fivethirthyeight--2020-10-19--The NHL Says ‘Hockey Is For Everyone.’ Black Players Aren’t So Sure.

As Washington Capitals forward Devante Smith-Pelly sat in the penalty box during a game at Chicago ’ s United Center in February 2018 , he listened as a group of white fans chanted “ basketball , basketball , basketball ” in his direction .
The Blackhawks fans taunting Smith-Pelly , who is Black , were making their position clear : Hockey isn ’ t for everyone , and it ’ s especially not for Black people .
Willie O ’ Ree , who became the NHL ’ s first Black player in 1958 when he took the ice for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Canadiens , faced racist abuse throughout his career .
When Toronto Maple Leafs forward Wayne Simmonds was on the Flyers in 2011 , he had a banana hurled at him by a fan during an exhibition game in London , Ontario .
After Washington Capitals forward Joel Ward knocked the Bruins out of the 2012 playoffs with a Game 7 overtime winner , he faced a barrage of racist abuse by Boston fans on social media .
When New York Rangers prospect K ’ Andre Miller , who is Black , participated in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an ordinary question-and-answer session with fans on Zoom earlier this year , he was repeatedly abused with racist taunts .
In a candid Players ’ Tribune essay , former Calgary Flames forward Akim Aliu , who is Nigerian , detailed instances of racist abuse that he suffered during his playing career — from teammates and from his own coach .
The list of racist incidents in hockey is too long to detail in full , and it ’ s not limited to the professional game — they are depressingly common at the youth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Chicago in 2018 , Smith-Pelly reflected on how little has changed since O ’ Ree broke the color barrier more than 60 years ago .
“ [ O ’ Ree ] had to go through a lot , and the same thing has been happening now , which obviously means there ’ s still a long way to go , ” Smith-Pelly told the AP .
“ If you had pulled a quote from him back then and us now , they ’ re saying the same thing , so obviously there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go in hockey and in the world if we ’ re being serious.
” The hockey world was forced again to confront its own reaction to racism this summer .
When players on the Milwaukee Bucks decided not to take the court for an NBA playoff game on Aug. 26 in protest of the shooting of Jacob Blake by police in Kenosha , Wisconsin , they inspired other players across sports to do the same .
In doing so , they made it clear to league officials , team owners and a nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they believe Black lives matter .
But as basketballs , baseballs , soccer balls and tennis balls were put away in protest , hockey pucks conspicuously were not .
Hours after the Bucks refused to play , and after players in other leagues joined that protest — the intention of their collective action unequivocal — skaters from the Boston Bruins and Tampa Bay Lightning gathered at center ice at Scotiabank Arena in Toronto for the beginning of Game 3 of their Eastern Conference semifinal series as if nothing were happening outside of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While play stopped in other leagues that day , the NHL didn ’ t move its slate of games , instead choosing to acknowledge what Kenosha police did to Blake with a 27-second “ moment of reflection ” before the Bruins and Lightning game while the jumbotron lit up with the words “ End Racism.
” Even that short display was more than the league spared for a game between the Colorado Avalanche and the Dallas Stars later that evening , which proceeded without any acknowledgement at all .
Not everyone associated with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A number of current and former players tweeted messages of support to the Bucks and the NBA more broadly .
Some white players took that stand , including retired goaltender Roberto Luongo , but nonwhite players were at the forefront , including San Jose Sharks forward Evander Kane , who is Black , and Minnesota Wild defenseman Matt Dumba , who is of Filipino descent .
Aliu tweeted his support to NBA , WNBA and MLB players , and he asked the NHL , “ where you at ?
” Dumba , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take a knee during the playing of the Star-Spangled Banner when he did so before a game in August , even took to the airwaves in Vancouver to explain that the onus to speak out against racism should not always fall on Black players and players of color .
“ You can ’ t keep coming to the minority players every time there ’ s a situation like this , ” Dumba said on The Program .
“ The white players in our league need to have answers for what they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , too , and where they stand in making a change , doing good for the league .
Because I know that there ’ s a lot of them that are good people — there ’ s a lot of good people in hockey .
But the silence is as bad as the violence.
” After an evening of mostly silence from the league and its teams , the NHL and its overwhelmingly white workforce finally came around to the idea that players in other sports might be onto something .
Players in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Aug. 27 to announce the postponement of games that day and the next , with a plan to resume play the following day .
The announcement came from Vegas Golden Knights forward Ryan Reaves and Avalanche forward Pierre Edouard-Bellemare , who are both Black , Avalanche forward Nazem Kadri , who is of Lebanese descent , and Dallas Stars forward Jason Dickinson and Vancouver Canucks forward Bo Horvat , who are both white .
By all accounts , the action was led by the players and not the league .
There ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it has a racism problem .
Its “ Hockey Is For Everyone ” campaign is proof of this ; its slate of Black History Month commercials — which featured no Black players in 2020 — is proof of this ; its mobile history museum , which tells the story of the Coloured Hockey League , an all-Black league that formed in Nova Scotia in 1895 and is responsible for the invention of the slapshot and the butterfly goalie stance , is proof of this ; the white paper it produced in 2018 in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acknowledged that demographics in North America are shifting , that 44 percent of American millennials are not white and that the league needs to get better at reaching out to Black people and people of color — is proof of this too .
But the reality is that the league ’ s fans are overwhelmingly white , skew conservative and are more wealthy than fans of other professional sports leagues .
As support for the Black Lives Matter movement had waned among white Americans , it ’ s fair to assume it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white audience , too .
And minority representation in the league remains minuscule : Less than 5 percent of the league ’ s players are Black or people of color , and it has hired only one Black head coach — out of 377 total coaches — in its 102-year existence .
A cohort of current and former Black players and players of color within the NHL isn ’ t waiting any longer for the league to act .
Players including Kane , Dumba , Aliu , Kadri and Simmonds joined together to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) in June in an effort to end racism and promote diversity at all levels of the sport .
Soon after the NHL balked at the opportunity to show its support for Black lives , the HDA issued a press release detailing how it intends to upend racial inequities in the NHL and hockey more broadly .
The HDA ’ s plan begins with increasing the share of Black personnel hired by the NHL and its member franchises — at the executive level as well as in hockey-related and non-hockey-related roles .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s workforce , the HDA proposed that it should be tasked with selecting at least 50 percent of the NHL ’ s Executive Inclusion Council ( EIC ) , a group of team owners , presidents and general managers whose mandate is to ensure diversity and inclusion efforts are taken seriously throughout the league .
Doing so would “ ensure that the voices of our Black , Indigenous and racialized players are heard and that they have an opportunity to help change the culture of the league.
” The HDA also asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and unconscious bias training education program for all league employees .
The HDA committed to funding social justice initiatives that target racism and provide justice for Black , Indigenous and racialized communities ; grassroots hockey development programs that increase access and provide support to BIPOC players at the youth level ; and anti-racism and unconscious bias education programs in amateur hockey leagues across North America .
Days after the HDA issued its press release , the NHL and the NHLPA ( the league ’ s players union ) responded with a joint press @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts , which include mandatory diversity and inclusion training for all players and NHLPA personnel .
The NHL and NHLPA also announced plans to work with the HDA to “ establish and administer a first-of-its-kind grassroots hockey development program to provide mentorship and skill development for BIPOC boys and girls in the Greater Toronto Area , ” with stated plans for a similar program based in the U.S. to come at a later date .
Notably , the NHL did not commit to concrete numbers regarding the hiring of Black executives , hockey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instead saying that it is “ commissioning an outside audit of these efforts ” while “ working with The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport ( TIDES ) on a private assessment of our current employee pool.
” Nor did it agree to allowing the HDA to select at least 50 percent of its EIC , which is majority white .
The NHL ’ s piecemeal commitment to the HDA ’ s proposal seems to have precipitated the end of the nascent working relationship between the two organizations .
The HDA recently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the NHL , stating that the league “ is not prepared to make any measurable commitments to end systemic racism in hockey , ” and that it “ focused on performative public relations efforts that seemed aimed at quickly moving past important conversations about race needed in the game.
” Current and former players aren ’ t the only forces putting pressure on the league to take diversity and inclusion seriously .
Renee Hess , who founded the Black Girl Hockey Club ( BGHC ) two years ago as a support network for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told The New York Times that the league needs to include more people of color on its new committees “ so that true change can happen.
” The BGHC recently launched its “ Get Uncomfortable ” campaign , which aims to develop “ a comprehensive set of recommendations on how all entities involved in hockey , at all levels , can meaningfully contribute to the movement against discrimination and oppression of BIPOC communities in society.
” The campaign ’ s ultimate goals are to make hockey a welcome space for Black girls and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at all levels of the sport and educate the hockey world on issues of social justice and allyship while centering Black women , women of color , BIPOC leaders and anti-racism experts .
Kim Davis , the NHL ’ s executive vice president of social impact , growth initiatives and legislative affairs — who is Black and who has been instrumental in expanding the NHL ’ s “ Hockey Is for Everyone ” initiatives — told The New York Times that Hess is “ bringing a new perspective to all dimensions of our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , let alone the broader world , is obviously no easy task .
But there are tangible steps that the NHL could take to make the league , and the sport , more equitable and inclusive .
One positive change the NHL could bring about is subsidizing equipment costs and league fees at the youth level .
Hockey is among the most expensive youth sports to play — some families spend as much as $ 19,000 a year on equipment , league fees and travel .
In the U.S. , where the wealth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as wide as it was in the 1960s , that high barrier to entry is a big reason why hockey is mostly played by white people .
And that lack of diversity and inclusion is mirrored in the racial makeup of the NHL , both on and off the ice .
When Jacob Blake was shot in the back seven times by Kenosha police , it didn ’ t register with white players , coaches or personnel inside the NHL ’ s bubbles until players in other leagues — and the Black players @ @ @ @ @ @ @ league — forced it to register .
When presented with a chance to show support for Black lives , most white people inside the NHL faltered .
They remained silent until it became clear that their silence was untenable ; they didn ’ t speak until it was clear that it was safe to do so .
The NHL ’ s Black players and players of color didn ’ t have that luxury .
CORRECTION ( Oct. 19 , 2020 , 6:30 p.m. ) : A previous version of this article referred to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Buffalo Sabres .
He left the Sabres and signed on Oct. 9 with the Toronto Maple Leafs .

The NHL Says ‘Hockey Is For Everyone.’ Black Players Aren’t So Sure. Organizations of players and fans are trying to change the makeup and attitude of the overwhelmingly white league.
As Washington Capitals forward Devante Smith-Pelly sat in the penalty box during a game at Chicago’s United Center in February 2018, he listened as a group of white fans chanted “basketball, basketball, basketball” in his direction. The Blackhawks fans taunting Smith-Pelly, who is Black, were making their position clear: Hockey isn’t for everyone, and it’s especially not for Black people.
Willie O’Ree, who became the NHL’s first Black player in 1958 when he took the ice for the Bruins in a game against the Montreal Canadiens, faced racist abuse throughout his career. When Toronto Maple Leafs forward Wayne Simmonds was on the Flyers in 2011, he had a banana hurled at him by a fan during an exhibition game in London, Ontario. After Washington Capitals forward Joel Ward knocked the Bruins out of the 2012 playoffs with a Game 7 overtime winner, he faced a barrage of racist abuse by Boston fans on social media. When New York Rangers prospect K’Andre Miller, who is Black, participated in what he must have believed would be an ordinary question-and-answer session with fans on Zoom earlier this year, he was repeatedly abused with racist taunts. In a candid Players’ Tribune essay, former Calgary Flames forward Akim Aliu, who is Nigerian, detailed instances of racist abuse that he suffered during his playing career — from teammates and from his own coach.
The list of racist incidents in hockey is too long to detail in full, and it’s not limited to the professional game — they are depressingly common at the youth level, too. After the incident in Chicago in 2018, Smith-Pelly reflected on how little has changed since O’Ree broke the color barrier more than 60 years ago.
“[O’Ree] had to go through a lot, and the same thing has been happening now, which obviously means there’s still a long way to go,” Smith-Pelly told the AP. “If you had pulled a quote from him back then and us now, they’re saying the same thing, so obviously there’s still a long way to go in hockey and in the world if we’re being serious.”
The hockey world was forced again to confront its own reaction to racism this summer. When players on the Milwaukee Bucks decided not to take the court for an NBA playoff game on Aug. 26 in protest of the shooting of Jacob Blake by police in Kenosha, Wisconsin, they inspired other players across sports to do the same. In doing so, they made it clear to league officials, team owners and a nation confronting police violence against Black people that they believe Black lives matter. But as basketballs, baseballs, soccer balls and tennis balls were put away in protest, hockey pucks conspicuously were not.
Hours after the Bucks refused to play, and after players in other leagues joined that protest — the intention of their collective action unequivocal — skaters from the Boston Bruins and Tampa Bay Lightning gathered at center ice at Scotiabank Arena in Toronto for the beginning of Game 3 of their Eastern Conference semifinal series as if nothing were happening outside of the NHL’s two playoff bubbles.
While play stopped in other leagues that day, the NHL didn’t move its slate of games, instead choosing to acknowledge what Kenosha police did to Blake with a 27-second “moment of reflection” before the Bruins and Lightning game while the jumbotron lit up with the words “End Racism.” Even that short display was more than the league spared for a game between the Colorado Avalanche and the Dallas Stars later that evening, which proceeded without any acknowledgement at all.
Not everyone associated with the NHL remained silent, of course. A number of current and former players tweeted messages of support to the Bucks and the NBA more broadly. Some white players took that stand, including retired goaltender Roberto Luongo, but nonwhite players were at the forefront, including San Jose Sharks forward Evander Kane, who is Black, and Minnesota Wild defenseman Matt Dumba, who is of Filipino descent. Aliu tweeted his support to NBA, WNBA and MLB players, and he asked the NHL, “where you at?” Dumba, who was the first NHL player to take a knee during the playing of the Star-Spangled Banner when he did so before a game in August, even took to the airwaves in Vancouver to explain that the onus to speak out against racism should not always fall on Black players and players of color.
“You can’t keep coming to the minority players every time there’s a situation like this,” Dumba said on The Program. “The white players in our league need to have answers for what they’re seeing in society as well right now, too, and where they stand in making a change, doing good for the league. Because I know that there’s a lot of them that are good people — there’s a lot of good people in hockey. But the silence is as bad as the violence.”
After an evening of mostly silence from the league and its teams, the NHL and its overwhelmingly white workforce finally came around to the idea that players in other sports might be onto something.
Players in the Western Conference bubble faced the media on Aug. 27 to announce the postponement of games that day and the next, with a plan to resume play the following day. The announcement came from Vegas Golden Knights forward Ryan Reaves and Avalanche forward Pierre Edouard-Bellemare, who are both Black, Avalanche forward Nazem Kadri, who is of Lebanese descent, and Dallas Stars forward Jason Dickinson and Vancouver Canucks forward Bo Horvat, who are both white. By all accounts, the action was led by the players and not the league.
There’s ample evidence that the NHL knows it has a racism problem. Its “Hockey Is For Everyone” campaign is proof of this; its slate of Black History Month commercials — which featured no Black players in 2020 — is proof of this; its mobile history museum, which tells the story of the Coloured Hockey League, an all-Black league that formed in Nova Scotia in 1895 and is responsible for the invention of the slapshot and the butterfly goalie stance, is proof of this; the white paper it produced in 2018 in conjunction with the Brookings Institution — which acknowledged that demographics in North America are shifting, that 44 percent of American millennials are not white and that the league needs to get better at reaching out to Black people and people of color — is proof of this too.
Hockey’s fan base isn’t very diverse Share of major or casual American fans of a given sport who identified as a given race or ethnicity, according to a FiveThirtyEight/Ipsos poll Non-Hispanic Sport Hispanic Black Other 2+ Races White Hockey 6.8% 6.5% 2.8% 6.8% 77.1% Golf 6.7 17.6 3.3 2.2 70.2 Baseball 17.4 6.6 3.6 4.2 68.2 Football 12.2 14.4 4.4 3.9 65.1 NASCAR 12.8 16.7 2.3 4.0 64.2 Basketball 18.6 24.3 5.5 5.9 45.6 Soccer 46.7 9.3 7.3 2.6 34.1 Poll of 1,109 Americans was conducted May 5-11, 2020.
But the reality is that the league’s fans are overwhelmingly white, skew conservative and are more wealthy than fans of other professional sports leagues. As support for the Black Lives Matter movement had waned among white Americans, it’s fair to assume it was waning among the NHL’s largely white audience, too. And minority representation in the league remains minuscule: Less than 5 percent of the league’s players are Black or people of color, and it has hired only one Black head coach — out of 377 total coaches — in its 102-year existence.
Hockey fans aren’t very liberal Among those who responded to the question, share of major or casual American fans of a given sport who identified with a given political affiliation, according to a FiveThirtyEight/Ipsos poll Share identifying as… Sport A Democrat A Republican An Independent Something else Soccer 41.0% 23.1% 30.1% 5.8% Basketball 39.9 26.9 26.1 7.0 Football 33.9 34.6 26.0 5.6 Baseball 30.4 38.4 24.8 6.4 Golf 23.1 38.6 31.8 6.5 Hockey 22.1 35.4 36.5 6.0 NASCAR 19.2 39.8 35.3 5.7 Poll of 1,109 Americans was conducted May 5-11, 2020.
A cohort of current and former Black players and players of color within the NHL isn’t waiting any longer for the league to act. Players including Kane, Dumba, Aliu, Kadri and Simmonds joined together to form the Hockey Diversity Alliance (HDA) in June in an effort to end racism and promote diversity at all levels of the sport. Soon after the NHL balked at the opportunity to show its support for Black lives, the HDA issued a press release detailing how it intends to upend racial inequities in the NHL and hockey more broadly. The HDA’s plan begins with increasing the share of Black personnel hired by the NHL and its member franchises — at the executive level as well as in hockey-related and non-hockey-related roles.
In addition to increasing diversity in the league’s workforce, the HDA proposed that it should be tasked with selecting at least 50 percent of the NHL’s Executive Inclusion Council (EIC), a group of team owners, presidents and general managers whose mandate is to ensure diversity and inclusion efforts are taken seriously throughout the league. Doing so would “ensure that the voices of our Black, Indigenous and racialized players are heard and that they have an opportunity to help change the culture of the league.”
The HDA also asked the NHL to implement a mandatory anti-racism and unconscious bias training education program for all league employees. The HDA committed to funding social justice initiatives that target racism and provide justice for Black, Indigenous and racialized communities; grassroots hockey development programs that increase access and provide support to BIPOC players at the youth level; and anti-racism and unconscious bias education programs in amateur hockey leagues across North America.
Days after the HDA issued its press release, the NHL and the NHLPA (the league’s players union) responded with a joint press release announcing its plans to implement anti-racism efforts, which include mandatory diversity and inclusion training for all players and NHLPA personnel. The NHL and NHLPA also announced plans to work with the HDA to “establish and administer a first-of-its-kind grassroots hockey development program to provide mentorship and skill development for BIPOC boys and girls in the Greater Toronto Area,” with stated plans for a similar program based in the U.S. to come at a later date.
Notably, the NHL did not commit to concrete numbers regarding the hiring of Black executives, hockey personnel or non-hockey personnel, however, instead saying that it is “commissioning an outside audit of these efforts” while “working with The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport (TIDES) on a private assessment of our current employee pool.” Nor did it agree to allowing the HDA to select at least 50 percent of its EIC, which is majority white.
The NHL’s piecemeal commitment to the HDA’s proposal seems to have precipitated the end of the nascent working relationship between the two organizations. The HDA recently announced that it would operate separately from the NHL, stating that the league “is not prepared to make any measurable commitments to end systemic racism in hockey,” and that it “focused on performative public relations efforts that seemed aimed at quickly moving past important conversations about race needed in the game.”
Current and former players aren’t the only forces putting pressure on the league to take diversity and inclusion seriously. Renee Hess, who founded the Black Girl Hockey Club (BGHC) two years ago as a support network for women of color who enjoy hockey, told The New York Times that the league needs to include more people of color on its new committees “so that true change can happen.” The BGHC recently launched its “Get Uncomfortable” campaign, which aims to develop “a comprehensive set of recommendations on how all entities involved in hockey, at all levels, can meaningfully contribute to the movement against discrimination and oppression of BIPOC communities in society.”
The campaign’s ultimate goals are to make hockey a welcome space for Black girls and BIPOC communities, increase diversity in employment at all levels of the sport and educate the hockey world on issues of social justice and allyship while centering Black women, women of color, BIPOC leaders and anti-racism experts. Kim Davis, the NHL’s executive vice president of social impact, growth initiatives and legislative affairs — who is Black and who has been instrumental in expanding the NHL’s “Hockey Is for Everyone” initiatives — told The New York Times that Hess is “bringing a new perspective to all dimensions of our inclusion efforts.”
Stopping racism in sports, let alone the broader world, is obviously no easy task. But there are tangible steps that the NHL could take to make the league, and the sport, more equitable and inclusive. One positive change the NHL could bring about is subsidizing equipment costs and league fees at the youth level. Hockey is among the most expensive youth sports to play — some families spend as much as $19,000 a year on equipment, league fees and travel. In the U.S., where the wealth gap between white and Black families is as wide as it was in the 1960s, that high barrier to entry is a big reason why hockey is mostly played by white people. And that lack of diversity and inclusion is mirrored in the racial makeup of the NHL, both on and off the ice.
When Jacob Blake was shot in the back seven times by Kenosha police, it didn’t register with white players, coaches or personnel inside the NHL’s bubbles until players in other leagues — and the Black players and players of color in their own league — forced it to register. When presented with a chance to show support for Black lives, most white people inside the NHL faltered. They remained silent until it became clear that their silence was untenable; they didn’t speak until it was clear that it was safe to do so. The NHL’s Black players and players of color didn’t have that luxury.
Neil Paine contributed research.
CORRECTION (Oct. 19, 2020, 6:30 p.m.): A previous version of this article referred to Wayne Simmonds as a member of the Buffalo Sabres. He left the Sabres and signed on Oct. 9 with the Toronto Maple Leafs.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-19--What A Summer Of COVID-19 Taught Scientists About Indoor vs. Outdoor Transmission

Here we are , almost eight months into this pandemic , and it ’ s like you can ’ t even invite more than 150 people to sit next to each other unmasked in your rose garden without it turning into a major superspreader event .
The White House outbreak is now linked to at least 40 cases , including some that led to hospitalization .
As autumn settles in and the holidays loom , it ’ s worth pausing to ponder what we ’ ve learned about COVID-19 transmission over the last few months .
We ’ re now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of us will want to bring our communities together , and when the cold and the dark can increase feelings of isolation .
So how do we calculate our own personal risk , while also avoiding … shall we say , bad examples ?
Just what are we in for this winter , anyway ?
Not all Americans can get a COVID-19 test when they want | FiveThirtyEight Making predictions about what will happen in the winter based on what has happened so far is simultaneously simple and difficult , experts told me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we already know what we need to know to tell that this virus isn ’ t just going to magically disappear .
“ I think winter will be bad , because things are already bad , ” said Colin Carlson , a professor at Georgetown University ’ s Center for Global Health Science and Security .
From the beginning of the pandemic through Oct. 17 , some 217,000 Americans died of COVID-19 and almost 8 million others tested positive for the virus .
There ’ s no reason to assume that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reduce the number of overall cases — so fall and winter are likely to go on being bad .
But understanding how seasons can change the pandemic is genuinely difficult .
There are a couple of reasons for that .
First , while we know that changes in weather have an impact on this virus , there ’ s a lot of nuance around those effects .
For example , the virus that causes COVID-19 is sensitive to high temperatures and exposure to UV light .
But that doesn ’ t mean weather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus spreads .
“ We don ’ t need cold weather for significant transmission , ” said Dr. Daniel Bausch , a virologist and the director of the United Kingdom ’ s Public Health Rapid Support Team .
“ It seems to be propagating quite nicely in hot , humid , close-to-the-equator places.
” And studies have found that the weather ’ s impact on the virus probably plays a relatively small part in controlling transmission .
In one study , exposure to UV radiation only decreased transmission by about 1 percent .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ disappear , and the chilly weather isn ’ t , by itself , likely to drastically increase the severity of the pandemic , either .
The other reason it ’ s difficult to understand the seasonality of COVID-19 , though , is that we are missing some key data .
Let ’ s return to the White House outbreak , which was centered around an outdoor event .
There ’ s only been very limited contact tracing done .
And there ’ s not a lot of clear documentation about how people at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spent time inside , versus outside ?
In general , Carlson asked , if people are moving back and forth from inside to out , how do you know where they contracted a virus ?
Likewise , said Michael Osterholm , director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota , we don ’ t know how much virus makes an infectious dose nor how much exposure is required to reach that point — and because of that , it ’ s been hard to pin down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In other words , the difference in transmission between the White House event and crowded bars may not be contradictory at all — it just may indicate that , at the former , people spent more time indoors .
And if there is one thing we can definitively state , it ’ s that this virus is much , much less likely to spread outdoors than in .
For example , in a study of 7,324 Chinese case reports , only two — part of the same transmission event — could be linked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than 20,000 cases ( including the 7,324 Chinese cases ) found 461 that were associated with transmission in completely outdoor environments — predominantly crowded events like markets and rallies .
Overall , only 6 percent of all the cases in that database were linked to events that were either totally or partially outdoors .
The rest were tied to indoor events .
That fact is actually why experts are concerned that fall and winter could lead to an increase in transmission — not because it ’ s colder , but because people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does that matter ?
Some of it has to do with the physics of air movement , said Linsey Marr , a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech .
If you ’ re standing right next to someone else , there won ’ t be enough time for sun and heat to break the virus down before you breathe it in .
But there is enough time for the wind to blow it away .
“ Imagine someone who is infected as a smoker , ” Marr explained .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to minimize your exposure , would you rather be indoors or outdoors with them ?
” Air circulation isn ’ t the only thing at play here , though .
After reviewing dozens of studies on the transmission of the novel coronavirus in outdoor settings , Mike Weed , a professor of applied policy sciences at the U.K. ’ s Canterbury Christ Church University , found that outdoors was safer even before social distancing and mask wearing became the norm .
He thinks that is because people just naturally behave differently outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like we do in a subway car or elevator .
Most adults don ’ t sit right in their friends ’ faces when they ’ re just having a backyard beer .
“ Risk outdoors is low regardless of social distancing .
But it has to be said that in everyday life , when people are milling around outdoors , people tend to naturally social distance , ” he told me .
“ We think personal space is part of why outdoor transmission is low.
” The situations he found where clusters were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times when people were , as Weed put it , “ invited or required to break natural social distance.
” These event-specific behaviors might help explain why Weed found clusters associated with farmers ’ markets , where people crowd around the stalls , but not with people just hanging out in the park .
And event-specific behaviors could also explain other apparent contradictions — like the fact that protests after a Minnneapolis police officer killed George Floyd didn ’ t seem to have sparked any transmission clusters .
In that case , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mostly outdoors in crowds .
The protests also revolved around chanting and singing and yelling — things we know can spread more of the virus further .
But it ’ s not a normal thing for people to stop by the bar on the way home from a protest , or congregate inside before or after the event .
Meanwhile , researchers speculated that the protests and riots that followed may have kept a lot of other citizens who weren ’ t participating off the streets — reducing the overall number of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behavior and air circulation probably matter more than the weather itself , the upcoming holiday season won ’ t look the same in all parts of the country , Marr said .
This isn ’ t about getting colder , it ’ s about spending more time inside sealed-up buildings .
In June , that meant more transmission in places like Texas , as climbing temperatures forced people into air-conditioned homes and businesses .
In October , she said , that could flip-flop , with rates of transmission falling in Texas while they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So what does all of this tell you about your hopes for hygge and holiday get-togethers ?
If nothing else , it should show you that turning data into personal risk choices isn ’ t cut and dry , Carlson said .
Neither “ indoors ” nor “ outdoors ” is universally safe .
Indoors with a small number of people and a good ventilation system bringing fresh air in at least six times an hour is a different risk than indoors in a large group singing without good ventilation .
Outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ walking , is a different risk than unmasked and packed side-by-side into a football stadium .
Where you choose to take your risks , and how , tells you something about not just the science , but your own values .

Here we are, almost eight months into this pandemic, and it’s like you can’t even invite more than 150 people to sit next to each other unmasked in your rose garden without it turning into a major superspreader event. The White House outbreak is now linked to at least 40 cases, including some that led to hospitalization. As autumn settles in and the holidays loom, it’s worth pausing to ponder what we’ve learned about COVID-19 transmission over the last few months. We’re now entering a time of year when many of us will want to bring our communities together, and when the cold and the dark can increase feelings of isolation. So how do we calculate our own personal risk, while also avoiding … shall we say, bad examples? Just what are we in for this winter, anyway?
What to make of Pfizer’s big vaccine announcement l FiveThirtyEight
Making predictions about what will happen in the winter based on what has happened so far is simultaneously simple and difficult, experts told me. It’s simple, in that we already know what we need to know to tell that this virus isn’t just going to magically disappear. “I think winter will be bad, because things are already bad,” said Colin Carlson, a professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Global Health Science and Security. From the beginning of the pandemic through Oct. 17, some 217,000 Americans died of COVID-19 and almost 8 million others tested positive for the virus. There’s no reason to assume that the shifting of the seasons is going to reduce the number of overall cases — so fall and winter are likely to go on being bad.
But understanding how seasons can change the pandemic is genuinely difficult. There are a couple of reasons for that. First, while we know that changes in weather have an impact on this virus, there’s a lot of nuance around those effects.
For example, the virus that causes COVID-19 is sensitive to high temperatures and exposure to UV light. But that doesn’t mean weather is the primary thing determining how the virus spreads. “We don’t need cold weather for significant transmission,” said Dr. Daniel Bausch, a virologist and the director of the United Kingdom’s Public Health Rapid Support Team. “It seems to be propagating quite nicely in hot, humid, close-to-the-equator places.” And studies have found that the weather’s impact on the virus probably plays a relatively small part in controlling transmission. In one study, exposure to UV radiation only decreased transmission by about 1 percent. Summer didn’t make the virus disappear, and the chilly weather isn’t, by itself, likely to drastically increase the severity of the pandemic, either.
The other reason it’s difficult to understand the seasonality of COVID-19, though, is that we are missing some key data. Let’s return to the White House outbreak, which was centered around an outdoor event. There’s only been very limited contact tracing done. And there’s not a lot of clear documentation about how people at either event behaved. How many people spent time inside, versus outside? In general, Carlson asked, if people are moving back and forth from inside to out, how do you know where they contracted a virus?
Likewise, said Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, we don’t know how much virus makes an infectious dose nor how much exposure is required to reach that point — and because of that, it’s been hard to pin down exactly which circumstances led to transmission. In other words, the difference in transmission between the White House event and crowded bars may not be contradictory at all — it just may indicate that, at the former, people spent more time indoors.
And if there is one thing we can definitively state, it’s that this virus is much, much less likely to spread outdoors than in. For example, in a study of 7,324 Chinese case reports, only two — part of the same transmission event — could be linked to outdoor settings. A database of more than 20,000 cases (including the 7,324 Chinese cases) found 461 that were associated with transmission in completely outdoor environments — predominantly crowded events like markets and rallies. Overall, only 6 percent of all the cases in that database were linked to events that were either totally or partially outdoors. The rest were tied to indoor events. That fact is actually why experts are concerned that fall and winter could lead to an increase in transmission — not because it’s colder, but because people are spending more time inside.
Why does that matter? Some of it has to do with the physics of air movement, said Linsey Marr, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech. If you’re standing right next to someone else, there won’t be enough time for sun and heat to break the virus down before you breathe it in. But there is enough time for the wind to blow it away. “Imagine someone who is infected as a smoker,” Marr explained. “If someone is smoking, and you want to minimize your exposure, would you rather be indoors or outdoors with them?”
[What We Know About ‘Long COVID’]
Air circulation isn’t the only thing at play here, though. After reviewing dozens of studies on the transmission of the novel coronavirus in outdoor settings, Mike Weed, a professor of applied policy sciences at the U.K.’s Canterbury Christ Church University, found that outdoors was safer even before social distancing and mask wearing became the norm. He thinks that is because people just naturally behave differently outside. We don’t pack together like we do in a subway car or elevator. Most adults don’t sit right in their friends’ faces when they’re just having a backyard beer. “Risk outdoors is low regardless of social distancing. But it has to be said that in everyday life, when people are milling around outdoors, people tend to naturally social distance,” he told me. “We think personal space is part of why outdoor transmission is low.”
The situations he found where clusters were associated with outdoor transmission tended to be times when people were, as Weed put it, “invited or required to break natural social distance.” These event-specific behaviors might help explain why Weed found clusters associated with farmers’ markets, where people crowd around the stalls, but not with people just hanging out in the park. And event-specific behaviors could also explain other apparent contradictions — like the fact that protests after a Minnneapolis police officer killed George Floyd didn’t seem to have sparked any transmission clusters.
In that case, you’re talking about events that happened mostly outdoors in crowds. The protests also revolved around chanting and singing and yelling — things we know can spread more of the virus further. But it’s not a normal thing for people to stop by the bar on the way home from a protest, or congregate inside before or after the event. Meanwhile, researchers speculated that the protests and riots that followed may have kept a lot of other citizens who weren’t participating off the streets — reducing the overall number of people who could be exposed.
Because human behavior and air circulation probably matter more than the weather itself, the upcoming holiday season won’t look the same in all parts of the country, Marr said. This isn’t about getting colder, it’s about spending more time inside sealed-up buildings. In June, that meant more transmission in places like Texas, as climbing temperatures forced people into air-conditioned homes and businesses. In October, she said, that could flip-flop, with rates of transmission falling in Texas while they climb in places like Minnesota or Maine.
So what does all of this tell you about your hopes for hygge and holiday get-togethers? If nothing else, it should show you that turning data into personal risk choices isn’t cut and dry, Carlson said. Neither “indoors” nor “outdoors” is universally safe. Indoors with a small number of people and a good ventilation system bringing fresh air in at least six times an hour is a different risk than indoors in a large group singing without good ventilation. Outside at a protest, masked up and walking, is a different risk than unmasked and packed side-by-side into a football stadium.
Where you choose to take your risks, and how, tells you something about not just the science, but your own values.
Not all Americans can get a COVID-19 test when they want | FiveThirtyEight


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-19--Do You Buy That … Republicans Should Be Worried About The Early Voting Turnout So Far?

Do You Buy That … Republicans Should Be Worried About The Early Voting Turnout So Far ?


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-19--The Economy Won’t Be Back To Normal Until 2022 Or Later, According To Our Survey Of Economists

It ’ s been about four months since the National Bureau of Economic Research declared that the U.S. was officially in a recession , and what a weird recession — and recovery — it ’ s been .
The stock market has been merrily chugging along since February , when the recession began ; disposable income increased even though millions of Americans were out of work ; and unemployment has been bouncing back much faster than economists expected .
But there ’ s still a lot of uncertainty about what will happen as winter approaches and COVID-19 cases start to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are still not very optimistic about the speed of our trajectory back to a pre-pandemic economy — even though some signals might be improving .
Not all Americans can get a COVID-19 test when they want | FiveThirtyEight In May , FiveThirtyEight kicked off a biweekly survey of 30-odd quantitative macroeconomists in partnership with the Initiative on Global Markets at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business .
We asked the economists to forecast the trajectory of various economic indicators .
And after 10 rounds of questions , it ’ s clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — the economists have become a lot more bullish about the speed of the recovery .
Yet that optimism hasn ’ t translated into greater confidence that we ’ ll be back to economic normalcy anytime soon .
In the latest round of the survey , conducted from Oct. 9 to 12 , the economists collectively thought there was a 66 percent probability that the economy won ’ t truly be back to normal until 2022 or later .
“ We generally think of the recession as something of a ‘ swoosh ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the slow part of the rebound , ” said Jonathan Wright , an economics professor at Johns Hopkins University who has been consulting with FiveThirtyEight on the design of the survey .
“ It was always easier to say that the recovery will be a slow grind than to know the near-term trajectory .
So it makes sense that while economists got much more optimistic about the near-term , they largely kept their view that the damage will take a long time to repair.
” We looked at a handful of questions that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the survey to see how things changed between the late spring and now .
On one question — about the state of unemployment in December 2020 — the economists got markedly more optimistic .
The average point estimate for December unemployment fell from 12.8 percent in late May to 7.4 percent in the current round .
A big source of the optimism , of course , is that workers have been returning to their jobs over the past few months much faster than economists initially expected .
The unemployment rate in September was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in April .
So in a sense , the current 7.4 percent prediction for December is actually pretty pessimistic — because it implies that , on average , the economists think there ’ s a good chance the unemployment rate will fall less than a percentage point over the next three months .
When it comes to fourth-quarter gross domestic product , meanwhile , the economists ’ predictions were basically back where they started .
In early June , the economists forecast 4.2 percent GDP growth in the survey , with a relatively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ round , that forecast had improved only slightly , to 4.9 percent , and the confidence interval was just as wide — signaling that they hadn ’ t gotten any more sure about the outcome over the intervening months , either .
Of course , it ’ s worth noting that their forecasts for third-quarter GDP got significantly sunnier over the course of the summer , which might be part of the reason they weren ’ t expecting more quarter-over-quarter growth between the last two quarters of the year .
But note how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ situation at the end of the year .
Allan Timmermann , a professor of economics at the University of California at San Diego who has also been consulting with FiveThirtyEight on the survey , said it ’ s “ truly extraordinary ” that the economists ’ average band of uncertainty around their point estimate is essentially unchanged since June .
“ Normally , uncertainty would have been significantly reduced over such a long horizon , ” he said .
Timmermann chalked up the uncertainty to the fact that so much remains unknown about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Uncertainty about the trajectory of the virus and its impact on service sectors such as hospitality , travel , entertainment , eating out , remains in the forefront and has not really been resolved at this point , ” he said .
“ Many firms are hoping to outlast the virus , but even at this point it is very unclear how long the pandemic will last.
” And that is perhaps why economists ’ long-term estimates remain almost as dour as they were when the survey began .
In every round , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to pre-pandemic levels .
Early on , the economists thought that there was a 67 percent chance that we wouldn ’ t be back to that point until the first half of 2022 at the earliest .
In the last round , that outlook was basically unchanged .
Wright , meanwhile , thought it was possible that more bad news awaits us — in part because Congress still hasn ’ t acted to pass a second wave of fiscal stimulus , which the economists consistently told us was necessary to speed the economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fiscal stimulus and bad news on the virus could indeed cause something of a double dip later this year , ” he said .

It’s been about four months since the National Bureau of Economic Research declared that the U.S. was officially in a recession, and what a weird recession — and recovery — it’s been. The stock market has been merrily chugging along since February, when the recession began; disposable income increased even though millions of Americans were out of work; and unemployment has been bouncing back much faster than economists expected.
But there’s still a lot of uncertainty about what will happen as winter approaches and COVID-19 cases start to tick up again. And many economists are still not very optimistic about the speed of our trajectory back to a pre-pandemic economy — even though some signals might be improving.
Not all Americans can get a COVID-19 test when they want | FiveThirtyEight
In May, FiveThirtyEight kicked off a biweekly survey of 30-odd quantitative macroeconomists in partnership with the Initiative on Global Markets at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. We asked the economists to forecast the trajectory of various economic indicators. And after 10 rounds of questions, it’s clear that on some metrics — particularly unemployment — the economists have become a lot more bullish about the speed of the recovery. Yet that optimism hasn’t translated into greater confidence that we’ll be back to economic normalcy anytime soon. In the latest round of the survey, conducted from Oct. 9 to 12, the economists collectively thought there was a 66 percent probability that the economy won’t truly be back to normal until 2022 or later.
“We generally think of the recession as something of a ‘swoosh’ shape, and we are now on the slow part of the rebound,” said Jonathan Wright, an economics professor at Johns Hopkins University who has been consulting with FiveThirtyEight on the design of the survey. “It was always easier to say that the recovery will be a slow grind than to know the near-term trajectory. So it makes sense that while economists got much more optimistic about the near-term, they largely kept their view that the damage will take a long time to repair.”
We looked at a handful of questions that we asked in nearly every round of the survey to see how things changed between the late spring and now. On one question — about the state of unemployment in December 2020 — the economists got markedly more optimistic. The average point estimate for December unemployment fell from 12.8 percent in late May to 7.4 percent in the current round.
A big source of the optimism, of course, is that workers have been returning to their jobs over the past few months much faster than economists initially expected. The unemployment rate in September was 7.9 percent — down from 14.7 percent in April. So in a sense, the current 7.4 percent prediction for December is actually pretty pessimistic — because it implies that, on average, the economists think there’s a good chance the unemployment rate will fall less than a percentage point over the next three months.
When it comes to fourth-quarter gross domestic product, meanwhile, the economists’ predictions were basically back where they started. In early June, the economists forecast 4.2 percent GDP growth in the survey, with a relatively wide confidence interval. In the last round, that forecast had improved only slightly, to 4.9 percent, and the confidence interval was just as wide — signaling that they hadn’t gotten any more sure about the outcome over the intervening months, either.
Of course, it’s worth noting that their forecasts for third-quarter GDP got significantly sunnier over the course of the summer, which might be part of the reason they weren’t expecting more quarter-over-quarter growth between the last two quarters of the year. But note how unsure economists still are about our economic situation at the end of the year. Allan Timmermann, a professor of economics at the University of California at San Diego who has also been consulting with FiveThirtyEight on the survey, said it’s “truly extraordinary” that the economists’ average band of uncertainty around their point estimate is essentially unchanged since June. “Normally, uncertainty would have been significantly reduced over such a long horizon,” he said.
Timmermann chalked up the uncertainty to the fact that so much remains unknown about how the pandemic will evolve. “Uncertainty about the trajectory of the virus and its impact on service sectors such as hospitality, travel, entertainment, eating out, remains in the forefront and has not really been resolved at this point,” he said. “Many firms are hoping to outlast the virus, but even at this point it is very unclear how long the pandemic will last.”
And that is perhaps why economists’ long-term estimates remain almost as dour as they were when the survey began. In every round, we asked them when GDP would return to pre-pandemic levels. Early on, the economists thought that there was a 67 percent chance that we wouldn’t be back to that point until the first half of 2022 at the earliest. In the last round, that outlook was basically unchanged.
Economists still think recovery will be slow Expert estimates of when real GDP will have caught up to its pre-crisis level (Q4 2019) round 2 round 10 difference Earlier than first half of 2021 2% 1% -1 First half of 2021 11 8 -3 Second half of 2021 21 25 +4 First half of 2022 22 26 +4 Second half of 2022 20 20 0 First half of 2023 12 11 -1 Second half of 2023 7 5 -2 After second half of 2023 6 4 -2 Responses are from a survey of experts conducted from May through October. The question related to when GDP will return to pre-pandemic levels was worded differently in the first round of the survey and was therefore not included in the table. Source: FIVETHIRTYEIGHT/IGM COVID-19 ECONOMIC SURVEY
Wright, meanwhile, thought it was possible that more bad news awaits us — in part because Congress still hasn’t acted to pass a second wave of fiscal stimulus, which the economists consistently told us was necessary to speed the economic recovery. “The combination of delayed fiscal stimulus and bad news on the virus could indeed cause something of a double dip later this year,” he said.
Neil Paine contributed research.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-20--Could Democrats Win Full Control Of More State Governments Than Republicans?

According to the FiveThirtyEight forecast , Democrats have a 72 percent chance of winning a federal government trifecta : that is , control of the presidency , Senate and House .
But the 2020 election could also usher in a number of new trifectas on the state level .
Single-party control of the governor ’ s office , state Senate and state House can enable that party to pass its agenda unencumbered , as Democrats showed after the 2018 midterms .
The party used the six state-government trifectas it gained that year to pass major liberal legislation like funding full-day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wage in Illinois and setting ambitious renewable-energy goals in New Mexico .
Democrats also broke up total Republican control of four other states , allowing them to take a hard line in negotiations with the GOP and bend legislation to their will .
However , thanks to their dominance of state-level elections during the Obama administration , Republicans still enjoy more state-government trifectas than their rivals : They have full control of 21 state governments , while Democrats have full control of 15 .
Going by population , that means roughly 40 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican control , while 37 percent live in Democratic trifecta states .
Now , with another Democratic wave election looming in 2020 , the balance of power in state governments could finally flip .
Thanks to the more than 5,800 state legislative seats and 11 governorships on the ballot on Nov. 3 , control of at least 11 state governments is up for grabs in 2020 .
That means Democrats have at least eight chances to either break up a Republican trifecta or gain one of their own .
But don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also has quite a few opportunities of its own .
Of all the states where Republicans are in danger of losing their grip on state government , Texas would be the most consequential .
Democrats would gain a seat at the table in not only policymaking that affects 27.9 million people , but also the drawing of almost 40 congressional districts in the upcoming redistricting process .
( More on that next week . )
Just a few years ago , Republicans losing control of Austin would have been unthinkable — but in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seats in the Texas state House , meaning the party needs to net only nine more seats to take control of the chamber .
And thanks to Texas ’ s recent leftward shift ( especially in the suburbs ) , there ’ s a clear path for them to do it : In 2018 , Democratic Senate candidate Beto O ’ Rourke carried exactly nine state House seats that are still held by Republicans — showing that those districts are willing to vote Democratic in the right circumstances — and he came close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats are targeting about 22 seats in the chamber , though they also need to defend the 12 they picked up in 2018 .
Democrats could also take control of the Arizona state Legislature , although the trifecta is out of reach as Republican Gov .
Doug Ducey still has two years left in his term .
In her successful 2018 Senate campaign , Democrat Kyrsten Sinema carried three state Senate seats currently held by Republicans — exactly the number Democrats need to now flip in order to control the chamber .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the state House ( 31 seats to 29 ) , prompting one Republican consultant to tell The Arizona Republic that he thought Democrats had a good chance to win it for the first time in 54 years .
Democrats could also end the Republican trifecta in Iowa by flipping the state House , which Republicans control 53 seats to 47 .
However , this will be more of a challenge , as Democrats must also defend 13 of their own members who sit in districts that voted for President Trump in 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are targeting at least 10 Republican-held seats , while Republicans hope to flip at least five Democratic-held ones .
Finally , Democrats also have an outside shot at ending total Republican control of Missouri state government if Democrat and state Auditor Nicole Galloway defeats Republican incumbent Mike Parson in the governor ’ s race .
However , this is probably a long shot , as Parson has led handily in most polls .
Where Democrats could take full control Democrats already capitalized on their most realistic trifecta opportunities in 2018 , but there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the party could take full control of government .
The most obvious is Minnesota , where the local Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party lacks control of only the state Senate .
The DFL has six Republican-held seats in its sights , although it needs to net just two to win a majority .
Conveniently enough , Republicans currently represent two suburban Twin Cities districts that voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and are only getting more Democratic with time .
However , Republicans have plenty of ways to stop a DFL trifecta even if they lose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eyeing five DFL-held Senate seats and would love to flip the state House as well , although the math — the DFL has a 16-seat advantage in the lower chamber — makes the latter more unlikely .
If Democrats are really lucky , they could also give Democratic Gov .
Tom Wolf a Democratic legislature to work with in Pennsylvania .
Despite maps that were drawn to favor Republicans , Democrats steamrolled Republicans in metro Philadelphia in 2018 , cutting their deficit to four seats in the state Senate and nine seats in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the remaining competitive seats are the heaviest lifts for Democrats , although they do have around 15 pickup opportunities in the House ( though Republicans have 12 of their own ) .
And in the Senate , Democrats have no margin for error on their path to a majority : They must flip all four vulnerable Republican-held seats while defending two seats around Pittsburgh .
It ’ s a tall order , but not impossible given that Biden is leading by an average of 7 points in Pennsylvania .
Where Republicans could take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much less populous states , Republicans could also gain power from the 2020 election .
For example , Republican Rep. Greg Gianforte is leading in polls for Montana governor , an open seat being vacated by Democrat Steve Bullock .
And with both chambers of the Montana state Legislature firmly in Republican hands , a Gianforte win would produce another Republican trifecta .
Republicans could also take full control of Alaska state government simply by standing pat in the state House .
( They already control the governorship and state Senate . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ House has been controlled by a coalition of Democrats , independents and moderate Republicans despite Republicans technically occupying 23 of the chamber ’ s 40 seats .
However , with the defeat of two of those moderate Republicans in this year ’ s primaries and the defection of at least two others , Republicans appear to have the numbers to form a state House majority next year — even if no seats switch parties in the election .
On the other hand , Republicans have only one realistic chance of ending a Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s state Senate or state House .
But although national handicappers and state experts disagree on which chamber is more endangered , all parties agree that Democrats have the upper hand in both .
A recent Bangor Daily News/Digital Research poll found that Democrats led Republicans , 51 percent to 44 percent , on the generic legislative ballot , and outside Democratic groups have spent nearly four times as much as Republican ones .
Where either party could take full control Finally , there are two states where all three components of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either party could emerge with total control of government .
However , the most likely outcome in both may be a split decision .
In North Carolina , Republican legislators drew themselves very safe districts for a majority of the decade , but court-ordered redistricting has opened the door for Democrats to net the five seats they need in the state Senate and the six seats they need in the state House .
However , the new maps still lean Republican overall : The tipping-point district went for Trump by 10 points in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the state House .
And Republicans could still seize the trifecta by defeating Democratic Gov .
Roy Cooper , but virtually every poll has shown the incumbent ahead , usually by double digits .
The parties ’ positions are flipped in New Hampshire , where Republican Chris Sununu sits in the governor ’ s office and Democrats currently control both chambers of the legislature .
Although New Hampshire is likely to go blue on the presidential level , Sununu is unlikely to lose his bid for a third term .
That leaves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they need in the state Senate and 44 seats they need in the House .
That second part might sound impossible — and it will definitely be a challenge — but New Hampshire ’ s oddly drawn , 400-member state House is known for swinging wildly back and forth between the parties depending on the mood of the electorate .
Finally , one state without a trifecta in play deserves an honorable mention .
With neither Democratic Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer nor the Republican-held state Senate up for election in 2020 , Michigan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the next two years .
However , the Michigan state House is one of the most competitive legislative chambers in the country this year .
Republicans hold just a 58-52 majority and are defending four seats Whitmer carried in 2018 — three of which are open seats due to term limits .
If Democrats flip the chamber , it would be the culmination of a decade-long Democratic effort : According to Daily Kos Elections , Michigan Democrats won the state House popular vote in 2012 , 2014 and 2018 , yet fell @ @ @ @ @ @ @

According to the FiveThirtyEight forecast, Democrats have a 72 percent chance of winning a federal government trifecta: that is, control of the presidency, Senate and House. But the 2020 election could also usher in a number of new trifectas on the state level.
[Live Updates: We’re Tracking The Vote And Voting Problems]
Single-party control of the governor’s office, state Senate and state House can enable that party to pass its agenda unencumbered, as Democrats showed after the 2018 midterms. The party used the six state-government trifectas it gained that year to pass major liberal legislation like funding full-day kindergarten in Colorado, raising the minimum wage in Illinois and setting ambitious renewable-energy goals in New Mexico. Democrats also broke up total Republican control of four other states, allowing them to take a hard line in negotiations with the GOP and bend legislation to their will.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: What full Democratic control would look like
However, thanks to their dominance of state-level elections during the Obama administration, Republicans still enjoy more state-government trifectas than their rivals: They have full control of 21 state governments, while Democrats have full control of 15. Going by population, that means roughly 40 percent of Americans live in states under complete Republican control, while 37 percent live in Democratic trifecta states.
Which party controls state government? Control of the governorship, state Senate and state House in all 50 states State Governor State Senate State House Trifecta? Alabama R R R ✓ Alaska* R R D Arizona R R R ✓ Arkansas R R R ✓ California D D D ✓ Colorado D D D ✓ Connecticut D D D ✓ Delaware D D D ✓ Florida R R R ✓ Georgia R R R ✓ Hawaii D D D ✓ Idaho R R R ✓ Illinois D D D ✓ Indiana R R R ✓ Iowa R R R ✓ Kansas D R R Kentucky D R R Louisiana D R R Maine D D D ✓ Maryland R D D Massachusetts R D D Michigan D R R Minnesota D R D Mississippi R R R ✓ Missouri R R R ✓ Montana D R R Nebraska† R R ✓ Nevada D D D ✓ New Hampshire R D D New Jersey D D D ✓ New Mexico D D D ✓ New York D D D ✓ North Carolina D R R North Dakota R R R ✓ Ohio R R R ✓ Oklahoma R R R ✓ Oregon D D D ✓ Pennsylvania D R R Rhode Island D D D ✓ South Carolina R R R ✓ South Dakota R R R ✓ Tennessee R R R ✓ Texas R R R ✓ Utah R R R ✓ Vermont R D D Virginia D D D ✓ Washington D D D ✓ West Virginia R R R ✓ Wisconsin D R R Wyoming R R R ✓ For the purposes of this table, House refers to a state’s lower legislative chamber. *The Alaska state House has been controlled by a coalition of Democrats, independents and moderate Republicans. †Nebraska has only one legislative chamber. It is nominally nonpartisan but in practice is controlled by Republicans. Sources: National Conference of State Legislatures, National Governors Association
Now, with another Democratic wave election looming in 2020, the balance of power in state governments could finally flip. Thanks to the more than 5,800 state legislative seats and 11 governorships on the ballot on Nov. 3, control of at least 11 state governments is up for grabs in 2020. That means Democrats have at least eight chances to either break up a Republican trifecta or gain one of their own. But don’t count Republicans out either — the GOP also has quite a few opportunities of its own.
Where Democrats could break Republican trifectas
Of all the states where Republicans are in danger of losing their grip on state government, Texas would be the most consequential. Democrats would gain a seat at the table in not only policymaking that affects 27.9 million people, but also the drawing of almost 40 congressional districts in the upcoming redistricting process. (More on that next week.)
Just a few years ago, Republicans losing control of Austin would have been unthinkable — but in the 2018 midterms, Democrats flipped 12 seats in the Texas state House, meaning the party needs to net only nine more seats to take control of the chamber. And thanks to Texas’s recent leftward shift (especially in the suburbs), there’s a clear path for them to do it: In 2018, Democratic Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke carried exactly nine state House seats that are still held by Republicans — showing that those districts are willing to vote Democratic in the right circumstances — and he came close in several more. In total, Democrats are targeting about 22 seats in the chamber, though they also need to defend the 12 they picked up in 2018.
Democrats could also take control of the Arizona state Legislature, although the trifecta is out of reach as Republican Gov. Doug Ducey still has two years left in his term. In her successful 2018 Senate campaign, Democrat Kyrsten Sinema carried three state Senate seats currently held by Republicans — exactly the number Democrats need to now flip in order to control the chamber. And Republicans currently have an even narrower advantage in the state House (31 seats to 29), prompting one Republican consultant to tell The Arizona Republic that he thought Democrats had a good chance to win it for the first time in 54 years.
Democrats could also end the Republican trifecta in Iowa by flipping the state House, which Republicans control 53 seats to 47. However, this will be more of a challenge, as Democrats must also defend 13 of their own members who sit in districts that voted for President Trump in 2016. Based on TV spending, Democrats are targeting at least 10 Republican-held seats, while Republicans hope to flip at least five Democratic-held ones.
Finally, Democrats also have an outside shot at ending total Republican control of Missouri state government if Democrat and state Auditor Nicole Galloway defeats Republican incumbent Mike Parson in the governor’s race. However, this is probably a long shot, as Parson has led handily in most polls.
Where Democrats could take full control
Democrats already capitalized on their most realistic trifecta opportunities in 2018, but there are still a few states left where the party could take full control of government. The most obvious is Minnesota, where the local Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party lacks control of only the state Senate. The DFL has six Republican-held seats in its sights, although it needs to net just two to win a majority. Conveniently enough, Republicans currently represent two suburban Twin Cities districts that voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and are only getting more Democratic with time. However, Republicans have plenty of ways to stop a DFL trifecta even if they lose those two seats. The GOP is eyeing five DFL-held Senate seats and would love to flip the state House as well, although the math — the DFL has a 16-seat advantage in the lower chamber — makes the latter more unlikely.
If Democrats are really lucky, they could also give Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf a Democratic legislature to work with in Pennsylvania. Despite maps that were drawn to favor Republicans, Democrats steamrolled Republicans in metro Philadelphia in 2018, cutting their deficit to four seats in the state Senate and nine seats in the state House. Of course, the remaining competitive seats are the heaviest lifts for Democrats, although they do have around 15 pickup opportunities in the House (though Republicans have 12 of their own). And in the Senate, Democrats have no margin for error on their path to a majority: They must flip all four vulnerable Republican-held seats while defending two seats around Pittsburgh. It’s a tall order, but not impossible given that Biden is leading by an average of 7 points in Pennsylvania.
Where Republicans could take full control
Although their opportunities come in much less populous states, Republicans could also gain power from the 2020 election. For example, Republican Rep. Greg Gianforte is leading in polls for Montana governor, an open seat being vacated by Democrat Steve Bullock. And with both chambers of the Montana state Legislature firmly in Republican hands, a Gianforte win would produce another Republican trifecta.
Republicans could also take full control of Alaska state government simply by standing pat in the state House. (They already control the governorship and state Senate.) For the last two years, the House has been controlled by a coalition of Democrats, independents and moderate Republicans despite Republicans technically occupying 23 of the chamber’s 40 seats. However, with the defeat of two of those moderate Republicans in this year’s primaries and the defection of at least two others, Republicans appear to have the numbers to form a state House majority next year — even if no seats switch parties in the election.
How voting is going so far in 2020 | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast
Where Republicans could break a Democratic trifecta
On the other hand, Republicans have only one realistic chance of ending a Democratic trifecta: by flipping either Maine’s state Senate or state House. But although national handicappers and state experts disagree on which chamber is more endangered, all parties agree that Democrats have the upper hand in both. A recent Bangor Daily News/Digital Research poll found that Democrats led Republicans, 51 percent to 44 percent, on the generic legislative ballot, and outside Democratic groups have spent nearly four times as much as Republican ones.
Where either party could take full control
Finally, there are two states where all three components of a trifecta are competitive in 2020, meaning either party could emerge with total control of government. However, the most likely outcome in both may be a split decision.
In North Carolina, Republican legislators drew themselves very safe districts for a majority of the decade, but court-ordered redistricting has opened the door for Democrats to net the five seats they need in the state Senate and the six seats they need in the state House. However, the new maps still lean Republican overall: The tipping-point district went for Trump by 10 points in the state Senate and by 12 points in the state House. And Republicans could still seize the trifecta by defeating Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper, but virtually every poll has shown the incumbent ahead, usually by double digits.
The parties’ positions are flipped in New Hampshire, where Republican Chris Sununu sits in the governor’s office and Democrats currently control both chambers of the legislature. Although New Hampshire is likely to go blue on the presidential level, Sununu is unlikely to lose his bid for a third term. That leaves Republicans fighting to flip the three seats they need in the state Senate and 44 seats they need in the House. That second part might sound impossible — and it will definitely be a challenge — but New Hampshire’s oddly drawn, 400-member state House is known for swinging wildly back and forth between the parties depending on the mood of the electorate.
One last competitive chamber
Finally, one state without a trifecta in play deserves an honorable mention. With neither Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer nor the Republican-held state Senate up for election in 2020, Michigan is guaranteed to still have divided government for the next two years. However, the Michigan state House is one of the most competitive legislative chambers in the country this year. Republicans hold just a 58-52 majority and are defending four seats Whitmer carried in 2018 — three of which are open seats due to term limits. If Democrats flip the chamber, it would be the culmination of a decade-long Democratic effort: According to Daily Kos Elections, Michigan Democrats won the state House popular vote in 2012, 2014 and 2018, yet fell short of the majority every time.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-20--Why Trump Is Losing White Suburban Women

Over the past few months , President Trump has framed the 2020 election as a defense of suburbia .
In a Wall Street Journal column in August , he and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson promised to protect the suburbs from being transformed into “ dysfunctional cities.
” And in a tweet several days later , Trump warned that suburban women should be wary of Democrats , as they would allow crime to drift into suburban communities .
More recently , the president has grown less subtle , imploring suburban women at his rally in Johnstown , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ [ C ] an I ask you to do me a favor , suburban women ?
Will you please like me ?
Please .
Please .
I saved your damn neighborhood , OK ?
” The suburbs , in Trump ’ s telling , are under siege — and a Joe Biden presidency would transform them beyond recognition .
But it might be that Trump doesn ’ t actually recognize what suburbia looks like today .
Establishing what constitutes a “ suburb ” is hard ; there is no single definition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the past 40 years , the suburbs have become much more diverse .
This is bad news for Trump , as his vision of suburbia seems largely stuck in the 1950s — a manicured lawn , a husband heading into the city to work at a white-collar job , and a “ housewife ” tending to the children and preparing dinner .
Only this version of suburbia doesn ’ t really exist anymore .
It wasn ’ t that long ago , though , that Trump had an edge among suburban voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 47 percent to 45 percent , according to an analysis of validated voters by the Pew Research Center .
But by 2018 , 52 percent of suburban voters supported Democratic candidates for Congress , compared with 45 percent who supported Republican candidates .
And according to our analysis of polling data from Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape , Trump is losing suburban voters to Biden , by 54 percent to 44 percent .
What is driving this move away from Trump and Republicans in the suburbs ?
According to our analysis of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beyond the diversification of the suburbs , it ’ s mostly because of white suburban women : 54 percent of them support Biden , while just 45 percent support Trump ( very few are undecided ) .
Meanwhile , white suburban men haven ’ t stopped backing Trump — he ’ s winning them 57 percent to 41 percent .
( The reason we ’ re zooming in on white suburban voters is that nonwhite voters in the suburbs are much more likely to say they ’ ll back Biden — 83 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Islander , and 57 percent of Hispanic likely voters said they supported Biden , according to our analysis . )
There is , of course , still a significant share of white women in the suburbs who are on Trump ’ s side ( 45 percent ) , but as you can see in the chart above , white men support Trump much more overall .
And Trump may actually be reaching those men with pleas ostensibly geared toward women , according to Jane Junn , a political science professor at the University @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talked about suburban housewives , I think the message was as much to men as it was to women , ” Junn said .
“ It was a shoutout to their masculinity.
” One reason why white suburban men might be more receptive to Trump ’ s racially coded appeals and callouts to traditional gender roles is that white suburban men tend to score higher than white suburban women on questions of racial resentment and hostile sexism , even among Democrats .
The one exception to this , as the chart below shows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In this case , men ’ s and women ’ s racial resentment scores are basically the same , which is somewhat expected as partisanship is a big driver of issues like racial discrimination and sexism .
However , white suburban Republican women were less likely to score high on the question we used to measure gender resentment , about whether women who complain of harassment often cause more problems than they solve .
This signals that , compared with white men , they may be less receptive to Trump ’ s rhetoric @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that could be a big problem for Trump since sexist attitudes strongly correlated with support for him in 2016 .
The same is true of some of Trump ’ s core campaign issues , like immigration , which don ’ t seem to resonate as much with white suburban Republican women as with white suburban Republican men .
Of the five issues we looked at , white Republican women in the suburbs were far less hard-line than their male counterparts .
On some issues , like support for building a wall along the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wasn ’ t much difference , but on the question of separating a child if their parents could be prosecuted for entering the U.S. illegally , the gap in support was huge : Just 25 percent of white suburban Republican women supported that policy compared with 46 percent of white suburban Republican men .
There was also a sizable gap on support for the deportation of all undocumented immigrants .
While not directly related to the law-and-order rhetoric that Trump has been leaning into recently , immigration is a good example of why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a souring effect on white women , but not on white men .
Claiming that immigration and crime are threats to the suburbs is a strategy that often works to remind white Republican women why they ’ re Republican , according to Jessica Trounstine , a political science professor at University of California , Merced , but this might not land with voters in the same way this year .
That ’ s because the white women most likely to find Trump ’ s messages appealing are probably the ones who stuck with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ words , according to Junn of USC , the white women who abandoned Republicans in 2018 aren ’ t likely to be persuaded to come back based on this messaging .
White suburban men , however , don ’ t seem to be as badly shaken , and because their more traditionalist gender views make that retro vision of the suburbs more appealing , their support for the president might even be reinforced by his talk about suburban women .
The trouble for Trump is that simply holding onto the votes of white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he needs to make up for lost ground among white suburban women , too .
But with only two weeks left until Election Day , there might not be much he can do to bring them back .

Over the past few months, President Trump has framed the 2020 election as a defense of suburbia. In a Wall Street Journal column in August, he and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson promised to protect the suburbs from being transformed into “dysfunctional cities.” And in a tweet several days later, Trump warned that suburban women should be wary of Democrats, as they would allow crime to drift into suburban communities. More recently, the president has grown less subtle, imploring suburban women at his rally in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, last week to like him. “[C]an I ask you to do me a favor, suburban women? Will you please like me? Please. Please. I saved your damn neighborhood, OK?”
How does early voting affect the forecast? l FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast
The suburbs, in Trump’s telling, are under siege — and a Joe Biden presidency would transform them beyond recognition. But it might be that Trump doesn’t actually recognize what suburbia looks like today.
[Live Updates: We’re Tracking The Vote And Voting Problems]
Establishing what constitutes a “suburb” is hard; there is no single definition, and what’s more, in the past 40 years, the suburbs have become much more diverse. This is bad news for Trump, as his vision of suburbia seems largely stuck in the 1950s — a manicured lawn, a husband heading into the city to work at a white-collar job, and a “housewife” tending to the children and preparing dinner. Only this version of suburbia doesn’t really exist anymore.
It wasn’t that long ago, though, that Trump had an edge among suburban voters. In 2016, Trump won them, 47 percent to 45 percent, according to an analysis of validated voters by the Pew Research Center. But by 2018, 52 percent of suburban voters supported Democratic candidates for Congress, compared with 45 percent who supported Republican candidates. And according to our analysis of polling data from Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape, Trump is losing suburban voters to Biden, by 54 percent to 44 percent.
What is driving this move away from Trump and Republicans in the suburbs? According to our analysis of Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape data, beyond the diversification of the suburbs, it’s mostly because of white suburban women: 54 percent of them support Biden, while just 45 percent support Trump (very few are undecided). Meanwhile, white suburban men haven’t stopped backing Trump — he’s winning them 57 percent to 41 percent. (The reason we’re zooming in on white suburban voters is that nonwhite voters in the suburbs are much more likely to say they’ll back Biden — 83 percent of Black, 69 percent of Asian/Pacific Islander, and 57 percent of Hispanic likely voters said they supported Biden, according to our analysis.)
There is, of course, still a significant share of white women in the suburbs who are on Trump’s side (45 percent), but as you can see in the chart above, white men support Trump much more overall. And Trump may actually be reaching those men with pleas ostensibly geared toward women, according to Jane Junn, a political science professor at the University of Southern California. “When he talked about suburban housewives, I think the message was as much to men as it was to women,” Junn said. “It was a shoutout to their masculinity.”
One reason why white suburban men might be more receptive to Trump’s racially coded appeals and callouts to traditional gender roles is that white suburban men tend to score higher than white suburban women on questions of racial resentment and hostile sexism, even among Democrats. The one exception to this, as the chart below shows, is among white suburban Republicans. In this case, men’s and women’s racial resentment scores are basically the same, which is somewhat expected as partisanship is a big driver of issues like racial discrimination and sexism.
However, white suburban Republican women were less likely to score high on the question we used to measure gender resentment, about whether women who complain of harassment often cause more problems than they solve. This signals that, compared with white men, they may be less receptive to Trump’s rhetoric concerning women this time around. And that could be a big problem for Trump since sexist attitudes strongly correlated with support for him in 2016.
The same is true of some of Trump’s core campaign issues, like immigration, which don’t seem to resonate as much with white suburban Republican women as with white suburban Republican men. Of the five issues we looked at, white Republican women in the suburbs were far less hard-line than their male counterparts. On some issues, like support for building a wall along the southern U.S. border with Mexico, there wasn’t much difference, but on the question of separating a child if their parents could be prosecuted for entering the U.S. illegally, the gap in support was huge: Just 25 percent of white suburban Republican women supported that policy compared with 46 percent of white suburban Republican men. There was also a sizable gap on support for the deportation of all undocumented immigrants.
White suburban Republicans are divided on immigration Share of white suburban Republican likely voters who said they support the following immigration policies, by gender Policy Men Women The border wall 75% 72% Child separation 46 25 Path to citizenship for all undocumented immigrants 41 37 Deportation of all undocumented immigrants 64 52 Path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants brought to U.S. as children 60 64 Averaged from surveys conducted Sept. 3 to Oct. 7. Source: DEMOCRACY FUND + UCLA NATIONSCAPE
While not directly related to the law-and-order rhetoric that Trump has been leaning into recently, immigration is a good example of why Trump’s presidency may have had a souring effect on white women, but not on white men. Claiming that immigration and crime are threats to the suburbs is a strategy that often works to remind white Republican women why they’re Republican, according to Jessica Trounstine, a political science professor at University of California, Merced, but this might not land with voters in the same way this year. That’s because the white women most likely to find Trump’s messages appealing are probably the ones who stuck with the Republicans in 2018. In other words, according to Junn of USC, the white women who abandoned Republicans in 2018 aren’t likely to be persuaded to come back based on this messaging.
White suburban men, however, don’t seem to be as badly shaken, and because their more traditionalist gender views make that retro vision of the suburbs more appealing, their support for the president might even be reinforced by his talk about suburban women. The trouble for Trump is that simply holding onto the votes of white suburban men isn’t enough — he needs to make up for lost ground among white suburban women, too. But with only two weeks left until Election Day, there might not be much he can do to bring them back.
Over 25 million have already voted, but this is what pollsters expected: Nate Silver


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-20--The Most Competitive Races Aren’t In Michigan, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania

In this episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew keys in on the most competitive races of 2020 @ @ @ @ @ re not in Michigan , Wisconsin or Pennsylvania , even though those states may be @ @ @ @ @ deciding the presidential race

In this episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew keys in on the most competitive races of 2020. Spoiler: They’re not in Michigan, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania, even though those states may be the most important ones in deciding the presidential race


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-20--Politics Podcast: The Most Competitive Races In 2020

In covering the 2020 election , we ’ ve focused plenty on the likeliest tipping-point states — the states likeliest to give the winning candidate his 270th electoral vote .
Those states include Pennsylvania , Wisconsin , Florida and Michigan .
While they may be the most important states in 2020 , they aren ’ t actually the most competitive .
Those contests are in Georgia , Iowa , Ohio and even Texas , which are polling closer to a dead heat .
In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , Micah Cohen and Sarah Frostenson discuss where the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , House and Senate .
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 ” ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twitter or in the comments .

In covering the 2020 election, we’ve focused plenty on the likeliest tipping-point states — the states likeliest to give the winning candidate his 270th electoral vote. Those states include Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida and Michigan. While they may be the most important states in 2020, they aren’t actually the most competitive. Those contests are in Georgia, Iowa, Ohio and even Texas, which are polling closer to a dead heat. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, Micah Cohen and Sarah Frostenson discuss where the most competitive races are for the presidency, House and Senate.
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--2020-10-20--Will The Best Teams Make For The Best World Series?

In honor of the start of the 2020 World Series , we spend almost this entire episode talking about baseball .
We first break down how the Los Angeles Dodgers and Tampa Bay Rays made it to the Fall Classic .
The matchup favors the Dodgers — our model gives them a 69 percent chance to win the World Series .
There certainly is pressure on them to end a 32-year championship drought , as well as on stars like Clayton Kershaw and Mookie Betts to prove their worth when it really counts .
But the Rays need many more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win : They need their bullpen to keep them out of trouble instead of bailing them out of trouble , and they need Randy Arozarena to keep hitting home runs at an incredible rate .
All our hosts love the Rays ’ style of play but remain unconvinced that their underdog narrative is as scrappy as Tampa makes it sound .
What the hosts are convinced of is that this year , finally , belongs to the Dodgers .
( Though they also acknowledge that their predictions have not been all that accurate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other questions being asked about this World Series , including whether the Rays ’ low-budget approach to team-building is exciting or actually somewhat detrimental to players — and even to baseball fandom itself .
As this is FiveThirtyEight , we are unsurprisingly fans of efficiency-driven decision-making on the part of front offices .
While the Rays are an extreme example of what small-market teams have to do in order to compete year in and year out , it ’ s not like the Dodgers aren ’ t also using sabermetrics .
The Rays @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Tampa ’ s fans and the league as a whole than if the Rays resigned themselves to constant disappointment — as small-market , midtable teams in the English Premier League do .
The solution to the resentment some fans are feeling probably isn ’ t a misguided form of player-club loyalty on the part of the Rays .
It ’ s baseball owners opening up their books and showing us all which teams are maximizing their efficiency out of necessity , and which are actually being cheap .
Finally , in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at how home-field advantage has ( or hasn ’ t ) changed over the course of 2020 .
The results are inconclusive .
Baseball and football , which had the use of their stadiums but fewer fans , remained very close to their avenge home winning percentages at full capacity .
The NBA and the WNBA , which competed in bubbles , saw clearer differences in favor of home team victories , despite playing at neutral sites .
Is home-field advantage all about material amenities ?
Is it more psychological ?
We would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ completely shut down sports in order to collect more sample data , so we hope this stays a mystery for a good long while .
What we ’ re looking at this week : • What to watch for in the World Series .
• Why No .
1 seeds meeting in the World Series is an anomaly .

In honor of the start of the 2020 World Series, we spend almost this entire episode talking about baseball. We first break down how the Los Angeles Dodgers and Tampa Bay Rays made it to the Fall Classic. The matchup favors the Dodgers — our model gives them a 69 percent chance to win the World Series. There certainly is pressure on them to end a 32-year championship drought, as well as on stars like Clayton Kershaw and Mookie Betts to prove their worth when it really counts. But the Rays need many more things to go right for them to win: They need their bullpen to keep them out of trouble instead of bailing them out of trouble, and they need Randy Arozarena to keep hitting home runs at an incredible rate. All our hosts love the Rays’ style of play but remain unconvinced that their underdog narrative is as scrappy as Tampa makes it sound. What the hosts are convinced of is that this year, finally, belongs to the Dodgers. (Though they also acknowledge that their predictions have not been all that accurate this year.)
But there are other questions being asked about this World Series, including whether the Rays’ low-budget approach to team-building is exciting or actually somewhat detrimental to players — and even to baseball fandom itself. As this is FiveThirtyEight, we are unsurprisingly fans of efficiency-driven decision-making on the part of front offices. While the Rays are an extreme example of what small-market teams have to do in order to compete year in and year out, it’s not like the Dodgers aren’t also using sabermetrics. The Rays’ success playing Moneyball is much better for Tampa’s fans and the league as a whole than if the Rays resigned themselves to constant disappointment — as small-market, midtable teams in the English Premier League do. The solution to the resentment some fans are feeling probably isn’t a misguided form of player-club loyalty on the part of the Rays. It’s baseball owners opening up their books and showing us all which teams are maximizing their efficiency out of necessity, and which are actually being cheap.
Finally, in the Rabbit Hole, Neil takes a look at how home-field advantage has (or hasn’t) changed over the course of 2020. The results are inconclusive. Baseball and football, which had the use of their stadiums but fewer fans, remained very close to their avenge home winning percentages at full capacity. The NBA and the WNBA, which competed in bubbles, saw clearer differences in favor of home team victories, despite playing at neutral sites. Is home-field advantage all about material amenities? Is it more psychological? We would need to wait for another pandemic to completely shut down sports in order to collect more sample data, so we hope this stays a mystery for a good long while.
What we’re looking at this week: