fivethirthyeight--2020-10-26--Why Millions Of Americans Don’t Vote

Why Millions Of Americans Don’t Vote

The last time Richard Brown voted was in 2008 .
He had caught a couple of presidential debates on TV , and found himself liking what the Democratic candidate , Barack Obama , had to say .
And as a Black man , he was excited by the idea of voting for the country ’ s first Black president .
Then in 2012 , he decided not to bother casting a second ballot for Obama .
It wasn ’ t that he had soured on the president — he just didn ’ t think it was necessary .
“ He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so ] I kinda figured he didn ’ t need my help , ” Brown said .
He was willing to take the time out of his day to cast his vote , but he didn ’ t think it would have an impact on the outcome .
“ I know it ’ s kind of a stupid thought , but I feel like one missed vote isn ’ t going to change anything.
” Twelve years later , though , he ’ s planning to vote again .
It ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and lives in the Midwest , is newly hopeful that his vote will matter .
In fact , he ’ s not at all confident that the candidate he ’ s supporting , Joe Biden , will win .
But the stakes of this election feel personal .
Over the past four years , some of his friends have changed the way they act and talk , saying hateful things about Obama or sharing racist memes on Facebook .
“ I ’ m not even really keen on Biden , ” Brown said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Trump is bringing racist rhetoric out of a lot of people.
” Those kinds of comments are “ really hurtful to me , disrespectful to me , ” he said .
So he ’ s decided to vote again this year : “ This way , if [ Biden ] does lose the election , I can ’ t say that it was my fault because I didn ’ t vote.
” Every election , millions of Americans go through a similar thought process and , it turns out , lots of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting doesn ’ t matter or isn ’ t worth their time .
In any given election , between 35 and 60 percent of eligible voters don ’ t cast a ballot .
It ’ s not that hard to understand why .
Our system doesn ’ t make it particularly easy to vote , and the decision to carve out a few hours to cast a ballot requires a sense of motivation that ’ s hard for some Americans to muster every two or four years — enthusiasm about the candidates , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a sense that anything can change as the result of a single vote .
“ I guess I just don ’ t think that one person ’ s vote can swing an election , ” said Jon Anderson , who won ’ t be voting for president this year because of moral objections to both candidates .
I don ’ t think if President Trump is reelected or if Joe Biden wins , it ’ s going to be complete chaos .
So I don ’ t want to vote out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t — vote is complex .
Most Americans don ’ t fall neatly into any one category .
Instead , as we found in our new poll with Ipsos , most are like Brown .
They vote inconsistently , or at moments when they feel like their vote has a chance to make a difference , or when the stakes of not voting are just too high , which is how many Americans describe this upcoming election .
Of the 8,000-plus people we polled , we were able to match nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ analyzed the views of the respondents in that slightly smaller group , and found that they fell into three broad groups : 1 ) people who almost always vote ; 2 ) people who sometimes vote ; and 3 ) people who rarely or never vote .
People who sometimes vote were a plurality of the group ( 44 percent ) , while 31 percent nearly always cast a ballot and just 25 percent almost never vote .
And as the chart below shows , there weren ’ t huge differences between people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who vote less consistently .
Yes , those who voted more regularly were higher income , more educated , more likely to be white and more likely to identify with one of the two political parties , but those who only vote some of the time were also fairly highly educated and white , and not overwhelmingly young .
There were much bigger differences between people who sometimes vote and those who almost never vote .
Nonvoters were more likely to have lower incomes ; to be young ; to have lower @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they don ’ t belong to either political party , which are all traits that square with what we know about people less likely to engage with the political system .
Many of the people we spoke with described their decision to vote as very personal , boiling down to the specific candidates , their own ability to navigate the electoral system that year , or whether they thought their vote would matter .
But for others , being a “ nonvoter ” or a “ sometimes voter ” wasn ’ t really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to casting a ballot that many of them experienced .
Those barriers and feelings build on each other in ways that are complicated to tease out .
But that complexity actually helps us understand why so many Americans don ’ t consistently vote — and why they vote , when they do .
When JeMare Williams went to vote for the first time in Macomb County , Michigan , he had a plan .
Tucked inside his wallet were several forms of identification and his voter registration card .
He was still smarting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tried to vote , when he lived in Wayne County , outside Detroit .
That time , he had come to the polling place with his driver ’ s license but without his voter registration card , and was told he had to fill out a provisional ballot ( separate ballots used when a voter ’ s eligibility is uncertain ) .
After he moved , he was determined that he wouldn ’ t have to fill out another ballot that might not get counted .
“ I was like — you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away , ” he said .
“ Whatever you need for me to vote , I have it.
” For Williams , voting has never been especially easy .
He ’ s missed elections in the past because his job working for a railroad takes him away from home for 24-hour stretches , making it impossible to vote on Election Day .
When he has been able to vote , he ’ s stood in line for hours .
Williams is certainly not alone in experiencing these barriers .
Of the three groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who only vote some of the time were actually the likeliest to report having stood in line for more than an hour ; they were also likelier than those who vote more regularly to say they couldn ’ t get off work to vote .
Take Christopher McDonald , 28 .
He voted for the first time in 2016 , but the steps he had to take to vote felt intimidating , especially for someone who wasn ’ t that interested in politics .
“ A lot of it was that I didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what to do -- I didn ’ t even know where the voting centers were , ” he said .
When he did end up voting , he was told that the precinct didn ’ t have his address on file and , like Williams , had to fill out a provisional ballot .
He still doesn ’ t know if his vote actually got counted .
“ They said , ‘ Oh you have to call the commissioner ’ s office or the courthouse or something , ’ ” he said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ place , it just went out of my head.
” This year , some of these occasional voters are also dealing with pandemic-specific challenges that could make voting less of a priority .
For instance , people who vote more irregularly are a little more likely than those who almost always vote to have lost a job in the past year ( 13 percent vs. 10 percent ) or to have worried about expenses ( 21 percent vs. 16 percent ) , although those who almost never vote are even likelier than those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experiences .
Adam Sanchez , 27 , isn ’ t sure if he ’ s voting this year , in part because he doesn ’ t want to risk his health by voting in person , but also because he doesn ’ t trust mail-in ballots .
“ The last time I tried to vote by mail , it didn ’ t get counted — it was too late , ” he said .
As a result , Sanchez told us , “ I do n't know where my ballot is going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see it put into the voting machine.
” On the whole , though , those who don ’ t vote as frequently didn ’ t view methods of voting — like in-person voting or mail-in ballots — all that differently than people who always vote .
Nonvoters , on the other hand , trusted these methods less across the board .
There are , of course , other systemic reasons why some people might vote more inconsistently .
Our survey found , for instance , that occasional voters were slightly more likely than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 8 percent vs. 5 percent ) , and nonvoters were even more likely to fall into this category ( 12 percent ) .
Black and Hispanic voters are also more likely to experience hurdles , perhaps in part because there tend to be fewer polling places in their neighborhoods .
About 24 percent of Black respondents said that they had to stand in line for more than an hour while voting , and Hispanic respondents were more likely to say they had trouble accessing the polling place or couldn ’ t get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Every year , people make it sound like it 's doomsday all over .
But I do think this election will determine the direction of the country .
Some people , like Donna Thompson , 59 , told us that a long line or complicated voting system is something that ’ s just baked into the process for them .
“ I ’ m going to have to take time off work to go get in line , because my job doesn ’ t give me time off to vote , ” she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had to wait five or six hours in past elections .
“ It ’ s very frustrating.
” But she added that while she ’ s not as consistent about voting in state and local elections , she tries to always vote in national elections despite the hassle .
As a Black woman , “ it ’ s very important that my vote counts because my people died trying to get the right to vote , ” she said .
“ I think I owe it , if nothing else , to them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was guaranteed for us.
” Thompson thinks a lot of the problems on Election Day come down to logistical issues that could be fixed .
Others agreed that there ’ s more the U.S. could be doing to encourage people to vote .
Fifty-one percent of respondents thought that making Election Day a national holiday would allow more people to cast a ballot .
Similar shares agreed that more information about the candidates from unbiased sources ( 51 percent ) or early in-person voting ( 52 percent ) would help , too .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of consensus around a single fix — and notably , those who voted less frequently were less likely than people who always vote to agree that any one solution would boost turnout .
And that might be because concrete barriers are only one piece of the puzzle .
Kelly Bryan isn ’ t voting this year — not because the process is too difficult , or she ’ s uninformed about politics .
“ I genuinely feel like my vote doesn ’ t matter , ” she said .
For most of her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two states , Illinois and Oregon , which both overwhelmingly vote for Democrats in presidential elections .
“ If I lived in Pennsylvania or Michigan , I ’ d be first in line to vote , ” she said .
In the survey , we asked voters who have missed at least one national election — which included some people who almost always vote — why they didn ’ t cast a ballot .
Nearly a quarter cited some of the structural barriers we mentioned above .
But another 31 percent said that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disliked the candidates or they thought nothing would change as a result of the election ( 26 percent ) .
That sense that the candidates are too flawed to be worth voting for — or that the system is rigged , or can ’ t be fixed by voting — came up in many of our conversations with survey respondents .
For most of his life , Eduardo Martinez thought that politics just didn ’ t impact his life .
“ I ’ m ashamed to say it , but like a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ My vote doesn ’ t count.
’ … Generally what the politicians do doesn ’ t affect me , ’ ” he said .
That changed in 2018 , when Beto O ’ Rourke ran for Senate in Texas .
“ That ’ s where I said ‘ Hey , the guy needs my help , ’ ” Martinez said .
He cast his first vote for O ’ Rourke in 2018 , at the age of 70 .
This year , he ’ s voting again — when we spoke , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was planning to fill it out that evening .
But getting to a similar place might be harder for other occasional voters or nonvoters .
For one thing , occasional voters ( 80 percent ) and nonvoters ( 68 percent ) are less likely to believe that politicians have an impact on their lives than consistent voters ( 84 percent ) .
Similarly , people who vote sometimes ( 78 percent ) or rarely ( 60 percent ) are much less likely than voters who vote almost all of the time ( 85 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people in politics who look like them — which could in turn make it harder to trust or identify with the candidates running for office .
For me , not voting sends a bigger message .
Another hurdle for Martinez were politicians and the political parties , which he described as “ not for the people.
” Many of the other survey respondents felt similarly : A substantial chunk of respondents said they don ’ t think either party wants people like them to vote .
( Twenty-three percent said this of Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black and Hispanic people were especially likely to say the Republicans don ’ t want people like them to vote : Fifty-four percent of Black respondents and 35 percent of Hispanic respondents agreed with this statement , compared to just 26 percent of white respondents .
That perception may be turning off some voters who might otherwise be more likely to cast a ballot .
Martinez , who identifies as Mexican American , said he thinks Republicans benefit from lower turnout from people like him .
“ The only reason the Republicans win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he said .
“ Latinos , brown people and Black people don ’ t vote .
That ’ s why Democrats lose.
” JeMare Williams even said that he was a “ Republican by nature ” in terms of his policy views — but as a Black man , he couldn ’ t vote for Republican candidates .
“ They shunned the African American vote because of everything they do to suppress it , ” he said .
“ When you do so much to suppress the vote , you can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me into your party.
” Andrea Johnson , meanwhile , has voted in the past but thinks that not voting this year is the best way to send a message to the parties .
Like other voters in relatively noncompetitive states , she was skeptical that her vote can make a difference in Virginia , where she ’ s currently a graduate student .
And although she admitted that she ’ s ideologically closer to Biden than to Trump , she supported more progressive candidates in the Democratic primary and resents the assumption @ @ @ @ @ @ @ line behind the Democrats ’ chosen candidate .
“ If Trump were to get reelected , it would send a bigger message to the Democratic Party that ‘ Hey , we 're tired of you giving us candidates that we do n't necessarily agree with , ’ ” she said .
This year , though , there are signs that we could be heading for record-breaking voter turnout .
And if that happens , it could be due in large part to the fact that a lot of people who vote only sometimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to our survey , 82 percent of these voters are following the 2020 election somewhat or very closely , and 93 percent are planning to vote in 2020 — very close to the share of those who say they always vote ( 97 percent ) .
A much smaller but still non-negligible share of nonvoters ( 51 percent ) also say they ’ re planning to vote this year .
( Of course , many people who say they will vote don ’ t end up casting a ballot . )
For voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election feels like a chance to hit the reset button .
Robey said that although she generally tries to turn out for national elections , she didn ’ t vote in 2016 .
“ I knew enough about Trump at that point to know that I didn ’ t want to vote for him , ” she said .
But she added that she had misgivings about Clinton that she now chalks up to “ Russian bots and misinformation , ” so she sat the election out .
She regretted that decision almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think there was any way Trump was going to win , ” she said .
“ It felt like a nightmare when I woke up in the middle of the night to check the vote and found out he had won the election.
” But this year , Robey told us , the stakes of the election are high enough that she ’ s considering voting in person if that ’ s what it takes , even though she is at moderate risk for COVID-19 .
Overall , most voters agree that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important issues facing the country is concerned , the winner of this year ’ s election really matters .
However , those who rarely vote were the likeliest to say the election doesn ’ t matter .
That ’ s true of voters of all political leanings , not just people like Robey who dislike Trump .
Trump supporters like Jared Gaffney , 42 , agreed that this year ’ s choice feels more weighty than any election in recent memory .
” There ’ s definitely more importance to this election , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because I thought the last election had quite a bit of importance to it too , ” Gaffney said .
“ But these two candidates are like polar opposites of each other.
” In interviews and the survey , we found , time and again , an increased sense of urgency to vote among less-frequent voters .
And in some instances , that ’ s prompting them to get more engaged with all aspects of the political system , not just the presidential race .
The statewide restrictions put in place during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lila Haddad , 31 , to start paying more attention to down-ballot races .
“ I ’ m a mom with three kids and sometimes I don ’ t have the time to do the research that I need to in those races , so I just don ’ t vote , ” she said .
Now , though , she said she ’ s going to make those contests more of a priority .
“ Before this year , it felt like the presidential elections were the really important ones , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to me that who we have for city council , governor — that also makes a huge difference in people ’ s lives.
” There ’ s really nothing about [ Biden ] that makes me want to vote for him .
It ’ s just the idea of not voting for Trump .
But those feelings might not persist .
It ’ s one reason why voter turnout tends to ebb and flow .
Take someone like Thomas Jones , 56 , who didn ’ t vote in 2016 but plans to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Jones ’ s daughter was sick with COVID-19 earlier this year ( she ’ s since recovered ) ; however , he is still unhappy with Trump ’ s response to the pandemic .
“ The lies that they 've told , his insistence that it 's going to disappear , his idea that he can use bleach to kind of get rid of it and then say , ‘ Oh , I was just joking , ’ ” Jones said .
“ There are too many people dying to joke about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support for Biden , Jones didn ’ t have much enthusiasm for the Democratic Party .
“ There ’ s no voice of reason on either side , ” he said .
That deeply rooted disgust with the state of the country ’ s politics was also evident in our survey and interviews .
This year , many Americans on both sides of the political divide feel a need to participate that overrides their distaste for the candidates and the system , but it might not may not last .
Each individual voter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four years from now , when the political context could be quite different .
Eduardo Martinez , for instance , said that if Trump loses the popular vote but wins the Electoral College , he might not bother voting in the future .
“ That would really be very upsetting , ” he said .
“ I probably wouldn ’ t vote again.
” High voter turnout this year shouldn ’ t be taken as a sign that Americans are newly confident in their electoral system — instead , the driving emotion seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for his part , thinks he probably won ’ t vote again for a while after 2020 .
“ I just really feel like if voting really made a difference , [ the government ] wouldn ’ t let us vote , ” he said .
But things feel bad enough right now that he doesn ’ t care — and he wants to have his say anyway .

Why Many Americans Don't Vote And why for some, this year could be different.
The last time Richard Brown voted was in 2008. He had caught a couple of presidential debates on TV, and found himself liking what the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama, had to say. And as a Black man, he was excited by the idea of voting for the country’s first Black president. Then in 2012, he decided not to bother casting a second ballot for Obama. It wasn’t that he had soured on the president — he just didn’t think it was necessary. “He’s already in office … [so] I kinda figured he didn’t need my help,” Brown said. He was willing to take the time out of his day to cast his vote, but he didn’t think it would have an impact on the outcome. “I know it’s kind of a stupid thought, but I feel like one missed vote isn’t going to change anything.” Twelve years later, though, he’s planning to vote again. It’s not because Brown, who is now 53 and lives in the Midwest, is newly hopeful that his vote will matter. In fact, he’s not at all confident that the candidate he’s supporting, Joe Biden, will win. But the stakes of this election feel personal. Over the past four years, some of his friends have changed the way they act and talk, saying hateful things about Obama or sharing racist memes on Facebook. “I’m not even really keen on Biden,” Brown said. “It’s more so that Trump is bringing racist rhetoric out of a lot of people.” Those kinds of comments are “really hurtful to me, disrespectful to me,” he said. So he’s decided to vote again this year: “This way, if [Biden] does lose the election, I can’t say that it was my fault because I didn’t vote.” Every election, millions of Americans go through a similar thought process and, it turns out, lots of people feel like Brown: They think voting doesn’t matter or isn’t worth their time. In any given election, between 35 and 60 percent of eligible voters don’t cast a ballot. It’s not that hard to understand why. Our system doesn’t make it particularly easy to vote, and the decision to carve out a few hours to cast a ballot requires a sense of motivation that’s hard for some Americans to muster every two or four years — enthusiasm about the candidates, belief in the importance of voting itself, a sense that anything can change as the result of a single vote. “I guess I just don’t think that one person’s vote can swing an election,” said Jon Anderson, who won’t be voting for president this year because of moral objections to both candidates. I don’t think if President Trump is reelected or if Joe Biden wins, it’s going to be complete chaos. So I don’t want to vote out of fear. But who does — and doesn’t — vote is complex. Most Americans don’t fall neatly into any one category. Instead, as we found in our new poll with Ipsos, most are like Brown. They vote inconsistently, or at moments when they feel like their vote has a chance to make a difference, or when the stakes of not voting are just too high, which is how many Americans describe this upcoming election. Of the 8,000-plus people we polled, we were able to match nearly 6,000 to their voting history. We analyzed the views of the respondents in that slightly smaller group, and found that they fell into three broad groups: 1) people who almost always vote; 2) people who sometimes vote; and 3) people who rarely or never vote. People who sometimes vote were a plurality of the group (44 percent), while 31 percent nearly always cast a ballot and just 25 percent almost never vote. And as the chart below shows, there weren’t huge differences between people who vote almost all the time and those who vote less consistently. Yes, those who voted more regularly were higher income, more educated, more likely to be white and more likely to identify with one of the two political parties, but those who only vote some of the time were also fairly highly educated and white, and not overwhelmingly young. There were much bigger differences between people who sometimes vote and those who almost never vote. Nonvoters were more likely to have lower incomes; to be young; to have lower levels of education; and to say they don’t belong to either political party, which are all traits that square with what we know about people less likely to engage with the political system. Many of the people we spoke with described their decision to vote as very personal, boiling down to the specific candidates, their own ability to navigate the electoral system that year, or whether they thought their vote would matter. But for others, being a “nonvoter” or a “sometimes voter” wasn’t really a choice. There are clear barriers to casting a ballot that many of them experienced. Those barriers and feelings build on each other in ways that are complicated to tease out. But that complexity actually helps us understand why so many Americans don’t consistently vote — and why they vote, when they do.
Barriers To Voting When JeMare Williams went to vote for the first time in Macomb County, Michigan, he had a plan. Tucked inside his wallet were several forms of identification and his voter registration card. He was still smarting from the last time he’d tried to vote, when he lived in Wayne County, outside Detroit. That time, he had come to the polling place with his driver’s license but without his voter registration card, and was told he had to fill out a provisional ballot (separate ballots used when a voter’s eligibility is uncertain). After he moved, he was determined that he wouldn’t have to fill out another ballot that might not get counted. “I was like — you’re not going to take this right away,” he said. “Whatever you need for me to vote, I have it.” For Williams, voting has never been especially easy. He’s missed elections in the past because his job working for a railroad takes him away from home for 24-hour stretches, making it impossible to vote on Election Day. When he has been able to vote, he’s stood in line for hours. Williams is certainly not alone in experiencing these barriers. Of the three groups of voters we identified, those voters who only vote some of the time were actually the likeliest to report having stood in line for more than an hour; they were also likelier than those who vote more regularly to say they couldn’t get off work to vote. Take Christopher McDonald, 28. He voted for the first time in 2016, but the steps he had to take to vote felt intimidating, especially for someone who wasn’t that interested in politics. “A lot of it was that I didn’t know where to go or what to do -- I didn’t even know where the voting centers were,” he said. When he did end up voting, he was told that the precinct didn’t have his address on file and, like Williams, had to fill out a provisional ballot. He still doesn’t know if his vote actually got counted. “They said, ‘Oh you have to call the commissioner’s office or the courthouse or something,’” he said. “And when I left the voting place, it just went out of my head.” This year, some of these occasional voters are also dealing with pandemic-specific challenges that could make voting less of a priority. For instance, people who vote more irregularly are a little more likely than those who almost always vote to have lost a job in the past year (13 percent vs. 10 percent) or to have worried about expenses (21 percent vs. 16 percent), although those who almost never vote are even likelier than those who sometimes vote to have reported these experiences. Adam Sanchez, 27, isn’t sure if he’s voting this year, in part because he doesn’t want to risk his health by voting in person, but also because he doesn’t trust mail-in ballots. “The last time I tried to vote by mail, it didn’t get counted — it was too late,” he said. As a result, Sanchez told us, “I don't know where my ballot is going to end up, if I don't see it put into the voting machine.” On the whole, though, those who don’t vote as frequently didn’t view methods of voting — like in-person voting or mail-in ballots — all that differently than people who always vote. Nonvoters, on the other hand, trusted these methods less across the board. There are, of course, other systemic reasons why some people might vote more inconsistently. Our survey found, for instance, that occasional voters were slightly more likely than frequent voters to have a long-term disability (8 percent vs. 5 percent), and nonvoters were even more likely to fall into this category (12 percent). Black and Hispanic voters are also more likely to experience hurdles, perhaps in part because there tend to be fewer polling places in their neighborhoods. About 24 percent of Black respondents said that they had to stand in line for more than an hour while voting, and Hispanic respondents were more likely to say they had trouble accessing the polling place or couldn’t get off work in time to vote. Every year, people make it sound like it's doomsday all over. But I do think this election will determine the direction of the country. Some people, like Donna Thompson, 59, told us that a long line or complicated voting system is something that’s just baked into the process for them. “I’m going to have to take time off work to go get in line, because my job doesn’t give me time off to vote,” she said, adding that she’s had to wait five or six hours in past elections. “It’s very frustrating.” But she added that while she’s not as consistent about voting in state and local elections, she tries to always vote in national elections despite the hassle. As a Black woman, “it’s very important that my vote counts because my people died trying to get the right to vote,” she said. “I think I owe it, if nothing else, to them because it wasn’t something that was guaranteed for us.” Thompson thinks a lot of the problems on Election Day come down to logistical issues that could be fixed. Others agreed that there’s more the U.S. could be doing to encourage people to vote. Fifty-one percent of respondents thought that making Election Day a national holiday would allow more people to cast a ballot. Similar shares agreed that more information about the candidates from unbiased sources (51 percent) or early in-person voting (52 percent) would help, too. But there wasn’t a lot of consensus around a single fix — and notably, those who voted less frequently were less likely than people who always vote to agree that any one solution would boost turnout. And that might be because concrete barriers are only one piece of the puzzle.
Trust In The System Kelly Bryan isn’t voting this year — not because the process is too difficult, or she’s uninformed about politics. “I genuinely feel like my vote doesn’t matter,” she said. For most of her life, the 33-year-old has lived in two states, Illinois and Oregon, which both overwhelmingly vote for Democrats in presidential elections. “If I lived in Pennsylvania or Michigan, I’d be first in line to vote,” she said. In the survey, we asked voters who have missed at least one national election — which included some people who almost always vote — why they didn’t cast a ballot. Nearly a quarter cited some of the structural barriers we mentioned above. But another 31 percent said that they decided not to vote because they disliked the candidates or they thought nothing would change as a result of the election (26 percent). That sense that the candidates are too flawed to be worth voting for — or that the system is rigged, or can’t be fixed by voting — came up in many of our conversations with survey respondents. For most of his life, Eduardo Martinez thought that politics just didn’t impact his life. “I’m ashamed to say it, but like a lot of people, I said, ‘My vote doesn’t count.’ … Generally what the politicians do doesn’t affect me,’” he said. That changed in 2018, when Beto O’Rourke ran for Senate in Texas. “That’s where I said ‘Hey, the guy needs my help,’” Martinez said. He cast his first vote for O’Rourke in 2018, at the age of 70. This year, he’s voting again — when we spoke, he had just received his absentee ballot and was planning to fill it out that evening. But getting to a similar place might be harder for other occasional voters or nonvoters. For one thing, occasional voters (80 percent) and nonvoters (68 percent) are less likely to believe that politicians have an impact on their lives than consistent voters (84 percent). Similarly, people who vote sometimes (78 percent) or rarely (60 percent) are much less likely than voters who vote almost all of the time (85 percent) to say that there are people in politics who look like them — which could in turn make it harder to trust or identify with the candidates running for office. Every vote should count. The way our electoral system operates now, it’s just not true. Another hurdle for Martinez were politicians and the political parties, which he described as “not for the people.” Many of the other survey respondents felt similarly: A substantial chunk of respondents said they don’t think either party wants people like them to vote. (Twenty-three percent said this of Democrats and 31 percent of Republicans.) Black and Hispanic people were especially likely to say the Republicans don’t want people like them to vote: Fifty-four percent of Black respondents and 35 percent of Hispanic respondents agreed with this statement, compared to just 26 percent of white respondents. That perception may be turning off some voters who might otherwise be more likely to cast a ballot. Martinez, who identifies as Mexican American, said he thinks Republicans benefit from lower turnout from people like him. “The only reason the Republicans win is because of people like me,” he said. “Latinos, brown people and Black people don’t vote. That’s why Democrats lose.” JeMare Williams even said that he was a “Republican by nature” in terms of his policy views — but as a Black man, he couldn’t vote for Republican candidates. “They shunned the African American vote because of everything they do to suppress it,” he said. “When you do so much to suppress the vote, you can’t tell me you’re welcoming me into your party.” Andrea Johnson, meanwhile, has voted in the past but thinks that not voting this year is the best way to send a message to the parties. Like other voters in relatively noncompetitive states, she was skeptical that her vote can make a difference in Virginia, where she’s currently a graduate student. And although she admitted that she’s ideologically closer to Biden than to Trump, she supported more progressive candidates in the Democratic primary and resents the assumption that she’ll simply fall in line behind the Democrats’ chosen candidate. “If Trump were to get reelected, it would send a bigger message to the Democratic Party that ‘Hey, we're tired of you giving us candidates that we don't necessarily agree with,’” she said.
Beliefs About Politics This year, though, there are signs that we could be heading for record-breaking voter turnout. And if that happens, it could be due in large part to the fact that a lot of people who vote only sometimes cast a ballot this year. According to our survey, 82 percent of these voters are following the 2020 election somewhat or very closely, and 93 percent are planning to vote in 2020 — very close to the share of those who say they always vote (97 percent). A much smaller but still non-negligible share of nonvoters (51 percent) also say they’re planning to vote this year. (Of course, many people who say they will vote don’t end up casting a ballot.) For voters like Amanda Robey, 38, this election feels like a chance to hit the reset button. Robey said that although she generally tries to turn out for national elections, she didn’t vote in 2016. “I knew enough about Trump at that point to know that I didn’t want to vote for him,” she said. But she added that she had misgivings about Clinton that she now chalks up to “Russian bots and misinformation,” so she sat the election out. She regretted that decision almost immediately. “I honestly did not think there was any way Trump was going to win,” she said. “It felt like a nightmare when I woke up in the middle of the night to check the vote and found out he had won the election.” But this year, Robey told us, the stakes of the election are high enough that she’s considering voting in person if that’s what it takes, even though she is at moderate risk for COVID-19. Overall, most voters agree that, as far as making progress on the important issues facing the country is concerned, the winner of this year’s election really matters. However, those who rarely vote were the likeliest to say the election doesn’t matter. That’s true of voters of all political leanings, not just people like Robey who dislike Trump. Trump supporters like Jared Gaffney, 42, agreed that this year’s choice feels more weighty than any election in recent memory. ”There’s definitely more importance to this election, which is kind of odd to say because I thought the last election had quite a bit of importance to it too,” Gaffney said. “But these two candidates are like polar opposites of each other.” In interviews and the survey, we found, time and again, an increased sense of urgency to vote among less-frequent voters. And in some instances, that’s prompting them to get more engaged with all aspects of the political system, not just the presidential race. The statewide restrictions put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic, for one, convinced Lila Haddad, 31, to start paying more attention to down-ballot races. “I’m a mom with three kids and sometimes I don’t have the time to do the research that I need to in those races, so I just don’t vote,” she said. Now, though, she said she’s going to make those contests more of a priority. “Before this year, it felt like the presidential elections were the really important ones, but now it’s become really plain to me that who we have for city council, governor — that also makes a huge difference in people’s lives.” There’s really nothing about [Biden] that makes me want to vote for him. It’s just the idea of not voting for Trump. But those feelings might not persist. It’s one reason why voter turnout tends to ebb and flow. Take someone like Thomas Jones, 56, who didn’t vote in 2016 but plans to cast his ballot for Biden this year. Jones’s daughter was sick with COVID-19 earlier this year (she’s since recovered); however, he is still unhappy with Trump’s response to the pandemic. “The lies that they've told, his insistence that it's going to disappear, his idea that he can use bleach to kind of get rid of it and then say, ‘Oh, I was just joking,’” Jones said. “There are too many people dying to joke about something like that.” But despite his support for Biden, Jones didn’t have much enthusiasm for the Democratic Party. “There’s no voice of reason on either side,” he said. That deeply rooted disgust with the state of the country’s politics was also evident in our survey and interviews. This year, many Americans on both sides of the political divide feel a need to participate that overrides their distaste for the candidates and the system, but it may not last. Each individual voter will face a new calculus two or four years from now, when the political context could be quite different. Eduardo Martinez, for instance, said that if Trump loses the popular vote but wins the Electoral College, he might not bother voting in the future. “That would really be very upsetting,” he said. “I probably wouldn’t vote again.” High voter turnout this year shouldn’t be taken as a sign that Americans are newly confident in their electoral system — instead, the driving emotion seems to be desperation. Richard Brown, for his part, thinks he probably won’t vote again for a while after 2020. “I just really feel like if voting really made a difference, [the government] wouldn’t let us vote,” he said. But things feel bad enough right now that he doesn’t care — and he wants to have his say anyway.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-27--What Kind Of Supreme Court Justice Will Amy Coney Barrett Be?

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

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


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-27--Surprise! October Surprises Don’t Usually Decide Elections

In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew discusses the October surprises we ’ ve seen so @ @ @ @ @ likelihood of another late development shaking up the race for president .
The gang also @ @ @ @ @

In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew discusses the October surprises we’ve seen so far this year and the likelihood of another late development shaking up the race for president. The gang also answers more listener questions.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-26--The Race Hasn’t Changed Much Since The Debate, And That’s Good For Biden

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

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


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-26--Politics Podcast: Could Any Surprises Still Affect The Race For President?

Election Day is just eight days away , and more than 60 million Americans have already voted — that ’ @ @ @ @ @ all the votes counted in 2016 .
So could any new developments still affect the @ @ @ @ @ of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew looks at how October surprises have — @ @ @ @ @ shaped past elections and what issues are driving the final days of the 2020 campaign @ @ @ @ @ the mailbag and answer some listener questions .
You can listen to the episode by @ @ @ @ @ button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes , the ESPN @ @ @ @ @ platform .
If you are new to podcasts , learn how to listen .
The @ @ @ @ @ Mondays and Thursdays .
Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating @ @ @ @ @ Have a comment , question or suggestion for “ good polling vs. bad polling ” @ @ @ @ @ email , on Twitter or in the comments .

Election Day is just eight days away, and more than 60 million Americans have already voted — that’s about 45 percent of all the votes counted in 2016. So could any new developments still affect the race? In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew looks at how October surprises have — or haven’t — shaped past elections and what issues are driving the final days of the 2020 campaign. They also shake out the mailbag and answer some listener questions.
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast is recorded Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-26--Are Bad NFL Defenses Breaking Win Probability Models?

sara.ziegler ( Sara Ziegler , sports editor ) : Week 7 of the NFL season gave us a LOT to unpack : The Atlanta Falcons lost yet another game they seemed to have sewn up , while the Dallas Cowboys lost another quarterback during a truly dreadful defeat at the hands of the Washington Football Team .
And who could forget the best tackle ever made by a 20-yard line ?
But we start with the Sunday night game , which pitted the always-living-dangerously Seattle Seahawks against the who-knows-what-you ’ ll-get-from-them Arizona Cardinals .
This game had a little of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we saw a missed field goal , a touchdown called back on a holding penalty , an interception on the very next play , and then field goal redemption !
neil ( Neil Paine , senior sportswriter ) : I tuned in after the World Series game just in time to see the end !
Salfino ( Michael Salfino , FiveThirtyEight contributor ) : The game featured the most combined yards in a regular-season game since 2013 ( though Super Bowl LII had more ) .
Neither team could play defense .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year .
joshua.hermsmeyer ( Josh Hermsmeyer , NFL analyst ) : I guess this is where I point and laugh at win probability models , again .
neil : Ya got ta watch out for that 0.1 percent .
Salfino : There is a nerd civil war over win probability models , and I ’ m here for it .
Where are you on this , Neil ?
Sara ?
neil : I think they could probably use an audit if 0.1 percent things are happening every week .
sara.ziegler : I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them in the wrong way .
Salfino : Isn ’ t the idea that in games like this , with this score and time , team X wins Y percent of the time ?
It seems like there are too many independent variables for real back-testing , though .
I feel like they overpromise .
joshua.hermsmeyer : To be fair , I think they mostly get it right , and we focus on the outliers .
But the entire point is to highlight the outliers , as far as I can tell .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ hasn ’ t been great .
sara.ziegler : I think we want to jump on the models when the unlikely thing happens , but I like to use those models to see just how unlikely the thing was and then enjoy that !
Instead of getting mad that the unlikely thing happened .
( But yeah , those should maybe be redone in this era of offense . )
neil : Is one solution just to add more uncertainty for the defensive team holding a lead ?
Since defenses appear to be struggling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Salfino : Defenses are so bad you can ’ t even not score on purpose against them .
The headline on this story was great : “ Falcons find a new way to lose : by scoring a touchdown.
” Salfino : Is Atlanta the best or the worst ?
ESPN ’ s Stats & Information Group said this was the Falcons ’ third loss off the season when they had a win probability of at least 98 percent , “ the most by a team in the last 20 seasons.
” Todd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sobriety test when he fell into the end zone .
It ’ s the new Butt Fumble , except it actually determined the outcome of a game .
And how ironic was it that the Falcons blew the game to the Lions , another team known for blowing leads .
I guess this was inevitable .
The best part was the Lions defenders celebrating the TD .
sara.ziegler : That was quite the image .
joshua.hermsmeyer : I very much enjoyed Adrian Peterson ’ s 11-carry , 29-yard rushing performance .
The Lions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this week ( -0.22 expected points added per play ) , ahead of just the Eagles and Texans .
And they still won .
neil : It ’ s so crazy because this season , teams have scored a TD on just 26 percent of drives ; even the best teams haven ’ t cracked 40 percent .
Yet somehow , there is always a situation where a defense needs to stop a team from driving the length of the field with a minute left , and it feels like they fail more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s like every defense has Edwin Diaz closing .
neil : I think teams should pretend they ’ re down 6 with a minute left on every drive .
Would lead to the best offense ever .
joshua.hermsmeyer : Love it , Neil , and pretend your kickers retired before the game .
neil : Josh , we ’ ll get that if Daryl Morey takes over the Texans .
Salfino : But aren ’ t the defenses so awful ?
Sara is right , I think , that it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on pace to give up 7,667 yards , 600 more than the record set by the New Orleans Saints in 2012 .
And somehow , they are a Super Bowl favorite .
( I reject that ; defense has to matter A LITTLE . )
There are three winning teams in the all-time bottom 10 in yards allowed — the 2011 Packers , 2011 Patriots and 2018 Chiefs .
None won a Super Bowl .
Salfino : Josh , do you think that Seattle is a Super Bowl contender despite that defense ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ think that whatever it is we think we know about the Hawks defense right now is likely wrong .
I suspect they are not good but probably can put together a stretch of average play .
Salfino : I guess I agree , if they face the right offenses .
But the Cardinals are hardly an offensive juggernaut .
sara.ziegler : The Seahawks just need D.K .
Metcalf to be a true two-way player , and then they ’ ll be fine : neil : And on the flip side , now that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owe Kliff Kingsbury an apology ?
Salfino : Kyler Murray is setting fantasy on fire .
He has a rushing and passing TD in six of his team ’ s first seven games , the first player ever to do this .
But do we think he ’ s great ?
I don ’ t .
joshua.hermsmeyer : I think he ’ s the best-performing No .
1 overall pick from 2019 !
It was a good week for former No .
1 overalls : Baker Mayfield threw for five TDs against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among 2020 QBs in EPA , for what that ’ s worth .
sara.ziegler : Why don ’ t you think he ’ s good , Mike ?
Salfino : I think he ’ s good but not an MVP-level player .
He ’ s an insanely good runner , though .
I think you can defend this offense .
But in fairness , it looks like you can defend Patrick Mahomes this year , too , and we know Mahomes is great .
Ironically , in a year when defense is at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problems … on offense .
joshua.hermsmeyer : Agree with you that Mahomes doesn ’ t look the same , Mike .
The past four weeks , he ranks 17th in QBR .
What do you think is wrong with him ?
Salfino : It seems like defenses are making him play small ball , and he doesn ’ t like that .
sara.ziegler : He didn ’ t play well on Sunday , but that was in the snow … and his team won by 27 .
Salfino : Good point about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had over 400 yards .
And Kansas City went 0-for-8 on third down .
neil : It ’ s funny because Chiefs receivers are actually getting more average separation these past three games — 4.26 yards vs. 3.82 — than they did last season .
But Mahomes is undershooting his expected completion percentage by more .
Salfino : Is that separation stat meaningful , Neil ?
I can ’ t get anything correlative out of it .
neil : There ’ s probably some selection bias in the sense that it only measures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ open ” everyone is on all routes .
joshua.hermsmeyer : Agreed , Neil .
Also , average separation really obscures some important things like route mix .
neil : But it is telling in the sense that the difficulty of Mahomes ’ s throws ( to the extent we can measure that ) hasn ’ t changed almost at all .
joshua.hermsmeyer : Yep , and his average depth of target isn ’ t super low ; it ’ s still in the 8s .
Salfino : It ’ s weird that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thrower now in his own division .
neil : That would be true if Tyrod Taylor were still starting too .
🔥 Let ’ s talk about another quarterback , one who ’ s really struggling : Cam Newton .
The Patriots have some serious problems right now .
Salfino : Remember when Cam was the best signing ever , and the rest of the NFL were dopes ?
joshua.hermsmeyer : Cam ’ s QBR yesterday was 3.5 , the third-worst performance by a QB this season and the second-straight game that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contracting the coronavirus .
I really wonder if something physical is wrong .
I know he hurt his hand , so maybe that ’ s it .
neil : I also saw some speculation about his shoulder , which is another injury that goes back a long time for him , off and on .
It doesn ’ t help that the Pats ’ receiving problems seem to be as bad as ever .
Julian Edelman had one catch ( on three targets ) for 13 yards .
neil : And he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yards per game receiving .
Salfino : I think we can legit wonder if Cam hasn ’ t fully recovered from COVID-19 , but remember , Cam has been a HORRENDOUS passer since 2016. neil : Thing is , he really only needed to be better than Brady passing while also bringing that rushing dimension .
But he ’ s been much worse than Brady was .
sara.ziegler : And , of course , the Patriots have big problems on the other side of the ball , too .
Salfino : If only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Patriots drafted N ’ Keal Harry in the first round .
sara.ziegler : I think everyone is waiting for Bill Belichick to come up with some magic solution to all of this , but that really doesn ’ t seem possible this year .
joshua.hermsmeyer : If Cam gets healthy I think they can turn it around — assuming health is the issue here .
neil : Back-to-back home losses .
When was the last time that happened to the Pats ?
Salfino : There are now about 10 things like this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s point , defense has been an issue for the Pats this year as well .
After being perhaps the best defensive back in the league last season , Stephon Gilmore is the 50th ranked CB this season by PFF , and the Pats are 29th in net yards allowed per pass attempt .
Salfino : Man , the year-to-year variance for “ shutdown CBs ” is so high .
I think the stats we use are bad , or it ’ s just too hard to suss out the best CBs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : One other game to talk about quickly : In the battle of the unbeatens , Pittsburgh held on to beat Tennessee on Sunday .
What did you all make of that game ?
None of you was all that high on the Steelers going into it… Salfino : I still think Ben Roethlisberger is shot .
It looked like he was going to make me eat my words in the first half , and then he was bad .
The Titans were dancing with a damaged kicker and getting away with it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the piper .
joshua.hermsmeyer : I felt like Tennessee lost more than the Steelers won .
Ryan Tannehill outplayed Ben slightly , but neither team looked particularly sharp .
neil : We knew the Steelers ’ run defense was formidable — and they made Derrick Henry look mortal .
joshua.hermsmeyer : At least fantasy players were happy with that sweet A.J .
Brown TD .
Salfino : Love the Pittsburgh defense .
But the Titans helped them by throwing more passes to Corey Davis than Brown , even though Brown had five times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Corey Davis : 3.5 yards per attempt on his targets .
sara.ziegler : It was a strange game .
And now the Steelers have a 10 percent chance to win the Super Bowl , tied for third with the Ravens , in our model .
Salfino : I ’ m not loving any team in football , I have to say .
Is it just me ?
neil : The Chiefs certainly seem like a more flawed favorite than last year .
Salfino : The Bucs are probably the best team .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ wins again .
neil : Maybe it was Brady and not Belichick all along !
😬 Salfino : What is the deal with Antonio Brown ?
How can that help the program ?
Isn ’ t the downside too great ?
joshua.hermsmeyer : I don ’ t hate adding receiver depth .
But I hate everything else about that move .
neil : Brady is so vindictive that he made them sign Brown just so the Pats wouldn ’ t .
Salfino : Antonio is being coached up by Banana Hands , too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Beckham Jr. is out for the season .
Salfino : It ’ s a shame that his career , which was trending down , may now be over at such a young age .
joshua.hermsmeyer : He got injured trying to make the tackle after a Mayfield interception .
Double-whammy play .
Baker has been taking fire in Cleveland recently and was benched last week .
I ’ m sure this won ’ t help things .
Salfino : Baker was 0-for-5 on his first five throws , including that pick , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He is cutting 1,000 commercials this week .
Before we wrap things up , I did want to talk about another story that came out on Sunday .
ESPN ’ s Adam Schefter reported that Ryquell Armstead , a running back for the Jacksonville Jaguars , won ’ t play this season because of complications from COVID-19 .
According to Schefter , Armstead has been hospitalized twice and has faced “ significant respiratory issues.
” This sounds like the most serious case faced by any active athlete , and certainly within the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tended to be asymptomatic , and though some prominent players have had symptoms — Ezekiel Elliot and Von Miller , for example — those players recovered and returned to football .
Armstead is very young — he turns 24 on Friday — and in exceptional shape .
He was expected to compete for the starting RB role this year .
His illness is a reminder that , though sports have brought us a measure of normalcy , we are still living in a terrifying pandemic .
neil : COVID-19 is a numbers game @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of numbers — with no bubble to really protect it .
Salfino : What ’ s happened to him is so scary .
We ’ ve become desensitized to positive tests in sports with young and healthy athletes , but this is a grim reminder that the disease is so dangerous , no matter the age of the person it hits .

sara.ziegler (Sara Ziegler, sports editor): Week 7 of the NFL season gave us a LOT to unpack: The Atlanta Falcons lost yet another game they seemed to have sewn up, while the Dallas Cowboys lost another quarterback during a truly dreadful defeat at the hands of the Washington Football Team. And who could forget the best tackle ever made by a 20-yard line?
But we start with the Sunday night game, which pitted the always-living-dangerously Seattle Seahawks against the who-knows-what-you’ll-get-from-them Arizona Cardinals. This game had a little of everything: In the overtime alone, we saw a missed field goal, a touchdown called back on a holding penalty, an interception on the very next play, and then field goal redemption!
neil (Neil Paine, senior sportswriter): I tuned in after the World Series game just in time to see the end!
(And wondered how the hell Arizona even forced OT to begin with, given the score when I periodically checked it earlier…)
Salfino (Michael Salfino, FiveThirtyEight contributor): The game featured the most combined yards in a regular-season game since 2013 (though Super Bowl LII had more). Neither team could play defense. The Seahawks haven’t played defense all year.
Seattle’s defense is quarantined.
joshua.hermsmeyer (Josh Hermsmeyer, NFL analyst): I guess this is where I point and laugh at win probability models, again.
neil: Ya gotta watch out for that 0.1 percent.
Salfino: There is a nerd civil war over win probability models, and I’m here for it. Where are you on this, Neil? Sara?
sara.ziegler: I mean…
neil: I think they could probably use an audit if 0.1 percent things are happening every week.
sara.ziegler: I think that we’re probably looking at them in the wrong way.
Salfino: Isn’t the idea that in games like this, with this score and time, team X wins Y percent of the time? It seems like there are too many independent variables for real back-testing, though. I feel like they overpromise.
joshua.hermsmeyer: To be fair, I think they mostly get it right, and we focus on the outliers. But the entire point is to highlight the outliers, as far as I can tell. And this year in particular, it hasn’t been great.
sara.ziegler: I think we want to jump on the models when the unlikely thing happens, but I like to use those models to see just how unlikely the thing was and then enjoy that! Instead of getting mad that the unlikely thing happened. (But yeah, those should maybe be redone in this era of offense.)
neil: Is one solution just to add more uncertainty for the defensive team holding a lead? Since defenses appear to be struggling to, like, do that?
Salfino: Defenses are so bad you can’t even not score on purpose against them.
neil: OMG. Falcons … why???
The headline on this story was great: “Falcons find a new way to lose: by scoring a touchdown.”
Salfino: Is Atlanta the best or the worst? ESPN’s Stats & Information Group said this was the Falcons’ third loss off the season when they had a win probability of at least 98 percent, “the most by a team in the last 20 seasons.”
Todd Gurley looked like he was failing a sobriety test when he fell into the end zone. It’s the new Butt Fumble, except it actually determined the outcome of a game.
And how ironic was it that the Falcons blew the game to the Lions, another team known for blowing leads. I guess this was inevitable. The best part was the Lions defenders celebrating the TD.
sara.ziegler: That was quite the image.
joshua.hermsmeyer: I very much enjoyed Adrian Peterson’s 11-carry, 29-yard rushing performance. The Lions’ rushing attack was third-worst so far this week (-0.22 expected points added per play), ahead of just the Eagles and Texans. And they still won.
neil: It’s so crazy because this season, teams have scored a TD on just 26 percent of drives; even the best teams haven’t cracked 40 percent. Yet somehow, there is always a situation where a defense needs to stop a team from driving the length of the field with a minute left, and it feels like they fail more often than not!
Salfino: It’s like every defense has Edwin Diaz closing.
neil: Ooooof
sara.ziegler: Mets reference in the NFL chat!
neil: I think teams should pretend they’re down 6 with a minute left on every drive. Would lead to the best offense ever.
joshua.hermsmeyer: Love it, Neil, and pretend your kickers retired before the game.
neil: Josh, we’ll get that if Daryl Morey takes over the Texans.
sara.ziegler: LOL
Salfino: But aren’t the defenses so awful? Sara is right, I think, that it’s screwing up the modeling. Seattle is on pace to give up 7,667 yards, 600 more than the record set by the New Orleans Saints in 2012. And somehow, they are a Super Bowl favorite. (I reject that; defense has to matter A LITTLE.)
There are three winning teams in the all-time bottom 10 in yards allowed — the 2011 Packers, 2011 Patriots and 2018 Chiefs. None won a Super Bowl.
joshua.hermsmeyer: That’s a stat!
Salfino: Josh, do you think that Seattle is a Super Bowl contender despite that defense?
joshua.hermsmeyer: Mike, yes, I think that whatever it is we think we know about the Hawks defense right now is likely wrong. I suspect they are not good but probably can put together a stretch of average play.
Salfino: I guess I agree, if they face the right offenses. But the Cardinals are hardly an offensive juggernaut.
sara.ziegler: The Seahawks just need D.K. Metcalf to be a true two-way player, and then they’ll be fine:
neil: And on the flip side, now that Arizona is 5-2, do we all owe Kliff Kingsbury an apology?
Salfino: Kyler Murray is setting fantasy on fire. He has a rushing and passing TD in six of his team’s first seven games, the first player ever to do this. But do we think he’s great? I don’t.
joshua.hermsmeyer: I think he’s the best-performing No. 1 overall pick from 2019! It was a good week for former No. 1 overalls: Baker Mayfield threw for five TDs against the Bengals.
neil: Kyler is fifth among 2020 QBs in EPA, for what that’s worth.
sara.ziegler: Why don’t you think he’s good, Mike?
Salfino: I think he’s good but not an MVP-level player. He’s an insanely good runner, though. I think you can defend this offense.
But in fairness, it looks like you can defend Patrick Mahomes this year, too, and we know Mahomes is great. Ironically, in a year when defense is at an all-time worst, Kansas City has problems … on offense.
joshua.hermsmeyer: Agree with you that Mahomes doesn’t look the same, Mike. The past four weeks, he ranks 17th in QBR. What do you think is wrong with him?
Salfino: It seems like defenses are making him play small ball, and he doesn’t like that.
sara.ziegler: He didn’t play well on Sunday, but that was in the snow … and his team won by 27.
Salfino: Good point about the weather, Sara, but the Broncos had over 400 yards. And Kansas City went 0-for-8 on third down.
neil: It’s funny because Chiefs receivers are actually getting more average separation these past three games — 4.26 yards vs. 3.82 — than they did last season.
But Mahomes is undershooting his expected completion percentage by more.
Salfino: Is that separation stat meaningful, Neil? I can’t get anything correlative out of it.
neil: There’s probably some selection bias in the sense that it only measures throws that get made, not how “open” everyone is on all routes.
joshua.hermsmeyer: Agreed, Neil. Also, average separation really obscures some important things like route mix.
neil: But it is telling in the sense that the difficulty of Mahomes’s throws (to the extent we can measure that) hasn’t changed almost at all.
joshua.hermsmeyer: Yep, and his average depth of target isn’t super low; it’s still in the 8s.
Salfino: It’s weird that Mahomes is not even the best deep thrower now in his own division.
That’s Justin “Marino” Hebert, of course.
sara.ziegler: 🤣
neil: That would be true if Tyrod Taylor were still starting too. 🔥
(Poor Tyrod. He has had the unluckiest QB career I can think of.)
sara.ziegler: Ugh, so true.
Let’s talk about another quarterback, one who’s really struggling: Cam Newton. The Patriots have some serious problems right now.
Salfino: Remember when Cam was the best signing ever, and the rest of the NFL were dopes?
Cam Newton is the 1st Patriots player with 0 touchdown passes and multiple interceptions in back-to-back games since Drew Bledsoe in 1995. He is the 1st Patriots player with 0 touchdown passes, at least 3 Int and under 100 Pass yards since Steve Grogan in 1983 pic.twitter.com/CscjRSnGeB — ESPN Stats & Info (@ESPNStatsInfo) October 25, 2020
joshua.hermsmeyer: Cam’s QBR yesterday was 3.5, the third-worst performance by a QB this season and the second-straight game that he’s struggled since he returned after contracting the coronavirus. I really wonder if something physical is wrong. I know he hurt his hand, so maybe that’s it.
neil: I also saw some speculation about his shoulder, which is another injury that goes back a long time for him, off and on.
It doesn’t help that the Pats’ receiving problems seem to be as bad as ever. Julian Edelman had one catch (on three targets) for 13 yards.
joshua.hermsmeyer: Yikes.
neil: And he’s the only Patriot averaging over 40 yards per game receiving.
Salfino: I think we can legit wonder if Cam hasn’t fully recovered from COVID-19, but remember, Cam has been a HORRENDOUS passer since 2016.
neil: Thing is, he really only needed to be better than Brady passing while also bringing that rushing dimension. But he’s been much worse than Brady was.
sara.ziegler: And, of course, the Patriots have big problems on the other side of the ball, too.
Salfino: If only there were some college receivers the year the Patriots drafted N’Keal Harry in the first round.
sara.ziegler: I think everyone is waiting for Bill Belichick to come up with some magic solution to all of this, but that really doesn’t seem possible this year.
Salfino: I agree, the Patriots are toast.
joshua.hermsmeyer: If Cam gets healthy I think they can turn it around — assuming health is the issue here.
neil: Back-to-back home losses. When was the last time that happened to the Pats?
(I looked it up, and the last time that happened in the regular season was in Weeks 9 and 10 of the 2006 season.)
Salfino: There are now about 10 things like this about them:
Tom Brady has 18 TD passes and 4 interceptions this season, the Patriots have 3 TD passes and 11 interceptions. The last time the Patriots had the fewest TD passes and most interceptions thrown in the NFL, this late in a season, was 1972 (through Week 12). H/T @EliasSports pic.twitter.com/eGgNhBTOoY — ESPN Stats & Info (@ESPNStatsInfo) October 25, 2020
joshua.hermsmeyer: To Sara’s point, defense has been an issue for the Pats this year as well. After being perhaps the best defensive back in the league last season, Stephon Gilmore is the 50th ranked CB this season by PFF, and the Pats are 29th in net yards allowed per pass attempt.
Salfino: Man, the year-to-year variance for “shutdown CBs” is so high. I think the stats we use are bad, or it’s just too hard to suss out the best CBs. Like defense in baseball.
sara.ziegler: One other game to talk about quickly: In the battle of the unbeatens, Pittsburgh held on to beat Tennessee on Sunday. What did you all make of that game? None of you was all that high on the Steelers going into it…
Salfino: I still think Ben Roethlisberger is shot. It looked like he was going to make me eat my words in the first half, and then he was bad. The Titans were dancing with a damaged kicker and getting away with it, but they finally had to pay the piper.
joshua.hermsmeyer: I felt like Tennessee lost more than the Steelers won. Ryan Tannehill outplayed Ben slightly, but neither team looked particularly sharp.
neil: We knew the Steelers’ run defense was formidable — and they made Derrick Henry look mortal.
joshua.hermsmeyer: At least fantasy players were happy with that sweet A.J. Brown TD.
Salfino: Love the Pittsburgh defense. But the Titans helped them by throwing more passes to Corey Davis than Brown, even though Brown had five times as many yards.
neil: Oooof. Corey Davis: 3.5 yards per attempt on his targets.
Brown: 19.1
Salfino: That’s the ballgame.
sara.ziegler: It was a strange game. And now the Steelers have a 10 percent chance to win the Super Bowl, tied for third with the Ravens, in our model.
Salfino: I’m not loving any team in football, I have to say. Is it just me?
neil: The Chiefs certainly seem like a more flawed favorite than last year.
Salfino: The Bucs are probably the best team. God help us all if Tom Brady wins again.
neil: Maybe it was Brady and not Belichick all along! 😬
Salfino: Spoiler alert!
sara.ziegler: LOL
Salfino: What is the deal with Antonio Brown? How can that help the program? Isn’t the downside too great?
Morality aside.
neil: He’s “matured,” haven’t you heard, Mike?
joshua.hermsmeyer: I don’t hate adding receiver depth. But I hate everything else about that move.
neil: Brady is so vindictive that he made them sign Brown just so the Pats wouldn’t.
(Not true. LOL)
Salfino: Antonio is being coached up by Banana Hands, too.
joshua.hermsmeyer: Breaking news: Odell Beckham Jr. is out for the season.
sara.ziegler: Oh, man.
Salfino: It’s a shame that his career, which was trending down, may now be over at such a young age.
joshua.hermsmeyer: He got injured trying to make the tackle after a Mayfield interception. Double-whammy play. Baker has been taking fire in Cleveland recently and was benched last week. I’m sure this won’t help things.
Salfino: Baker was 0-for-5 on his first five throws, including that pick, and then he went 22-of-23 with five TDs. He is cutting 1,000 commercials this week.
sara.ziegler: LOL, Mike.
Before we wrap things up, I did want to talk about another story that came out on Sunday. ESPN’s Adam Schefter reported that Ryquell Armstead, a running back for the Jacksonville Jaguars, won’t play this season because of complications from COVID-19. According to Schefter, Armstead has been hospitalized twice and has faced “significant respiratory issues.”
This sounds like the most serious case faced by any active athlete, and certainly within the NFL. Positive tests across leagues have tended to be asymptomatic, and though some prominent players have had symptoms — Ezekiel Elliot and Von Miller, for example — those players recovered and returned to football.
Armstead is very young — he turns 24 on Friday — and in exceptional shape. He was expected to compete for the starting RB role this year. His illness is a reminder that, though sports have brought us a measure of normalcy, we are still living in a terrifying pandemic.
neil: COVID-19 is a numbers game. And the NFL has a lot of numbers — with no bubble to really protect it.
Salfino: What’s happened to him is so scary. We’ve become desensitized to positive tests in sports with young and healthy athletes, but this is a grim reminder that the disease is so dangerous, no matter the age of the person it hits.
Check out our latest NFL predictions.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-26--Fewer Undecided Voters Is Good News For Biden In The Midwest

Will this election be a replay of 2016 , with President Trump unexpectedly winning Wisconsin , Michigan and Pennsylvania ?
@ @ @ @ @ Druke says that 2020 is shaping up to be a very different race in the @ @

Will this election be a replay of 2016, with President Trump unexpectedly winning Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania? FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast host Galen Druke says that 2020 is shaping up to be a very different race in the Midwest.