — and are proposing placing ads on jerseys.
But perhaps the most important development — as it relates to getting baseball back this summer — was that the owners moved toward the player camp by agreeing to full prorated pay and proposing a 60-game schedule, though players would have to drop their right to file a grievance over the number of games played. The length of the season remains a sticking point — whether it’s closer to the owners’ preferred 60 games or the players’ latest proposal for 70 — and that number of games will make a difference to baseball fans, too.
A season so truncated — regardless of how many games end up getting played — will be deemed by some to be illegitimate. After all, if a batter hits .400 in a season less than half its normal length, that record can’t possibly mean as much. But what about the World Series? Could title-winning players who celebrate in an empty stadium in October — assuming a COVID-19 spike doesn’t derail the season — unabashedly enjoy the moment? Would the champion be seen as a legitimate winner, given the unusual path it would have taken?
We were curious about how a shorter schedule would have played out in previous seasons — which playoff teams would have made the postseason regardless of season length. We know that a smaller sample of games helps underdogs, but how much? To find out, we examined the past 25 years — since wild cards were first used, in 1995 — to see who would have come out on top if the seasons had been just 50, 60 or 70 games long.
In the wild-card era, teams in the top 10 of win percentage at the end of the season have made the playoffs 81 percent of the time. Before 2012, when only eight teams made the playoffs, the share was 76 percent; it’s been 93 percent since the playoffs expanded to 10 teams. So how did the best teams at earlier points in the season fare? Teams in the top 10 in win percentage through 70 games went on to secure playoff berths 62.5 percent of the time, according to Baseball-Reference.com data analyzed by FiveThirtyEight. Through 60 games, that only dropped off to 60.1 percent. If players and owners cannot work out a deal, Manfred could eventually impose a season thought to range between 48 and 54 games. But even a 50-game season might have fewer surprises than some might expect: 56.4 percent of clubs in the top 10 for win percentage through 50 games went on to advance to the postseason.
More games — and playoff spots — help good teams Share of MLB teams in the top 10* of win percentage at various points in the season that went on to make the playoffs 50 games 60 games 70 games Full season 1995-2011, 8-team playoff 53.7% 56.7% 58.4% 75.7% 2012-2019, 10-team playoff 62.4 67.0 71.8 92.6 1995-2019, total 56.4 60.1 62.6 81.1 *Including ties. Source: Baseball-Reference.com
Teams that led their divisions at the 50-, 60- and 70-game mark — by win percentage — were even more likely to go on to make the playoffs. Just over 72 percent of teams leading their respective divisions through 70 games went on to make the postseason, compared with 67.7 percent through 60 games and 63 percent through 50 games. The more games that are played, the better picture we get of who the best teams are; but as seen at the 50-game mark, most division winners establish themselves early.
But how many go on to win the World Series? Only two eventual title winners since 1995 did not have a winning record through 50, 60 or 70 games: the 2003 Florida Marlins and the 2019 Washington Nationals, which had losing records at all three thresholds. The average number of wins for title winners through 50 games was 29.9, or a .598 win percentage. That was 36.2 wins through 60 games (.603 win percentage) and 41.8 wins through 70 games (.597 win percentage).
Some teams, obviously, would have been left out of the postseason if past seasons had been shortened. But there’s a remedy in place: the owners’ proposal for an expanded playoff. More spots in the postseason would likely help good teams that get off to slow starts in 2020. In past years, almost all eventual title winners would have been in an expanded playoff field like the proposed 2020 format. Though added chances in the postseason could give a less-worthy team the title — which could add to concerns about an illegitimate season — they would likely keep the best teams in the hunt.
A shortened season will be complicated to execute amid a pandemic, and its legacy will be difficult to grapple with. Individual records may need to be tossed out. But perhaps a shortened season wouldn’t be as watered down as we might have thought. Perhaps hoisting the Commissioner’s Trophy in 2020 would still be something to celebrate.
Subscribe to our sports podcast, Hot Takedown


fivethirthyeight--2020-06-18--The States Taking On Police Reform After The Death Of George Floyd

This article was published in partnership with The Marshall Project , a nonprofit news organization covering the U.S. criminal justice system .
Eighteen days after George Floyd was killed by a Minneapolis police officer , the Minnesota state Legislature introduced 48 bills in a special session on law enforcement .
On the same day , Iowa Gov .
Kim Reynolds signed a new bill restricting police chokeholds , and New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo signed a series of police reforms into law , including repealing an obscure law , section 50-a , that shielded police disciplinary records from public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are proposing changes to how police operate .
In the three weeks after Floyd ’ s death and the ensuing nationwide protests against police brutality , 16 state legislatures have discussed the issues roiling the country .
As of Tuesday , legislatures had introduced , amended or passed 159 bills and resolutions related to policing , including bills that were introduced in both chambers , according to a database compiled by the National Conference of State Legislatures , a nonpartisan association of state lawmakers .
Of course , in politics , talking about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is another .
By June 16 , nine of these bills have become law , and seven more are waiting for governors ’ signatures .
In all , three state legislatures — Colorado , Iowa and New York — have passed policing bills .
Looking at action in the statehouse has its limits , because police reform usually happens on the local level , as cities and towns decide how to fund and regulate their own police forces .
The sheer number of new bills can also be misleading : some state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the same topic and pass them as one omnibus bill .
Still , state legislatures can hold tremendous power on issues like setting pensions for police officers , and the wave of new state-level bills represents how swiftly the conversation around policing has shifted since the death of Floyd .
An analysis of the conference ’ s database shows that the majority of the reform bills introduced since Floyd ’ s death focus on police oversight and regulating use of force , like banning chokeholds , building public databases of traffic stops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misconduct .
Jamaal Bailey , a New York state senator who represents parts of the Bronx and Westchester County , said it ’ s been a humbling experience to represent constituents who are taking their anger and frustration with police brutality to the streets .
Since Floyd ’ s death , three policing bills Bailey sponsored — repealing 50-a , establishing a special unit in the attorney general ’ s office to investigate police misconduct and requiring officers to pay attention to the medical and mental health needs of people in their custody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ People have spoken , ” Bailey said .
“ Folks have been complaining about police brutality for so many years , and it just goes away .
It couldn ’ t go away this time .
Not only are we going to take the street , but we are also going to push for changes in the legislature.
” Patrick Lynch , president of the Police Benevolent Association of New York City , was not pleased with the action in the statehouse .
“ Governor Cuomo and our legislative leaders have no business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a statement when the reforms were signed into law .
“ New York state had been failing our communities for decades … Police officers spend our days addressing issues caused by these failures .
Now , we won ’ t even be able to do that.
” Currently , more than half of the state legislatures are out of session , many because of the impact of COVID-19 .
Amber Widgery , who leads the criminal justice program at the NCSL , said she expects more police reform bills from state legislatures when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kate Brown of Oregon , have already announced they will call legislatures back into session to address police accountability .
Widgery said the speed at which some of the reform bills are making their way through the chambers is particularly noteworthy .
Iowa ’ s police reform bill passed through the state ’ s Republican-controlled legislature with unanimous support in just one day , and the governor signed it the next .
It gives the state attorney general power to prosecute police officers , bans chokeholds and restricts police departments from hiring officers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rep. Ras Smith , one of the main architects of the new reforms , said it took less than two weeks to craft the legislation .
“ We don ’ t get to pick the moment in which we have allies who can unite and that we can get something done , ” Smith said .
“ This was one of those opportunities in which we could really gain ground by finding the commonality and really addressing something that went beyond politics .
But also that also means that we have to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feel that way tomorrow .
It ’ s still yet to be seen — this is the first step , the verdict is still out.
” Some states have not passed legislation , and there are a variety of roadblocks facing legislators .
On June 3 , Kansas state Rep. Rui Xu proposed a resolution condemning police brutality , racism and use of excessive and militarized force , but it died quickly the next day , when the legislature adjourned its special session .
Xu said he never truly expected to get his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Republican-led House and Senate .
“ I just wanted to show , at the very least , the people of color in Kansas there are legislative people in power who wanted to do something about this .
A resolution doesn ’ t have the force of law , but we do have ideas , ” Xu said .
Daniel Feldman , a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice , said he is cautiously optimistic that the rush of legislation suggests change will continue to come , even after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unjustified killing of Black citizens has little by little changed people ’ s wrong assumptions about interactions with the police , ” Feldman said .
“ We may see the reactions to George Floyd ’ s death as instant , but the psychological shift has happened over a period of time .
It may be a permanent shift in opinion.
” Sign up for The Marshall Project ’ s newsletter , or follow them on Facebook or Twitter .
How cable news is talking about the protests — and why it matters | @

This article was published in partnership with The Marshall Project, a nonprofit news organization covering the U.S. criminal justice system.
Eighteen days after George Floyd was killed by a Minneapolis police officer, the Minnesota state Legislature introduced 48 bills in a special session on law enforcement. On the same day, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a new bill restricting police chokeholds, and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed a series of police reforms into law, including repealing an obscure law, section 50-a, that shielded police disciplinary records from public scrutiny.
More lawmakers across the country are proposing changes to how police operate. In the three weeks after Floyd’s death and the ensuing nationwide protests against police brutality, 16 state legislatures have discussed the issues roiling the country. As of Tuesday, legislatures had introduced, amended or passed 159 bills and resolutions related to policing, including bills that were introduced in both chambers, according to a database compiled by the National Conference of State Legislatures, a nonpartisan association of state lawmakers.
Of course, in politics, talking about doing something is one thing. Doing it is another. By June 16, nine of these bills have become law, and seven more are waiting for governors’ signatures. In all, three state legislatures — Colorado, Iowa and New York — have passed policing bills.
Looking at action in the statehouse has its limits, because police reform usually happens on the local level, as cities and towns decide how to fund and regulate their own police forces. The sheer number of new bills can also be misleading: some state legislatures will eventually bundle multiple bills related to the same topic and pass them as one omnibus bill.
Still, state legislatures can hold tremendous power on issues like setting pensions for police officers, and the wave of new state-level bills represents how swiftly the conversation around policing has shifted since the death of Floyd.
An analysis of the conference’s database shows that the majority of the reform bills introduced since Floyd’s death focus on police oversight and regulating use of force, like banning chokeholds, building public databases of traffic stops and establishing an independent agency to investigate misconduct.
Jamaal Bailey, a New York state senator who represents parts of the Bronx and Westchester County, said it’s been a humbling experience to represent constituents who are taking their anger and frustration with police brutality to the streets. Since Floyd’s death, three policing bills Bailey sponsored — repealing 50-a, establishing a special unit in the attorney general’s office to investigate police misconduct and requiring officers to pay attention to the medical and mental health needs of people in their custody — were signed into law.
“People have spoken,” Bailey said. “Folks have been complaining about police brutality for so many years, and it just goes away. It couldn’t go away this time. Not only are we going to take the street, but we are also going to push for changes in the legislature.”
Patrick Lynch, president of the Police Benevolent Association of New York City, was not pleased with the action in the statehouse.
“Governor Cuomo and our legislative leaders have no business celebrating today,” Lynch said in a statement when the reforms were signed into law. “New York state had been failing our communities for decades … Police officers spend our days addressing issues caused by these failures. Now, we won’t even be able to do that.”
Currently, more than half of the state legislatures are out of session, many because of the impact of COVID-19. Amber Widgery, who leads the criminal justice program at the NCSL, said she expects more police reform bills from state legislatures when they reconvene. Some governors, like Kate Brown of Oregon, have already announced they will call legislatures back into session to address police accountability.
Widgery said the speed at which some of the reform bills are making their way through the chambers is particularly noteworthy. Iowa’s police reform bill passed through the state’s Republican-controlled legislature with unanimous support in just one day, and the governor signed it the next. It gives the state attorney general power to prosecute police officers, bans chokeholds and restricts police departments from hiring officers with records of misconduct.
Iowa state Rep. Ras Smith, one of the main architects of the new reforms, said it took less than two weeks to craft the legislation.
“We don’t get to pick the moment in which we have allies who can unite and that we can get something done,” Smith said. “This was one of those opportunities in which we could really gain ground by finding the commonality and really addressing something that went beyond politics. But also that also means that we have to be mindful of knowing that they may not feel that way tomorrow. It’s still yet to be seen — this is the first step, the verdict is still out.”
Some states have not passed legislation, and there are a variety of roadblocks facing legislators. On June 3, Kansas state Rep. Rui Xu proposed a resolution condemning police brutality, racism and use of excessive and militarized force, but it died quickly the next day, when the legislature adjourned its special session.
Xu said he never truly expected to get his criminal justice bill passed in the state’s Republican-led House and Senate.
“I just wanted to show, at the very least, the people of color in Kansas there are legislative people in power who wanted to do something about this. A resolution doesn’t have the force of law, but we do have ideas,” Xu said.
Daniel Feldman, a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said he is cautiously optimistic that the rush of legislation suggests change will continue to come, even after the daily protests ebb.
“The unjustified killing of Black citizens has little by little changed people’s wrong assumptions about interactions with the police,” Feldman said. “We may see the reactions to George Floyd’s death as instant, but the psychological shift has happened over a period of time. It may be a permanent shift in opinion.”
Sign up for The Marshall Project’s newsletter, or follow them on Facebook or Twitter.
How cable news is talking about the protests — and why it matters | FiveThirtyEight


fivethirthyeight--2020-06-18--The Supreme Court Put DACA’s Fate In The Hands Of Voters

DACA is safe — for now .
On Thursday morning , the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration can ’ t immediately end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program , also known as DACA .
Created by President Barack Obama , DACA provides a shield against deportation for more than 700,000 undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children and enrolled in the program .
But although the ruling is a significant win for DACA ’ s supporters , it ’ s only temporary .
The majority opinion , written by Chief Justice John Roberts , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has the power to rescind DACA later , if a solid justification is provided — the problem was that the way his administration did it was “ arbitrary and capricious , ” and therefore violated administrative law .
In effect , this means that the ultimate fate of the DACA recipients — sometimes called “ Dreamers ” after a failed bill that shared many of the same goals as DACA — will be decided in the presidential election this November … unless , of course , Congress chooses to step in .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be able to come up with a satisfactory justification before Americans head to the polls — and even if it does , that decision will likely be immediately challenged in the courts .
But if Trump wins reelection , the administration will have ample time to try again .
For now , though , the justices have said that the Trump administration ’ s rationale wasn ’ t good enough .
In September 2017 , Trump announced that he would rescind DACA , but gave only a single reason — that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a second justification for ending the program later , but the court said that reasoning needed to come when the program was actually terminated .
“ Roberts felt that the government didn ’ t pay sufficient attention to what DACA means to its recipients , ” said Peter Margulies , a professor at Roger Williams University School of Law .
“ These folks are interwoven into our society and really don ’ t have any other place they can call home .
That ’ s what Roberts is saying to the Trump administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this program and you can ’ t ignore that with a stroke of a pen.
” If this sounds similar to Roberts ’ s ruling last year on whether the Trump administration could add a citizenship question to the 2020 census , you ’ re on to something .
In that case , Roberts also joined the liberals in rejecting the administration ’ s stated reason for adding the question to the census — but left open the possibility that the administration could offer a legitimate justification later .
Ultimately , time constraints @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bite at the apple because the vast bureaucratic machinery that makes the census possible was already getting into gear .
This time , too , Roberts was clear that the court was not weighing in on whether DACA was a good or bad policy .
“ We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action , ” he wrote in the opinion .
The essential question , then , is whether the Trump administration followed the rules .
“ It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will love , ” said Stephen Yale-Loehr , a professor at Cornell Law School , referring to a law that dictates how federal policies can be made and unmade .
“ The court said , under this domestic law , you ’ re supposed to do things a certain way , have certain adequate justifications for your actions , and this administration did not follow those procedural requirements.
” Both Margulies and Yale-Loehr pointed out , though , how different today ’ s ruling was from another Roberts-authored opinion , where the court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost exactly two years ago .
“ In that case , Roberts is much more inclined to defer to the administration , ” Margulies said .
It ’ s possible that the framing of the issue was the key , he added — the travel ban fell more clearly under the sphere of foreign policy , where the executive branch has a lot of latitude , whereas Roberts ’ s ruling mainly treated the DACA rescission as a domestic issue .
“ It does make you wonder if Roberts ’ s attitude is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s now less willing to accept the stated justifications that this administration provides , ” Margulies said .
And Roberts ’ s fellow conservatives did accuse the majority of playing politics by sidestepping what they saw as the correct legal result in favor of a ruling that would be more popular .
In his dissent , Justice Clarence Thomas described the majority opinion as “ mystifying ” and argued that the court should have ruled that DACA was illegal instead of extending the legal fight over the program .
“ In doing so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for future political battles to be fought in this Court rather than where they rightfully belong — the political branches , ” Thomas wrote .
Trump seemed to agree .
In response to the ruling , he tweeted : “ These horrible & politically charged decisions coming out of the Supreme Court are shotgun blasts into the face of people that are proud to call themselves Republicans or Conservatives .
We need more Justices or we will lose our 2nd .
Amendment & everything else .
Vote Trump 2020 !
” The decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hands of the voters and Congress , at least for now .
“ This is a major victory for the Dreamers , but it ’ s arguably only a temporary victory , ” Yale-Loehr said .
“ A lot will depend on the outcome of the presidential election — or if Congress decides to enact a legislative solution to resolve this once and for all .
”

DACA is safe — for now.
On Thursday morning, the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration can’t immediately end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, also known as DACA. Created by President Barack Obama, DACA provides a shield against deportation for more than 700,000 undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children and enrolled in the program. But although the ruling is a significant win for DACA’s supporters, it’s only temporary. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, made it clear that President Trump still has the power to rescind DACA later, if a solid justification is provided — the problem was that the way his administration did it was “arbitrary and capricious,” and therefore violated administrative law.
In effect, this means that the ultimate fate of the DACA recipients — sometimes called “Dreamers” after a failed bill that shared many of the same goals as DACA — will be decided in the presidential election this November … unless, of course, Congress chooses to step in. It’s unlikely that the Trump administration will be able to come up with a satisfactory justification before Americans head to the polls — and even if it does, that decision will likely be immediately challenged in the courts. But if Trump wins reelection, the administration will have ample time to try again.
For now, though, the justices have said that the Trump administration’s rationale wasn’t good enough. In September 2017, Trump announced that he would rescind DACA, but gave only a single reason — that the program was unconstitutional. The administration offered a second justification for ending the program later, but the court said that reasoning needed to come when the program was actually terminated. “Roberts felt that the government didn’t pay sufficient attention to what DACA means to its recipients,” said Peter Margulies, a professor at Roger Williams University School of Law. “These folks are interwoven into our society and really don’t have any other place they can call home. That’s what Roberts is saying to the Trump administration — people have shaped their lives around this program and you can’t ignore that with a stroke of a pen.”
If this sounds similar to Roberts’s ruling last year on whether the Trump administration could add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, you’re on to something. In that case, Roberts also joined the liberals in rejecting the administration’s stated reason for adding the question to the census — but left open the possibility that the administration could offer a legitimate justification later. Ultimately, time constraints kept the Trump administration from taking another bite at the apple because the vast bureaucratic machinery that makes the census possible was already getting into gear.
This time, too, Roberts was clear that the court was not weighing in on whether DACA was a good or bad policy. “We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action,” he wrote in the opinion. The essential question, then, is whether the Trump administration followed the rules. “It’s a decision that Administrative Procedure Act nerds will love,” said Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor at Cornell Law School, referring to a law that dictates how federal policies can be made and unmade. “The court said, under this domestic law, you’re supposed to do things a certain way, have certain adequate justifications for your actions, and this administration did not follow those procedural requirements.”
Both Margulies and Yale-Loehr pointed out, though, how different today’s ruling was from another Roberts-authored opinion, where the court upheld Trump’s controversial travel ban almost exactly two years ago. “In that case, Roberts is much more inclined to defer to the administration,” Margulies said. It’s possible that the framing of the issue was the key, he added — the travel ban fell more clearly under the sphere of foreign policy, where the executive branch has a lot of latitude, whereas Roberts’s ruling mainly treated the DACA rescission as a domestic issue. “It does make you wonder if Roberts’s attitude is evolving, though, and he’s now less willing to accept the stated justifications that this administration provides,” Margulies said.
And Roberts’s fellow conservatives did accuse the majority of playing politics by sidestepping what they saw as the correct legal result in favor of a ruling that would be more popular. In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas described the majority opinion as “mystifying” and argued that the court should have ruled that DACA was illegal instead of extending the legal fight over the program. “In doing so, it has given the green light for future political battles to be fought in this Court rather than where they rightfully belong — the political branches,” Thomas wrote.
Trump seemed to agree. In response to the ruling, he tweeted: “These horrible & politically charged decisions coming out of the Supreme Court are shotgun blasts into the face of people that are proud to call themselves Republicans or Conservatives. We need more Justices or we will lose our 2nd. Amendment & everything else. Vote Trump 2020!”
The decision leaves the fate of DACA in the hands of the voters and Congress, at least for now. “This is a major victory for the Dreamers, but it’s arguably only a temporary victory,” Yale-Loehr said. “A lot will depend on the outcome of the presidential election — or if Congress decides to enact a legislative solution to resolve this once and for all.”