fivethirthyeight--2020-10-07--Biden Got Some Of His Best Polls This Week

After Democrats ’ great midterm election , the 2020 election could be a second consecutive Democratic wave .
According to FiveThirtyEight ’ s forecasts , Joe Biden has an 84 in 100 chance of winning the presidential election , Democrats have a 68 in 100 chance of flipping the Senate and the party has a 94 in 100 chance of keeping the House .
Altogether , there ’ s a 65 in 100 chance that Democrats will have full control of the federal government next year .
Democrats ’ hopes — and Republicans ’ fears — for another blue wave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several polls that were among Biden ’ s best of the entire year .
It ’ s hard to tell exactly why this is happening given all the news of the past couple weeks , but no matter how you slice it , it ’ s not good for President Trump .
For instance , a national poll from CNN/SSRS gave Biden an eye-popping 16-point lead among likely voters .
Monmouth University also gave Biden an 11-point lead in Pennsylvania in a high-turnout scenario and an 8-point lead in a low-turnout scenario .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ own Pennsylvania poll showing Biden up by 13 points , and added a Biden+11 Florida poll and a Biden+5 Iowa poll for good measure .
At the same time , some other high-quality pollsters produced more subdued results in a few key swing states , although they hardly qualify as good news for Trump .
Siena College/New York Times Upshot put Biden at 45 percent and Trump at 44 percent in Ohio and gave Biden a 6-point edge in Nevada .
And Marquette Law School , polling its home state of Wisconsin , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Trump 42 percent .
Those results in Ohio and Wisconsin are especially significant given Trump probably needs to win them in order to secure a second term .
What to make of all these polls ?
Throw them in an average , of course .
And FiveThirtyEight ’ s polling averages do suggest that Biden is widening his lead , although the degree varies depending on which state you look at .
( Nationally , though , Biden has gone from a 7.3-point polling edge two weeks ago to a 9.4-point lead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is that , spurred by the Quinnipiac polls , Biden ’ s lead has increased the most ( from 1.6 points to 4.6 points ) in Florida , which was previously one of the few bright spots on the map for Trump .
Biden has also further cemented his lead in Pennsylvania ( where it went from 4.6 points to 6.9 points ) and in swingy but oft-forgotten New Hampshire ( thanks to several polls over the last couple weeks that have consistently given Biden an 8- to 12-point lead there ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t seen the same kind of shift , including Michigan and Wisconsin , whose demographics are similar to Pennsylvania ’ s yet whose polling has not seemed to improve for Biden .
However , the fact that Michigan and Wisconsin polling has stayed still while Pennsylvania ’ s has zagged toward Biden has brought its polling average more in line with those two states ’ — right around Biden+7 or Biden+8 .
So the recent movement in Pennsylvania may just be correcting an anomaly from August and September when Pennsylvania polls were oddly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his polling bump , Biden ’ s odds of winning are up , too .
Here is a graph of our national forecast over time : And here ’ s how the race has changed in Pennsylvania , the likeliest tipping-point state in the Electoral College : Before you overreact to these trends , though , remember that momentum doesn ’ t exist in general elections .
This could be the beginning of Biden running away with the election … or it could be a temporary , post-debate sugar high for Biden .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Hillary Clinton had an average 6.9-point national polling lead and an 88 in 100 chance to win the election on Oct. 17 , 2016 — at the height of the anti-Trump backlash after the Access Hollywood tape — but fell back down to 3.9 points and a 71 in 100 chance by Election Day .
Historically , trends are just as likely to revert to the mean as they are to continue .
That said , “ reverting to the mean ” this year might mean returning to the 7-point or so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and if he maintains that kind of lead on Election Day , he ’ ll be an overwhelming favorite to win the election , even with Trump ’ s Electoral College advantage .
In addition , because the pandemic has increased the popularity of mail voting , people are voting earlier than ever this year — at least 5.6 million votes have already been cast nationwide .
So that throws yet another wrench into the equation : Even if there ’ s a sudden tightening in the last week or two before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as much as it did in 2016 — a large chunk of votes will already have been banked at a time when Biden was flying high .

Biden Got Some Of His Best Polls This Week His lead over Trump is widening, but will it last?
After Democrats’ great midterm election, the 2020 election could be a second consecutive Democratic wave. According to FiveThirtyEight’s forecasts, Joe Biden has an 84 in 100 chance of winning the presidential election, Democrats have a 68 in 100 chance of flipping the Senate and the party has a 94 in 100 chance of keeping the House. Altogether, there’s a 65 in 100 chance that Democrats will have full control of the federal government next year.
Democrats’ hopes — and Republicans’ fears — for another blue wave grew this week with the release of several polls that were among Biden’s best of the entire year. It’s hard to tell exactly why this is happening given all the news of the past couple weeks, but no matter how you slice it, it’s not good for President Trump. For instance, a national poll from CNN/SSRS gave Biden an eye-popping 16-point lead among likely voters. Monmouth University also gave Biden an 11-point lead in Pennsylvania in a high-turnout scenario and an 8-point lead in a low-turnout scenario. Quinnipiac University backed that up with its own Pennsylvania poll showing Biden up by 13 points, and added a Biden+11 Florida poll and a Biden+5 Iowa poll for good measure.
At the same time, some other high-quality pollsters produced more subdued results in a few key swing states, although they hardly qualify as good news for Trump. Siena College/New York Times Upshot put Biden at 45 percent and Trump at 44 percent in Ohio and gave Biden a 6-point edge in Nevada. And Marquette Law School, polling its home state of Wisconsin, returned a result of Biden 47 percent, Trump 42 percent. Those results in Ohio and Wisconsin are especially significant given Trump probably needs to win them in order to secure a second term.
Trump has 3 big problems heading toward Election Day | FiveThirtyEight
What to make of all these polls? Throw them in an average, of course. And FiveThirtyEight’s polling averages do suggest that Biden is widening his lead, although the degree varies depending on which state you look at. (Nationally, though, Biden has gone from a 7.3-point polling edge two weeks ago to a 9.4-point lead today.)
Biden is gaining in a number of battleground states How FiveThirtyEight’s polling average changed in the last two weeks, nationally and in key swing states Polling Average on… State Sept. 23 Oct. 7 Change Florida D+1.6 D+4.6 D+3.0 New Hampshire D+6.9 D+9.8 D+2.9 Pennsylvania D+4.6 D+6.9 D+2.3 Georgia R+1.1 D+1.0 D+2.1 Iowa R+1.0 D+0.9 D+1.9 Ohio R+1.0 D+0.7 D+1.7 North Carolina D+1.2 D+2.3 D+1.1 Nevada D+5.8 D+6.6 D+0.8 Arizona D+3.8 D+4.4 D+0.6 Minnesota D+9.2 D+9.5 D+0.3 Michigan D+7.4 D+7.7 D+0.3 Wisconsin D+6.8 D+6.9 D+0.1 Texas R+0.7 R+1.5 R+0.8 National D+7.3 D+9.4 D+2.1 Source: Polls
The topline takeaway from this is that, spurred by the Quinnipiac polls, Biden’s lead has increased the most (from 1.6 points to 4.6 points) in Florida, which was previously one of the few bright spots on the map for Trump.
Biden has also further cemented his lead in Pennsylvania (where it went from 4.6 points to 6.9 points) and in swingy but oft-forgotten New Hampshire (thanks to several polls over the last couple weeks that have consistently given Biden an 8- to 12-point lead there).
However, several states haven’t seen the same kind of shift, including Michigan and Wisconsin, whose demographics are similar to Pennsylvania’s yet whose polling has not seemed to improve for Biden. However, the fact that Michigan and Wisconsin polling has stayed still while Pennsylvania’s has zagged toward Biden has brought its polling average more in line with those two states’ — right around Biden+7 or Biden+8. So the recent movement in Pennsylvania may just be correcting an anomaly from August and September when Pennsylvania polls were oddly weak for Biden.
In tandem with his polling bump, Biden’s odds of winning are up, too. Here is a graph of our national forecast over time:
And here’s how the race has changed in Pennsylvania, the likeliest tipping-point state in the Electoral College:
Before you overreact to these trends, though, remember that momentum doesn’t exist in general elections. This could be the beginning of Biden running away with the election … or it could be a temporary, post-debate sugar high for Biden. To take a high-profile, recent example, Hillary Clinton had an average 6.9-point national polling lead and an 88 in 100 chance to win the election on Oct. 17, 2016 — at the height of the anti-Trump backlash after the Access Hollywood tape — but fell back down to 3.9 points and a 71 in 100 chance by Election Day. Historically, trends are just as likely to revert to the mean as they are to continue.
That said, “reverting to the mean” this year might mean returning to the 7-point or so national lead that Biden held throughout September — and if he maintains that kind of lead on Election Day, he’ll be an overwhelming favorite to win the election, even with Trump’s Electoral College advantage.
In addition, because the pandemic has increased the popularity of mail voting, people are voting earlier than ever this year — at least 5.6 million votes have already been cast nationwide. So that throws yet another wrench into the equation: Even if there’s a sudden tightening in the last week or two before the election, it may not matter as much as it did in 2016 — a large chunk of votes will already have been banked at a time when Biden was flying high.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-07--Trump Has Three Big Problems Heading Toward Election Day

President Trump has fallen further behind Joe Biden in the polls .
According to FiveThirtyEight editor-in-chief Nate Silver , Trump @ @ @ @ @ him back .

President Trump has fallen further behind Joe Biden in the polls. According to FiveThirtyEight editor-in-chief Nate Silver, Trump has three main problems holding him back.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-07--Breanna Stewart Is Coming For The Record Books

By the end of the third quarter in Tuesday night ’ s championship-clinching win for Breanna Stewart and the Seattle Storm , their opponents had the glassy-eyed look that ’ s become a familiar staple of Stewart ’ s foes at every level .
Acceptance came in waves for the Las Vegas Aces as Stewart put up another double-digit point total in the quarter , surpassing the 20-point mark for the game as she has in all of her WNBA Finals performances .
The Aces were 18-4 this season , but Stewart ’ s Storm dominated them so thoroughly that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confetti fell on Seattle ’ s second WNBA title in three years .
The accomplishments line up neatly on Stewart ’ s virtual shelf : six WNBA Finals games over two seasons — 2018 and 2020 — six wins , no losses , two championships , two Finals MVP trophies .
Stewart maxes out on laurels , just as she had in college , with four championships in four seasons at UConn , along with four awards for Most Outstanding Player in the Final Four .
The only interruption wasn ’ t another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just an Achilles injury that took away her 2019 season .
Only an act of God can slow down Breanna Stewart .
“ The past few days , knowing we were going into Game 3 , having the opportunity to be back , win another Finals , I didn ’ t know what was going to happen after rupturing my Achilles , ” Stewart recalled , her celebration-moistened eyes hidden by an oversized pair of goggles as she spoke to reporters after Seattle ’ s 92-59 win .
“ You see all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t sure if I was ever going to be back to where I was .
But to be here and see myself playing like this and having so much potential going forward , it ’ s exciting.
” Stewart is right : The torn Achilles tendon that sidelined her for all of 2019 threw her career projections into a previously unknown state of flux .
It ’ s equally obvious that now — after showing that she is capable of playing every bit as well , if not better , than she did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again on track to create a body of work that all other players who came before or follow her will struggle to match .
“ Stewie is just one of those players , a generational player that comes through once in a while that can face adversity and even get stronger because of it , ” her head coach , Gary Kloppenburg , said after the game .
“ I think that ’ s what we saw with her .
She really missed that whole year and she came back as a better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on both sides of the ball .
Pretty incredible testament to her work ethic and her desire to be such a great player and such a great teammate.
” In terms of career win shares , Stewart already ranks 64th in the history of the WNBA — a remarkable standing considering that she has played just four seasons , and one of them , 2020 , was truncated to 22 games thanks to , well , you know .
Expand her 3.9 win shares in 2020 into a 34-game campaign , and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Use the 36-game season the league planned to expand to in 2020 before the global pandemic , and it would have been a 6.4-win share season .
Stewart ’ s win shares in 2018 were actually a bit higher , at 7.7 .
Accordingly , let ’ s project her conservatively and build in a bit of decline over the next decade : an average of 6 win shares per year , for the next 10 years , would put her at 82.6 .
The only player in WNBA history to top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And Stewart has already collected more championship trophies than Catchings .
Stewart ’ s early success puts her on track to finish her WNBA career with the most titles of anyone , too .
Maya Moore and several other top players collected four — it took slowpoke Sue Bird until 2020 to capture her fourth championship .
Only Rebekah Brunson has five among players in WNBA history , and while Brunson was a vital part of every one of those teams , it ’ s fair to note , as Bird did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ role with Seattle than Brunson did in Minnesota or Sacramento .
“ I don ’ t know of any players of Stewie ’ s caliber — so we are talking MVP-caliber player , not just All-Star , but MVP , and there is a difference — who have won two times in their first four years , ” Bird said .
“ So I don ’ t know of many players that have a start like that , and when it comes to records , whether it ’ s individually statistic-wise or winning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if you can get there early , then you have a chance of them adding up as you go.
” A chance , yes , but nothing is guaranteed .
Bird ’ s former UConn teammate , Diana Taurasi , won in 2007 and 2009 , making it two championships in Taurasi ’ s first five seasons , the latter at age 27 .
But her running mate , Cappie Pondexter , then requested a trade , and Taurasi didn ’ t get her third until 2014 , once Brittney Griner joined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Maya Moore , at age 26 , captured her third title with Minnesota in 2015 .
But after winning her fourth in 2017 , she hasn ’ t won one since — losing in the 2018 playoffs , the year Stewart won her first , and sitting out the 2019 and 2020 seasons to win a different kind of championship altogether .
Bird said she expects to return in 2021 , though , and with Jewell Loyd just getting better by the year , the Storm should be among the favorites next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cleared path for Stewart going forward .
The 2020 MVP , A ’ ja Wilson , will have plenty to say about the future of the league , as will the 2019 MVP , Elena Delle Donne , just 31 and expected to return in 2021 after sitting out 2020 because of the risk of COVID-19 .
Moore could even return , now that the prisoner whose conviction she helped challenge is free .
By the time Stewart is 30 , she ’ ll likely have to stay ahead of an in-prime Sabrina @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mention the next crop of players who will have made their way to the WNBA , likely including South Carolina ’ s Aliyah Boston and UConn ’ s Paige Bueckers .
The league ’ s talent infusion is relentless .
And yet , there is something about Stewart ’ s inevitability that seems to quiet the realization of just how great she is .
Make a game-winner , and it gets played on highlight films for decades to come .
But beat everyone by 30 — a much harder , higher standard — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ memories quite so readily .
Stewart ’ s teammate has something to say about that , however .
“ If people are under-appreciating Stewie based on no close games in Finals , that ’ s the most ridiculous thing I ’ ve ever heard , ” Bird said .
“ I ’ m like , I can ’ t even compute it .
What does it even mean ?
” It means that Stewart hasn ’ t just won this often , she ’ s done it in a way that puts every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the figure atop women ’ s basketball once more , who calmly said she intended to win four national championships at UConn and then did just that , seems pretty willing to keep on imposing her will on the WNBA for a while .
Asked if six championships were in reach , another standard that no one has yet met , she smiled and said : “ Yeah , I want to win .
”

Breanna Stewart Is Coming For The Record Books With her second WNBA title in three years, the Seattle Storm forward is showing just how dominant she can be.
By the end of the third quarter in Tuesday night’s championship-clinching win for Breanna Stewart and the Seattle Storm, their opponents had the glassy-eyed look that’s become a familiar staple of Stewart’s foes at every level.
Acceptance came in waves for the Las Vegas Aces as Stewart put up another double-digit point total in the quarter, surpassing the 20-point mark for the game as she has in all of her WNBA Finals performances. The Aces were 18-4 this season, but Stewart’s Storm dominated them so thoroughly that the outcome was decided long before the confetti fell on Seattle’s second WNBA title in three years.
The accomplishments line up neatly on Stewart’s virtual shelf: six WNBA Finals games over two seasons — 2018 and 2020 — six wins, no losses, two championships, two Finals MVP trophies. Stewart maxes out on laurels, just as she had in college, with four championships in four seasons at UConn, along with four awards for Most Outstanding Player in the Final Four.
The only interruption wasn’t another player, or another team, but just an Achilles injury that took away her 2019 season. Only an act of God can slow down Breanna Stewart.
“The past few days, knowing we were going into Game 3, having the opportunity to be back, win another Finals, I didn’t know what was going to happen after rupturing my Achilles,” Stewart recalled, her celebration-moistened eyes hidden by an oversized pair of goggles as she spoke to reporters after Seattle’s 92-59 win. “You see all the worst, and then I wasn’t sure if I was ever going to be back to where I was. But to be here and see myself playing like this and having so much potential going forward, it’s exciting.”
Stewart is right: The torn Achilles tendon that sidelined her for all of 2019 threw her career projections into a previously unknown state of flux. It’s equally obvious that now — after showing that she is capable of playing every bit as well, if not better, than she did before the injury — she is once again on track to create a body of work that all other players who came before or follow her will struggle to match.
“Stewie is just one of those players, a generational player that comes through once in a while that can face adversity and even get stronger because of it,” her head coach, Gary Kloppenburg, said after the game. “I think that’s what we saw with her. She really missed that whole year and she came back as a better player in pretty much every category, on both sides of the ball. Pretty incredible testament to her work ethic and her desire to be such a great player and such a great teammate.”
In terms of career win shares, Stewart already ranks 64th in the history of the WNBA — a remarkable standing considering that she has played just four seasons, and one of them, 2020, was truncated to 22 games thanks to, well, you know. Expand her 3.9 win shares in 2020 into a 34-game campaign, and that would have equaled a 6-win share season. Use the 36-game season the league planned to expand to in 2020 before the global pandemic, and it would have been a 6.4-win share season.
Stewart’s win shares in 2018 were actually a bit higher, at 7.7. Accordingly, let’s project her conservatively and build in a bit of decline over the next decade: an average of 6 win shares per year, for the next 10 years, would put her at 82.6. The only player in WNBA history to top that is Tamika Catchings, at 93.6. And Stewart has already collected more championship trophies than Catchings.
Stewart’s early success puts her on track to finish her WNBA career with the most titles of anyone, too. Maya Moore and several other top players collected four — it took slowpoke Sue Bird until 2020 to capture her fourth championship. Only Rebekah Brunson has five among players in WNBA history, and while Brunson was a vital part of every one of those teams, it’s fair to note, as Bird did, that Stewart occupies a more central role with Seattle than Brunson did in Minnesota or Sacramento.
“I don’t know of any players of Stewie’s caliber — so we are talking MVP-caliber player, not just All-Star, but MVP, and there is a difference — who have won two times in their first four years,” Bird said. “So I don’t know of many players that have a start like that, and when it comes to records, whether it’s individually statistic-wise or winning championships, even with the Olympic team, if you can get there early, then you have a chance of them adding up as you go.”
A chance, yes, but nothing is guaranteed. Bird’s former UConn teammate, Diana Taurasi, won in 2007 and 2009, making it two championships in Taurasi’s first five seasons, the latter at age 27. But her running mate, Cappie Pondexter, then requested a trade, and Taurasi didn’t get her third until 2014, once Brittney Griner joined her in Phoenix, and none since.
Maya Moore, at age 26, captured her third title with Minnesota in 2015. But after winning her fourth in 2017, she hasn’t won one since — losing in the 2018 playoffs, the year Stewart won her first, and sitting out the 2019 and 2020 seasons to win a different kind of championship altogether.
Bird said she expects to return in 2021, though, and with Jewell Loyd just getting better by the year, the Storm should be among the favorites next season. But it is hardly a cleared path for Stewart going forward. The 2020 MVP, A’ja Wilson, will have plenty to say about the future of the league, as will the 2019 MVP, Elena Delle Donne, just 31 and expected to return in 2021 after sitting out 2020 because of the risk of COVID-19. Moore could even return, now that the prisoner whose conviction she helped challenge is free. By the time Stewart is 30, she’ll likely have to stay ahead of an in-prime Sabrina Ionescu in New York, not to mention the next crop of players who will have made their way to the WNBA, likely including South Carolina’s Aliyah Boston and UConn’s Paige Bueckers. The league’s talent infusion is relentless.
And yet, there is something about Stewart’s inevitability that seems to quiet the realization of just how great she is. Make a game-winner, and it gets played on highlight films for decades to come. But beat everyone by 30 — a much harder, higher standard — and it doesn’t stick in memories quite so readily. Stewart’s teammate has something to say about that, however.
“If people are under-appreciating Stewie based on no close games in Finals, that’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard,” Bird said. “I’m like, I can’t even compute it. What does it even mean?”
It means that Stewart hasn’t just won this often, she’s done it in a way that puts every record within reach. And so, the figure atop women’s basketball once more, who calmly said she intended to win four national championships at UConn and then did just that, seems pretty willing to keep on imposing her will on the WNBA for a while. Asked if six championships were in reach, another standard that no one has yet met, she smiled and said: “Yeah, I want to win.”


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-07--Take Negative COVID-19 Tests Seriously, But Not Literally

Kayleigh McEnany tested negative for COVID-19 last Thursday .
She tested negative again on Friday .
And on Saturday .
And also on Sunday .
But she wasn ’ t negative on Monday .
And that presents a quandary even if you ’ re not the White House press secretary .
What if you get tested because someone close to you tested positive , but your test shows you ’ re negative … yet three days later you aren ’ t , and , unlike McEnany , you have no idea you have COVID-19 because you don ’ t get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House staff and other Republican officials can provide some insight on how to make ourselves , and our communities , safer .
That ’ s because , experts told me , sometimes a “ negative ” test result isn ’ t just a negative test result .
Sometimes it ’ s just the first stop on the way to testing positive .
Those first few McEnany tests fall into the category of “ false negatives , ” said Bobbi Pritt , a microbiologist at the Mayo Clinic .
She was infected , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that yet .
Nobody knows exactly how common false negatives are , said Steven Woloshin , co-director of the Center for Medicine and Media at The Dartmouth Institute , but they aren ’ t rare .
In one study from China , between 11 and 40 percent of tests conducted on 213 hospitalized , COVID-positive patients in the first seven days of illness came back negative .
Another paper , this one a review of 34 studies accounting for more than 12,000 patients , suggested a false negative rate between 2 and 58 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a test could produce a false negative .
In McEnany ’ s case , it ’ s likely because there ’ s a lag time between when someone gets an infectious dose of the SARS-COV-2 virus and when there is actually enough virus in their body to register on a test .
“ Say somebody gets exposed today , then half the people will start having positive test results in five days , ” said Davey Smith , a translational research virologist at the University of California San Diego .
“ Eighty percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10 and virtually everyone would have it by 14.
” People who know they ’ ve been exposed to COVID-19 often want to come in right away and get a test , Smith said .
But that ’ s the opposite of what you need to do .
In order to test positive , you have to have enough virus in your system for the test to spot its genetic material in your sample .
But virus replication takes time .
If you ’ re tested on day four , there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any negative test result is untrustworthy .
But it gets more complicated than that .
Testing too soon is a concern for anyone , but if you ’ re one of the people who contracts COVID-19 and isn ’ t having a serious case , there ’ s also such a thing as testing too late , Pritt said .
In mild cases , she told me , concentrations of virus in a person ’ s system can start to decline six days after infection — meaning if you got tested after that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and people who have been in contact with you might not know they were ever at risk .
You can still test positive in the first week after infection — and serious cases can test positive for far longer — but the window for when everyone is most likely to get a “ negative ” that truly means negative is small .
There ’ s a reason state health departments are recommending that asymptomatic people who think they ’ re at risk of COVID-19 be tested five to seven days after exposure .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the tests only tell you if you have the virus — not whether or when you are contagious .
It all leaves a lot of room for error .
This isn ’ t anything unique to COVID-19 .
With any virus , there will be differences in how long it takes to replicate to detectable levels .
Some are fast .
Some , like HIV for example , can take months .
And how long it takes a respiratory virus like COVID to reach a detectable point can vary based on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s immune system , how much virus they inhaled to begin with , and other factors .
“ If I get a bunch of virus at once , the amount of time it takes to replicate enough to come out my nose is shorter , ” Smith said .
But there are two other reasons why false negatives happen , Pritt told me .
First , the test might not have reached the parts of your body where the virus concentrates .
“ The gold standard is still the nasal pharynx , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amount of virus is higher there than in the tip , ” she said .
Then , there ’ s also errors in the tests themselves .
No test is perfect , after all .
And different tests have different profiles of how likely they are to fail .
For example , PCR tests — the ones that the virus ’ genetic traces in samples taken from deep in your nose — have been kind of the workhorse of diagnostic testing throughout the pandemic .
There are different kinds , but generally , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is called high sensitivity — that is , if you take them at the right time , they ’ re pretty unlikely to mess up in ways that result in false negatives .
The newer rapid tests , on the other hand , are kind of the opposite .
They might turn up some false negatives , but are very unlikely to give you a false positive .
These traits make the different tests most useful in different settings , Smith said .
He uses rapid tests in the ER , where patients @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing is to be able to trust that a positive test result is for real .
For broadly testing the general public , though , you ’ d rather use a test that produces fewer false negatives , so you don ’ t send asymptomatic carriers out with a false sense of confidence , he told me .
The White House was using rapid tests .
There are a couple of personal lessons you can take away from the outbreak of COVID-19 within the administration .
First , consider your pretest probability — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been in contact with the virus .
Your likelihood of being infected is different if you ’ ve been , say , hanging around in the West Wing of the White House , than if you ’ ve been social distancing in a low-COVID part of the country , Woloshin said .
If you take a test , and it comes back negative , the person with a low probability of having COVID-19 in the first place has good reason to believe the test .
The person who didn ’ t , on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t give a negative test result too much credence .
Second , quarantines matter .
If you know you were exposed to COVID-19 and you get a test and it says negative , you did not just get yourself a “ Get Out of Quarantine Free ” card .
Even after day five , studies done on real world patients have found a 20 percent probability of a false negative test .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently advises people who have been exposed to COVID-19 to quarantine themselves for 14 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
McEnany didn ’ t do that in the days before she tested positive .
It ’ s now been eight days since Joe Biden was exposed to President Trump during the debate , and he tested negative that whole time .
But he hasn ’ t stopped campaigning .
“ As long as I ’ m in the window period there ’ s no real guaranteed safe time , ” Smith said .
Third , tests can be useful tools , but you should be very careful how you use them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ some friends you haven ’ t seen in months — so you all go get COVID tests in preparation for meeting up .
If you ’ re all negative , you might assume you ’ re in the clear .
But experts are a bit cringey on that plan .
“ I can ’ t say that ’ s a good idea , ” Pritt said .
“ But knowing that what people do is not always going to follow the guidelines … I understand that.
” You can use tests to reduce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you know the test is just a snapshot of a moment in time .
Ideally , if you ’ re going to try to do a “ hall pass ” situation , you want more than just one negative test result .
You want people who have no symptoms and no exposures .
You would want to get a test that has a high sensitivity .
And you want to be able to trust that the people you ’ re getting together with are isolating themselves before and after taking the test — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t walk out of the testing clinic and get infected the next day .
Nothing is 100 percent , Smith told me .
But , if it was done carefully , he didn ’ t think a hall pass was the worst idea in the world .
Ultimately , despite all the complexities , the takeaway is pretty simple , Woloshin said .
“ It ’ s a big mistake to rely only on tests , ” he said .
“ You still need masks , social distancing , hand washing , ect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an area where there are high rates of COVID .
”

Kayleigh McEnany tested negative for COVID-19 last Thursday. She tested negative again on Friday. And on Saturday. And also on Sunday.
But she wasn’t negative on Monday.
And that presents a quandary even if you’re not the White House press secretary. What if you get tested because someone close to you tested positive, but your test shows you’re negative … yet three days later you aren’t, and, unlike McEnany, you have no idea you have COVID-19 because you don’t get tested daily?
The recent outbreak among White House staff and other Republican officials can provide some insight on how to make ourselves, and our communities, safer. That’s because, experts told me, sometimes a “negative” test result isn’t just a negative test result. Sometimes it’s just the first stop on the way to testing positive.
Those first few McEnany tests fall into the category of “false negatives,” said Bobbi Pritt, a microbiologist at the Mayo Clinic. She was infected, but the tests couldn’t tell that yet. Nobody knows exactly how common false negatives are, said Steven Woloshin, co-director of the Center for Medicine and Media at The Dartmouth Institute, but they aren’t rare. In one study from China, between 11 and 40 percent of tests conducted on 213 hospitalized, COVID-positive patients in the first seven days of illness came back negative. Another paper, this one a review of 34 studies accounting for more than 12,000 patients, suggested a false negative rate between 2 and 58 percent.
There are multiple reasons why a test could produce a false negative. In McEnany’s case, it’s likely because there’s a lag time between when someone gets an infectious dose of the SARS-COV-2 virus and when there is actually enough virus in their body to register on a test. “Say somebody gets exposed today, then half the people will start having positive test results in five days,” said Davey Smith, a translational research virologist at the University of California San Diego. “Eighty percent will have it by [day] 10 and virtually everyone would have it by 14.”
People who know they’ve been exposed to COVID-19 often want to come in right away and get a test, Smith said. But that’s the opposite of what you need to do. In order to test positive, you have to have enough virus in your system for the test to spot its genetic material in your sample. But virus replication takes time. If you’re tested on day four, there’s a greater than 50 percent chance that any negative test result is untrustworthy.
But it gets more complicated than that. Testing too soon is a concern for anyone, but if you’re one of the people who contracts COVID-19 and isn’t having a serious case, there’s also such a thing as testing too late, Pritt said. In mild cases, she told me, concentrations of virus in a person’s system can start to decline six days after infection — meaning if you got tested after that, the result might come back negative and people who have been in contact with you might not know they were ever at risk.
You can still test positive in the first week after infection — and serious cases can test positive for far longer — but the window for when everyone is most likely to get a “negative” that truly means negative is small. There’s a reason state health departments are recommending that asymptomatic people who think they’re at risk of COVID-19 be tested five to seven days after exposure. What’s more, Woloshin said, the tests only tell you if you have the virus — not whether or when you are contagious. It all leaves a lot of room for error.
This isn’t anything unique to COVID-19. With any virus, there will be differences in how long it takes to replicate to detectable levels. Some are fast. Some, like HIV for example, can take months. And how long it takes a respiratory virus like COVID to reach a detectable point can vary based on the strain of the virus, the person’s immune system, how much virus they inhaled to begin with, and other factors. “If I get a bunch of virus at once, the amount of time it takes to replicate enough to come out my nose is shorter,” Smith said.
But there are two other reasons why false negatives happen, Pritt told me. First, the test might not have reached the parts of your body where the virus concentrates. “The gold standard is still the nasal pharynx, several inches up your nose. The amount of virus is higher there than in the tip,” she said.
Then, there’s also errors in the tests themselves. No test is perfect, after all. And different tests have different profiles of how likely they are to fail. For example, PCR tests — the ones that the virus’ genetic traces in samples taken from deep in your nose — have been kind of the workhorse of diagnostic testing throughout the pandemic. There are different kinds, but generally, experts said, they all have what is called high sensitivity — that is, if you take them at the right time, they’re pretty unlikely to mess up in ways that result in false negatives. The newer rapid tests, on the other hand, are kind of the opposite. They might turn up some false negatives, but are very unlikely to give you a false positive. These traits make the different tests most useful in different settings, Smith said. He uses rapid tests in the ER, where patients come in symptomatic and the most important thing is to be able to trust that a positive test result is for real. For broadly testing the general public, though, you’d rather use a test that produces fewer false negatives, so you don’t send asymptomatic carriers out with a false sense of confidence, he told me. The White House was using rapid tests.
There are a couple of personal lessons you can take away from the outbreak of COVID-19 within the administration. First, consider your pretest probability — or the chances you’ve actually been in contact with the virus. Your likelihood of being infected is different if you’ve been, say, hanging around in the West Wing of the White House, than if you’ve been social distancing in a low-COVID part of the country, Woloshin said. If you take a test, and it comes back negative, the person with a low probability of having COVID-19 in the first place has good reason to believe the test. The person who didn’t, on the other hand, probably shouldn’t give a negative test result too much credence.
Second, quarantines matter. If you know you were exposed to COVID-19 and you get a test and it says negative, you did not just get yourself a “Get Out of Quarantine Free” card. Even after day five, studies done on real world patients have found a 20 percent probability of a false negative test. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently advises people who have been exposed to COVID-19 to quarantine themselves for 14 days from the day they were exposed. McEnany didn’t do that in the days before she tested positive. It’s now been eight days since Joe Biden was exposed to President Trump during the debate, and he tested negative that whole time. But he hasn’t stopped campaigning. “As long as I’m in the window period there’s no real guaranteed safe time,” Smith said.
Third, tests can be useful tools, but you should be very careful how you use them. Say you want to hang out with some friends you haven’t seen in months — so you all go get COVID tests in preparation for meeting up. If you’re all negative, you might assume you’re in the clear. But experts are a bit cringey on that plan. “I can’t say that’s a good idea,” Pritt said. “But knowing that what people do is not always going to follow the guidelines … I understand that.”
You can use tests to reduce risk, but that only works if you know the test is just a snapshot of a moment in time. Ideally, if you’re going to try to do a “hall pass” situation, you want more than just one negative test result. You want people who have no symptoms and no exposures. You would want to get a test that has a high sensitivity. And you want to be able to trust that the people you’re getting together with are isolating themselves before and after taking the test — so you know that they didn’t walk out of the testing clinic and get infected the next day. Nothing is 100 percent, Smith told me. But, if it was done carefully, he didn’t think a hall pass was the worst idea in the world.
Ultimately, despite all the complexities, the takeaway is pretty simple, Woloshin said. “It’s a big mistake to rely only on tests,” he said. “You still need masks, social distancing, hand washing, ect. Especially if you’re in an area where there are high rates of COVID.”


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-07--Jimmy Butler Started Hot. Then The Lakers Cooled Him Down.

Coming off a masterful Game 3 performance that vaulted the Miami Heat back into the NBA Finals , Jimmy Butler had it going again early on in Game 4 .
He was aggressive out of the gate , knocking down all five of his first-quarter shots and collecting 11 points , two rebounds and two assists .
What made Butler ’ s early game performance all the more remarkable is that the majority of his production came while he was being defended by Defensive Player of the Year runner-up Anthony Davis .
Prior to Game 4 , Davis had defended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to Second Spectrum , and Butler didn ’ t score at all .
In the first quarter of Game 4 , things flipped , with Butler scoring 7 points on 11 half-court possessions during which he was defended by Davis .
But L.A. changed its defensive strategy against Butler during the final three quarters — even while still using Davis as his primary defender — and that change worked to great effect .
The Lakers decided that rather than primarily switching Butler ’ s pick and rolls , they would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also varying whether he fought over the screen or ducked under it .
After the Heat got 9 points on the six opening-period Butler ball-screens that saw Davis switch , L.A. had him switch only twice the rest of the game .
The 11 screen and rolls Davis defended the rest of the way ( only two of which were switched ) yielded just 6 Heat points , while Davis defended Butler on 36 total half-court possessions in the second through fourth quarters and kept him to only 4 points .
Of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was not limited to the job he did slowing down Butler .
The Lakers ’ star big man had 4 points , three rebounds , two assists and a block in the first quarter , helping his team weather Butler ’ s hot start and maintain the lead after one period .
He finished the evening with 22 points , nine rebounds , four assists , a steal and four blocks — the type of stat line that has become typical for him during this playoff run .
Davis ’ s postseason averages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3.5 assists , 1.2 steals and 1.3 blocks per game are pretty spectacular .
He ’ s one of just seven players in league history to exceed 28-9-3-1-1 during a particular playoff run , along with LeBron James , Kareem Abdul-Jabbar , Hakeem Olajuwon , Kevin Durant , Patrick Ewing and Karl Malone .
Add in the requirement of shooting both 50 percent from the field and 40 percent from beyond the arc ( on multiple attempts per game ) , though , and the list narrows to just Davis and James .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3 , Davis wasn ’ t overly dominant in Game 4 , but his biggest plays came at incredibly opportune moments .
Consider , for example , the sequence toward the end of the game when Davis hit the game-sealing 3-pointer with a defender in his grill , then snuffed out whatever embers of hope the Heat had remaining by swatting Butler ’ s driving layup attempt a couple of possessions later .
Davis wasn ’ t alone in making his most significant contributions in important moments .
Kentavious Caldwell-Pope — who had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ led the Lakers in scoring during the opening stanza , when Butler seemingly couldn ’ t be stopped .
KCP made only two more baskets the rest of the way , but one was arguably the most important shot of the game .
With the Heat trailing by 2 , Butler took a screen from the back-from-injury Bam Adebayo and lined up a wide-open corner three to take the lead , only to see it rim out and fall into the hands of James … who promptly pushed the ball up the floor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and calmly kicked it to KCP for a mirror-image corner trey of the one Butler just missed , only this one ripped through the net .
Instead of leading by 1 , the Heat trailed by 5 , and they never got within a possession of the Lakers the rest of the way .
Caldwell-Pope ’ s early shooting allowed him the opportunity to make plays for his teammates , as well .
He ended up dishing out five assists , just the fifth time in 88 games this season ( and 32nd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has dimed up his teammates for five or more buckets .
By knocking down three shots from beyond the arc in addition to those five assists , Caldwell-Pope joined an exclusive list .
Prior to last night , there were only 50 instances of a player knocking down at least three 3-pointers and dishing out at least five assists in an NBA Finals game since 2007 , when LeBron made his first trip to the championship series .
James himself was responsible for 10 of those games , but his teammates were responsible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Game 4 performance makes it four .
Other supporting players also made outsize contributions .
The Lakers bench outscored Miami ’ s subs 27-13 , outrebounded them 14-7 and outassisted them 7-0 .
Markieff Morris and Kyle Kuzma each hit a couple of threes .
Alex Caruso played his usual stellar defense .
And Rajon Rondo , while just 1 of 7 from the field , chipped in with seven rebounds and five assists .
It was a game that exemplified why the Lakers find themselves one win away from adding a 17th @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Center .
L.A. got the customary star-level performances from Davis and James , while the supporting cast members knocked down the open shots created for them and defended their collective butt off .
It ’ s a formula that James ’ s teams have followed for the past decade , usually with great success — the kind of success the Lakers envisioned when they turned over much of their roster in an attempt to microwave a title by jumping from outside of the playoff picture to the inner circle of contenders .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that dream a reality .

Coming off a masterful Game 3 performance that vaulted the Miami Heat back into the NBA Finals, Jimmy Butler had it going again early on in Game 4. He was aggressive out of the gate, knocking down all five of his first-quarter shots and collecting 11 points, two rebounds and two assists.
What made Butler’s early game performance all the more remarkable is that the majority of his production came while he was being defended by Defensive Player of the Year runner-up Anthony Davis. Prior to Game 4, Davis had defended Butler on 16 possessions during this series, according to Second Spectrum, and Butler didn’t score at all. In the first quarter of Game 4, things flipped, with Butler scoring 7 points on 11 half-court possessions during which he was defended by Davis.
But L.A. changed its defensive strategy against Butler during the final three quarters — even while still using Davis as his primary defender — and that change worked to great effect.
The Lakers decided that rather than primarily switching Butler’s pick and rolls, they would have Davis play things straight up, while also varying whether he fought over the screen or ducked under it. After the Heat got 9 points on the six opening-period Butler ball-screens that saw Davis switch, L.A. had him switch only twice the rest of the game. The 11 screen and rolls Davis defended the rest of the way (only two of which were switched) yielded just 6 Heat points, while Davis defended Butler on 36 total half-court possessions in the second through fourth quarters and kept him to only 4 points.
Of course, Davis’s Game 4 impact was not limited to the job he did slowing down Butler. The Lakers’ star big man had 4 points, three rebounds, two assists and a block in the first quarter, helping his team weather Butler’s hot start and maintain the lead after one period. He finished the evening with 22 points, nine rebounds, four assists, a steal and four blocks — the type of stat line that has become typical for him during this playoff run.
Davis’s postseason averages of 28.2 points, 9.3 rebounds, 3.5 assists, 1.2 steals and 1.3 blocks per game are pretty spectacular. He’s one of just seven players in league history to exceed 28-9-3-1-1 during a particular playoff run, along with LeBron James, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Hakeem Olajuwon, Kevin Durant, Patrick Ewing and Karl Malone. Add in the requirement of shooting both 50 percent from the field and 40 percent from beyond the arc (on multiple attempts per game), though, and the list narrows to just Davis and James.
After struggling quite a bit in Game 3, Davis wasn’t overly dominant in Game 4, but his biggest plays came at incredibly opportune moments. Consider, for example, the sequence toward the end of the game when Davis hit the game-sealing 3-pointer with a defender in his grill, then snuffed out whatever embers of hope the Heat had remaining by swatting Butler’s driving layup attempt a couple of possessions later.
Davis wasn’t alone in making his most significant contributions in important moments. Kentavious Caldwell-Pope — who had himself a Zoom podium game — actually led the Lakers in scoring during the opening stanza, when Butler seemingly couldn’t be stopped. KCP made only two more baskets the rest of the way, but one was arguably the most important shot of the game.
With the Heat trailing by 2, Butler took a screen from the back-from-injury Bam Adebayo and lined up a wide-open corner three to take the lead, only to see it rim out and fall into the hands of James … who promptly pushed the ball up the floor, drew a crowd of three defenders and calmly kicked it to KCP for a mirror-image corner trey of the one Butler just missed, only this one ripped through the net.
Instead of leading by 1, the Heat trailed by 5, and they never got within a possession of the Lakers the rest of the way.
Caldwell-Pope’s early shooting allowed him the opportunity to make plays for his teammates, as well. He ended up dishing out five assists, just the fifth time in 88 games this season (and 32nd time in 561 career games) he has dimed up his teammates for five or more buckets. By knocking down three shots from beyond the arc in addition to those five assists, Caldwell-Pope joined an exclusive list.
Prior to last night, there were only 50 instances of a player knocking down at least three 3-pointers and dishing out at least five assists in an NBA Finals game since 2007, when LeBron made his first trip to the championship series. James himself was responsible for 10 of those games, but his teammates were responsible for just three. Caldwell-Pope’s Game 4 performance makes it four.
Other supporting players also made outsize contributions. The Lakers bench outscored Miami’s subs 27-13, outrebounded them 14-7 and outassisted them 7-0. Markieff Morris and Kyle Kuzma each hit a couple of threes. Alex Caruso played his usual stellar defense. And Rajon Rondo, while just 1 of 7 from the field, chipped in with seven rebounds and five assists.
It was a game that exemplified why the Lakers find themselves one win away from adding a 17th banner to the rafters at the Staples Center. L.A. got the customary star-level performances from Davis and James, while the supporting cast members knocked down the open shots created for them and defended their collective butt off. It’s a formula that James’s teams have followed for the past decade, usually with great success — the kind of success the Lakers envisioned when they turned over much of their roster in an attempt to microwave a title by jumping from outside of the playoff picture to the inner circle of contenders. They now stand on the verge of making that dream a reality.
Check out our latest NBA predictions.


2020 House Forecast

Leading candidate ’ s forecasted chance of winning and margin of victory in the top 50 competitive districts .
Dots @ @ @ @ @ tighter races , and wider bars mean more uncertainty about the outcome .

Who’s ahead in competitive districts
Leading candidate’s forecasted chance of winning and margin of victory in the top 50 competitive districts. Dots closer to the line represent tighter races, and wider bars mean more uncertainty about the outcome.
80% of outcomes fall in this range
50 most competitive races Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming
Incumbent candidate/controlling party


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-07--Our Forecast Thinks Democrats Will Keep The House … And Maybe Even Gain Seats

Today FiveThirtyEight released its third and final forecast of the 2020 election : our forecast for the House .
And while Democrats are slight favorites to flip the Senate and Joe Biden is a solid-but-not-overwhelming front-runner for the presidency , Democrats have between a 92 and 97 percent chance of keeping control of the House .
The reason I ’ m giving a range is that , as in 2018 , there are three versions of our House model .
• The Lite version relies primarily on polling .
It gives Democrats a 97 in 100 chance of winning the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats to win 244 seats and Republicans to win 191 seats — an 11-seat gain for Democrats .
• The Classic version blends polls with fundamentals like partisanship , incumbency advantages and candidates ’ fundraising .
It gives Democrats a 93 in 100 chance of winning the House .
On average , it projects Democrats to win 238 seats and Republicans to win 197 seats — a smaller five-seat gain for Democrats .
• The Deluxe version has the most bells and whistles : It incorporates polls , fundamentals and expert ratings from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Sabato ’ s Crystal Ball .
It gives Democrats a 93 in 100 chance of winning the House .
On average , it projects Democrats to win 237 seats and Republicans to win 198 seats — a four-seat gain for Democrats .
We consider the Deluxe version to be the default version of our congressional forecast , so all forecast numbers from here on out are from the Deluxe version of the model .
However , you can always explore the other versions by using the magnifying glass icon at the bottom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you want to know all the gory details about how the model works , check out our forecast methodology .
All three versions more or less agree , though , that Democrats will essentially stand pat in the House or pick up a few extra seats .
That ’ s an impressive achievement considering the heights they reached in the 2018 midterms , when they scored a 235-199 majority despite a congressional map that favored the GOP .
Now , Democrats must defend 30 seats in districts won by President Trump in 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who sit in districts that Hillary Clinton carried ) .
Yet Democrats are on offense once again this year : 28 of the 50 House districts that the Deluxe version of our model considers most likely to change parties are held by Republicans .
There are a few explanations for why Democrats still have room to grow .
The first is that they are virtually guaranteed to flip two seats right off the bat thanks to redistricting .
After a court declared in 2019 that North Carolina ’ s old congressional lines showed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” the state legislature passed a new map that reconfigured two Republican-held seats as Democratic strongholds : the 2nd District and 6th District .
Their current occupants , Reps. George Holding and Mark Walker , announced they would retire from Congress soon after , and now the seats are Democrats ’ two best pickup opportunities in the entire nation .
Our model gives the party a greater than 99 in 100 chance of winning both races .
Another is that , though Democrats picked most of the low-hanging fruit in 2018 , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left : That is , there are a few Clinton districts still represented by Republicans .
In Texas ’ s 23rd District , Rep. Will Hurd defeated Democrat Gina Ortiz Jones by just 0.4 points in 2018 , but this year , Hurd was one of many Texas Republicans who decided to retire .
As a result , Ortiz Jones ( who is running again ) has a 74 in 100 chance to win in 2020 against Republican Tony Gonzales .
And Democrats did win California ’ s 25th District in 2018 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hill to resign , and Republican Mike Garcia flipped the seat back in a special election .
Our model considers the rubber match to be a toss-up , giving Democrats a 56 in 100 shot .
Finally , Democrats aren ’ t in quite as good a position to defeat Rep. John Katko in New York ’ s 24th District , but Democrat Dana Balter still has a 33 in 100 chance .
( The one Republican in a Clinton district who seems pretty safe is Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 100 chance to win , he doesn ’ t even make the table above . )
But the biggest factor may be the continued leftward march of American suburbs .
After Democrats cleaned house in the suburbs in 2018 — three-quarters of their 2018 gains came in predominantly suburban congressional districts — they are back this year for the many suburban districts they left on the table .
Their best such pickup opportunity is New York ’ s 2nd , a dense suburban district on Long Island where Republican Rep. Peter King is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since 1992 .
Our forecast gives Democrat Jackie Gordon a 59 in 100 chance of victory there .
Republican Rep. Susan Brooks is also retiring from Indiana ’ s 5th District , which covers the northern Indianapolis suburbs and went from voting for Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney by 17 points in 2012 to narrowly voting for Democrat Joe Donnelly in the state ’ s 2018 Senate election .
The race to replace her is almost a pure toss-up .
Similarly , Georgia ’ s 7th District , a suburban Atlanta district that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the closest House race in the country in 2018 .
Republican Rep .
Rob Woodall opted to retire ( sensing a pattern ? )
, and now Democrats have a 45 in 100 chance to win it in 2020 .
I could go on — Democrats have between a 30 and 40 percent shot in Nebraska ’ s 2nd District in metro Omaha , Texas ’ s 24th District in suburban Dallas-Fort Worth and Ohio ’ s 1st District around Cincinnati — but my editor does put word counts on these things .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ too .
They ’ re favorites to flip just three House seats vs. Democrats ’ five .
And their likeliest win would represent the end of an era in the House : Republican Michelle Fischbach has a 74 in 100 chance to defeat Rep. Collin Peterson , the powerful chair of the House Agriculture Committee .
Peterson represents by far the Trumpiest district currently held by a Democrat — the Minnesota 7th voted for Trump by 31 percentage points in 2016 .
While Peterson ’ s conservative views have helped him survive in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting redder and split-ticket voting is becoming rarer .
Another likely Republican pickup is a seat the party held until July 4 , 2019 , when Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan ’ s 3rd District announced he was leaving the GOP .
Facing a difficult reelection bid as a third-party candidate , Amash has since decided to retire , and Republican Peter Meijer now has a 68 in 100 chance of taking the seat back for the GOP .
( That said , Democrats also have a 32 in 100 chance to flip @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans have also set their sights on winning back several House seats they lost in 2018 , although our model thinks they ’ re favored in only one — and even then , just barely .
Oklahoma ’ s 5th District produced the biggest upset of 2018 ( according to the Deluxe version of our 2018 model ) , as Democrat Kendra Horn prevailed in a district that voted for Trump by 13 points in 2016 .
Here in 2020 , Horn ( 49 in 100 ) and Republican Stephanie Bice ( 51 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same chance of winning the seat .
Also too close to call is California ’ s 21st District , where Republican former Rep. David Valadao is seeking a comeback in a district he lost by just 862 votes in 2018 .
Although Clinton won this district by 16 points , it is more Republican in down-ballot races , and Valadao has a 48 in 100 chance of winning .
Finally , Republicans are almost even money to defeat Rep. Joe Cunningham in South Carolina ’ s 1st District , which also voted for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican Nancy Mace has a 46 in 100 chance of victory here .
Beyond those seats , Republicans have a fighting chance in several other Democrat-held districts whose names you might recall from 2018 : the Georgia 6th , New York 22nd , Iowa 2nd , California 48th , New Mexico 2nd , Utah 4th , New York 11th , Texas 7th , New Jersey 7th , California 39th , Florida 26th and Nevada 4th , to name ( more than ) a few .
But they are clearer underdogs in these races @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of the races I have mentioned in the last four paragraphs — without surrendering a single other seat to Democrats — in order to flip the 17 seats they need to attain a House majority .
That , in a nutshell , is why it ’ s exceedingly unlikely that Republicans will take back the House .
Who wins , though , is still extremely important to the governing process in the next two years .
Along with the presidency and Senate , the House is one-third of the federal lawmaking process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ valuable prize : It enables a party to pass its agenda without needing to win over any members of the opposite party .
And now that we have a House forecast , we can combine it with our Senate and presidential forecasts to determine the odds that either Democrats or Republicans will have full control of the federal government .
As you can see in the table , the likeliest scenario is that Democrats will win full control of the federal government : There ’ s a 63 in 100 chance of that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for policy , too , as it would open the door for Democrats to pass party priorities such as a public option for health insurance , police reform , election reforms like those in H.R .
1 , and even statehood for Washington , D.C. , and Puerto Rico — assuming they can overcome internal divisions over things like abolishing the Senate filibuster .
But there is also a good chance ( 31 in 100 ) that we will once again have a divided government in Washington , in which case little will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ divided-government scenario involves Biden as president , a Democratic House and a Republican Senate . )
However , because of their long odds in our House forecast , Republicans have only a 5 in 100 chance of winning a trifecta of their own .
And that ’ s a fairly stunning reversal of fortune considering that Republicans enjoyed full control of the federal government as recently as 2018 .

Today FiveThirtyEight released its third and final forecast of the 2020 election: our forecast for the House. And while Democrats are slight favorites to flip the Senate and Joe Biden is a solid-but-not-overwhelming front-runner for the presidency, Democrats have between a 92 and 97 percent chance of keeping control of the House.
The reason I’m giving a range is that, as in 2018, there are three versions of our House model.
The Lite version relies primarily on polling. It gives Democrats a 97 in 100 chance of winning the House. On average, it projects Democrats to win 244 seats and Republicans to win 191 seats — an 11-seat gain for Democrats.
version relies primarily on polling. It gives Democrats a 97 in 100 chance of winning the House. On average, it projects Democrats to win 244 seats and Republicans to win 191 seats — an 11-seat gain for Democrats. The Classic version blends polls with fundamentals like partisanship, incumbency advantages and candidates’ fundraising. It gives Democrats a 93 in 100 chance of winning the House. On average, it projects Democrats to win 238 seats and Republicans to win 197 seats — a smaller five-seat gain for Democrats.
version blends polls with fundamentals like partisanship, incumbency advantages and candidates’ fundraising. It gives Democrats a 93 in 100 chance of winning the House. On average, it projects Democrats to win 238 seats and Republicans to win 197 seats — a smaller five-seat gain for Democrats. The Deluxe version has the most bells and whistles: It incorporates polls, fundamentals and expert ratings from The Cook Political Report, Inside Elections and Sabato’s Crystal Ball. It gives Democrats a 93 in 100 chance of winning the House. On average, it projects Democrats to win 237 seats and Republicans to win 198 seats — a four-seat gain for Democrats.
We consider the Deluxe version to be the default version of our congressional forecast, so all forecast numbers from here on out are from the Deluxe version of the model. However, you can always explore the other versions by using the magnifying glass icon at the bottom of our forecast page. And if you want to know all the gory details about how the model works, check out our forecast methodology.
All three versions more or less agree, though, that Democrats will essentially stand pat in the House or pick up a few extra seats. That’s an impressive achievement considering the heights they reached in the 2018 midterms, when they scored a 235-199 majority despite a congressional map that favored the GOP.
Now, Democrats must defend 30 seats in districts won by President Trump in 2016 (as opposed to only six Republicans who sit in districts that Hillary Clinton carried). Yet Democrats are on offense once again this year: 28 of the 50 House districts that the Deluxe version of our model considers most likely to change parties are held by Republicans.
Democrats have a lot of chances to pick up seats The 50 House seats most likely to change parties in the 2020 election, according to FiveThirtyEight’s forecast as of 5 p.m. Eastern on Oct. 6 Chance of Winning District Incumbent Party Dem. GOP Chance of Flipping MI-03 OPEN L 32% 68% 100% NC-02 OPEN R >99 <1 >99 NC-06 OPEN R >99 <1 >99 MN-07 Collin Peterson D 26 74 74 TX-23 OPEN R 74 26 74 NY-02 OPEN R 59 41 59 CA-25 Mike Garcia R 56 44 56 OK-05 Kendra Horn D 49 51 51 CA-21 TJ Cox D 52 48 48 IN-05 OPEN R 48 52 48 SC-01 Joe Cunningham D 54 46 46 CO-03 OPEN R 46 54 46 GA-07 OPEN R 45 55 45 VA-05 OPEN R 45 55 45 NJ-02 Jeff Van Drew R 43 57 43 PA-10 Scott Perry R 41 59 41 GA-06 Lucy McBath D 62 38 38 NE-02 Don Bacon R 37 63 37 NY-22 Anthony Brindisi D 63 37 37 TX-24 OPEN R 37 63 37 IA-02 OPEN D 63 37 37 CA-48 Harley Rouda D 64 36 36 NM-02 Xochitl Torres Small D 66 34 34 NY-24 John Katko R 33 67 33 UT-04 Ben McAdams D 67 33 33 OH-01 Steve Chabot R 32 68 32 IL-13 Rodney Davis R 30 70 30 NY-11 Max Rose D 70 30 30 AZ-06 David Schweikert R 29 71 29 TX-07 Lizzie Pannill Fletcher D 71 29 29 TX-22 OPEN R 29 71 29 NJ-07 Tom Malinowski D 71 29 29 MI-06 Fred Upton R 29 71 29 CA-39 Gil Cisneros D 72 28 28 TX-21 Chip Roy R 28 72 28 FL-26 Debbie Mucarsel-Powell D 72 28 28 NV-04 Steven Horsford D 72 28 28 AK-AL Don Young R 27 73 27 IA-03 Cindy Axne D 73 27 27 MN-01 Jim Hagedorn R 26 74 26 NC-08 Richard Hudson R 26 74 26 MT-AL OPEN R 26 74 26 AR-02 French Hill R 24 76 24 VA-07 Abigail Spanberger D 77 23 23 NC-11 OPEN R 23 77 23 MO-02 Ann Wagner R 23 77 23 WI-03 Ron Kind D 78 22 22 FL-15 OPEN R 21 79 21 OR-04 Peter DeFazio D 79 21 21 TX-32 Colin Allred D 79 21 21
There are a few explanations for why Democrats still have room to grow. The first is that they are virtually guaranteed to flip two seats right off the bat thanks to redistricting. After a court declared in 2019 that North Carolina’s old congressional lines showed signs of “extreme partisan gerrymandering,” the state legislature passed a new map that reconfigured two Republican-held seats as Democratic strongholds: the 2nd District and 6th District. Their current occupants, Reps. George Holding and Mark Walker, announced they would retire from Congress soon after, and now the seats are Democrats’ two best pickup opportunities in the entire nation. Our model gives the party a greater than 99 in 100 chance of winning both races.
Another is that, though Democrats picked most of the low-hanging fruit in 2018, there are still a few easy pickup opportunities left: That is, there are a few Clinton districts still represented by Republicans. In Texas’s 23rd District, Rep. Will Hurd defeated Democrat Gina Ortiz Jones by just 0.4 points in 2018, but this year, Hurd was one of many Texas Republicans who decided to retire. As a result, Jones (who is running again) has a 74 in 100 chance to win in 2020 against Republican Tony Gonzales. And Democrats did win California’s 25th District in 2018, but a sex scandal forced Rep. Katie Hill to resign, and Republican Mike Garcia flipped the seat back in a special election. Our model considers the rubber match to be a toss-up, giving Democrats a 56 in 100 shot. Finally, Democrats aren’t in quite as good a position to defeat Rep. John Katko in New York’s 24th District, but Democrat Dana Balter still has a 33 in 100 chance. (The one Republican in a Clinton district who seems pretty safe is Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania’s 1st District; with an 89 in 100 chance to win, he doesn’t even make the table above.)
But the biggest factor may be the continued leftward march of American suburbs. After Democrats cleaned house in the suburbs in 2018 — three-quarters of their 2018 gains came in predominantly suburban congressional districts — they are back this year for the many suburban districts they left on the table. Their best such pickup opportunity is New York’s 2nd, a dense suburban district on Long Island where Republican Rep. Peter King is retiring after surviving his closest electoral call since 1992. Our forecast gives Democrat Jackie Gordon a 59 in 100 chance of victory there. Republican Rep. Susan Brooks is also retiring from Indiana’s 5th District, which covers the northern Indianapolis suburbs and went from voting for Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney by 17 points in 2012 to narrowly voting for Democrat Joe Donnelly in the state’s 2018 Senate election. The race to replace her is almost a pure toss-up.
Similarly, Georgia’s 7th District, a suburban Atlanta district that Romney carried by 22 points, hosted the closest House race in the country in 2018. Republican Rep. Rob Woodall opted to retire (sensing a pattern?), and now Democrats have a 45 in 100 chance to win it in 2020. I could go on — Democrats have between a 30 and 40 percent shot in Nebraska’s 2nd District in metro Omaha, Texas’s 24th District in suburban Dallas-Fort Worth and Ohio’s 1st District around Cincinnati — but my editor does put word counts on these things.
Of course, Republicans have pickup opportunities too. They’re favorites to flip just three House seats vs. Democrats’ five. And their likeliest win would represent the end of an era in the House: Republican Michelle Fischbach has a 74 in 100 chance to defeat Rep. Collin Peterson, the powerful chair of the House Agriculture Committee. Peterson represents by far the Trumpiest district currently held by a Democrat — the Minnesota 7th voted for Trump by 31 percentage points in 2016. While Peterson’s conservative views have helped him survive in recent election cycles, the district is getting redder and split-ticket voting is becoming rarer.
Another likely Republican pickup is a seat the party held until July 4, 2019, when Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan’s 3rd District announced he was leaving the GOP. Facing a difficult reelection bid as a third-party candidate, Amash has since decided to retire, and Republican Peter Meijer now has a 68 in 100 chance of taking the seat back for the GOP. (That said, Democrats also have a 32 in 100 chance to flip the seat into their column.)
Republicans have also set their sights on winning back several House seats they lost in 2018, although our model thinks they’re favored in only one — and even then, just barely. Oklahoma’s 5th District produced the biggest upset of 2018 (according to the Deluxe version of our 2018 model), as Democrat Kendra Horn prevailed in a district that voted for Trump by 13 points in 2016. Here in 2020, Horn (49 in 100) and Republican Stephanie Bice (51 in 100) have almost the exact same chance of winning the seat. Also too close to call is California’s 21st District, where Republican former Rep. David Valadao is seeking a comeback in a district he lost by just 862 votes in 2018. Although Clinton won this district by 16 points, it is more Republican in down-ballot races, and Valadao has a 48 in 100 chance of winning. Finally, Republicans are almost even money to defeat Rep. Joe Cunningham in South Carolina’s 1st District, which also voted for Trump by 13 points in 2016. Republican Nancy Mace has a 46 in 100 chance of victory here.
Beyond those seats, Republicans have a fighting chance in several other Democrat-held districts whose names you might recall from 2018: the Georgia 6th, New York 22nd, Iowa 2nd, California 48th, New Mexico 2nd, Utah 4th, New York 11th, Texas 7th, New Jersey 7th, California 39th, Florida 26th and Nevada 4th, to name (more than) a few. But they are clearer underdogs in these races. And they would need to win all of the races I have mentioned in the last four paragraphs — without surrendering a single other seat to Democrats — in order to flip the 17 seats they need to attain a House majority.
That, in a nutshell, is why it’s exceedingly unlikely that Republicans will take back the House. Who wins, though, is still extremely important to the governing process in the next two years. Along with the presidency and Senate, the House is one-third of the federal lawmaking process, and controlling all three is a valuable prize: It enables a party to pass its agenda without needing to win over any members of the opposite party. And now that we have a House forecast, we can combine it with our Senate and presidential forecasts to determine the odds that either Democrats or Republicans will have full control of the federal government.
Democrats will likely control the federal government The chance of every combination of party control of the presidency, Senate and House, according to FiveThirtyEight’s forecast Control of … Presidency Senate House Chance D D D 63% D R D 18 R R D 9 R R R 5 R D D 2 D R R 1 D D R 0 R D R 0
As you can see in the table, the likeliest scenario is that Democrats will win full control of the federal government: There’s a 63 in 100 chance of that happening. That could have big consequences for policy, too, as it would open the door for Democrats to pass party priorities such as a public option for health insurance, police reform, election reforms like those in H.R. 1, and even statehood for Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico — assuming they can overcome internal divisions over things like abolishing the Senate filibuster.
But there is also a good chance (31 in 100) that we will once again have a divided government in Washington, in which case little will probably get done. (The likeliest divided-government scenario involves Biden as president, a Democratic House and a Republican Senate.)
However, because of their long odds in our House forecast, Republicans have only a 5 in 100 chance of winning a trifecta of their own. And that’s a fairly stunning reversal of fortune considering that Republicans enjoyed full control of the federal government as recently as 2018.
CORRECTION (Oct. 8, 2020, 10:27 a.m.): A previous version of this article incorrectly included “Ortiz” as part of Gina Ortiz Jones’s last name. Her last name is just Jones.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-07--The Big 12 Can’t Rely On Texas And Oklahoma This Year

The Red River Showdown traditionally has been a midmorning buffet of resentment and braggadocio , of “ those sorry bastards ” and Horns Down hysterics .
It ’ s also an annual litmus test for the Big 12 Conference .
The rivalry game in Dallas often denotes the moment pragmatism makes its way into the postseason-expectation conversation .
And for tentpole institutions like Oklahoma and Texas , those expectations almost always involve trophies .
But in this strangest of seasons , the 2020 installment of Texas-Oklahoma will feature twin powers reeling into State Fair weekend .
Texas lost to TCU @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after it needed two touchdowns , an onside kick and a 2-point conversion in the final three minutes of regulation to avoid an upset against Texas Tech .
Oklahoma fell to Iowa State in its first loss in Ames since 1960 and has lost two consecutive conference games .
Suddenly , a team that has qualified for the playoff in three consecutive seasons and won five consecutive Big 12 titles is tied for last place in the conference standings .
“ It really bothers me that we ’ ve based everything that whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not on whether Oklahoma and Texas are good , ” TCU head coach Gary Patterson said Monday .
“ To be honest with you , we have a lot of good football teams and we always have had a lot of good football teams.
” For decades , the Big 12 has gone as far as Texas and Oklahoma would take it .
The Big 12 championship game has included at least one of its titans every year since 2000 , and the conference trophy case features two BCS national titles : one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Although Texas has been mediocre for much of the 2010s , the Sooners have emphatically , undeniably carried the conference torch in their stead .
All of that makes the early returns this season so surprising for the folks in Austin and Norman .
ESPN ’ s Stats & Information Group has tracked total efficiency metrics for every season since 2005 , and through three games , this is the third-worst showing for Oklahoma and the seventh-worst showing for Texas over that stretch .
Each enters this weekend ranked in the metric outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — Oklahoma ranks sixth !
Keep in mind that as recently as late September , these were the conference ’ s best odds of securing an invite to the playoff — and now neither has a probability exceeding 4.2 percent .
That the conference is considered wide-open need not be in and of itself an indictment , and in that regard , Patterson has a point .
But he should also read the room : At best , the Big 12 hasn ’ t started the season the way it hoped .
By @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to its second-worst aggregate performance through three games since 2005 .
And in a season in which two of the five power conferences have yet to take the field , the Big 12 has just three ranked teams , only one of which is in the top 20 .
That ’ s Oklahoma State at No .
10 , the last unbeaten team in the conference , which has just a 5 percent probability of reaching the playoff .
Of course , the blame doesn ’ t rest solely at the feet of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Baylor are averaging negative expected points added per play .
And in what feels like his 15th season as starting QB , Sam Ehlinger has paced the Longhorns to one of the top scoring offenses in the country in the team ’ s first season under offensive coordinator Michael Yurcich .
But Oklahoma , which has set the national standard in scoring potency , hasn ’ t been quite the pace-setter in its first season with quarterback Spencer Rattler .
The redshirt freshman has posted the lowest QBR through three games of Lincoln @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sooners are scoring 3.14 points per drive , the worst mark since 2016 .
It ’ s not that the generally disastrous Big 12 defenses have ascended , either : The conference aggregate defensive efficiency through three games is below average when compared to the previous 12 seasons .
The Big 12 ’ s scoring deterioration isn ’ t reflected nationally : Points per drive , score rate and offensive points per game through three games across Football Bowl Subdivision teams were the highest since 2008 , the first year for which data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s annual benchmark game , this year ’ s Red River Showdown feels less like a measuring stick for conference supremacy and more like a test for a pulse .
“ September was the most volatile first month of a season that we ’ ve ever seen , ” wrote ESPN ’ s Bill Connelly .
That ’ s a sentiment co-signed and shared by most fan bases in the Big 12 .

The Red River Showdown traditionally has been a midmorning buffet of resentment and braggadocio, of “those sorry bastards” and Horns Down hysterics. It’s also an annual litmus test for the Big 12 Conference.
The rivalry game in Dallas often denotes the moment pragmatism makes its way into the postseason-expectation conversation. And for tentpole institutions like Oklahoma and Texas, those expectations almost always involve trophies. But in this strangest of seasons, the 2020 installment of Texas-Oklahoma will feature twin powers reeling into State Fair weekend.
Texas lost to TCU in its conference home opener one week after it needed two touchdowns, an onside kick and a 2-point conversion in the final three minutes of regulation to avoid an upset against Texas Tech.
Oklahoma fell to Iowa State in its first loss in Ames since 1960 and has lost two consecutive conference games. Suddenly, a team that has qualified for the playoff in three consecutive seasons and won five consecutive Big 12 titles is tied for last place in the conference standings.
“It really bothers me that we’ve based everything that whether our league is good or bad or not on whether Oklahoma and Texas are good,” TCU head coach Gary Patterson said Monday. “To be honest with you, we have a lot of good football teams and we always have had a lot of good football teams.”
For decades, the Big 12 has gone as far as Texas and Oklahoma would take it. The Big 12 championship game has included at least one of its titans every year since 2000, and the conference trophy case features two BCS national titles: one from Texas, one from Oklahoma.
Although Texas has been mediocre for much of the 2010s, the Sooners have emphatically, undeniably carried the conference torch in their stead.
All of that makes the early returns this season so surprising for the folks in Austin and Norman. ESPN’s Stats & Information Group has tracked total efficiency metrics for every season since 2005, and through three games, this is the third-worst showing for Oklahoma and the seventh-worst showing for Texas over that stretch. Each enters this weekend ranked in the metric outside the top two in the Big 12 — Oklahoma ranks sixth! Keep in mind that as recently as late September, these were the conference’s best odds of securing an invite to the playoff — and now neither has a probability exceeding 4.2 percent.
That the conference is considered wide-open need not be in and of itself an indictment, and in that regard, Patterson has a point. But he should also read the room: At best, the Big 12 hasn’t started the season the way it hoped.
By total efficiency, the conference is off to its second-worst aggregate performance through three games since 2005. And in a season in which two of the five power conferences have yet to take the field, the Big 12 has just three ranked teams, only one of which is in the top 20. That’s Oklahoma State at No. 10, the last unbeaten team in the conference, which has just a 5 percent probability of reaching the playoff.
Of course, the blame doesn’t rest solely at the feet of the Longhorns and Sooners: Kansas and Baylor are averaging negative expected points added per play. And in what feels like his 15th season as starting QB, Sam Ehlinger has paced the Longhorns to one of the top scoring offenses in the country in the team’s first season under offensive coordinator Michael Yurcich. But Oklahoma, which has set the national standard in scoring potency, hasn’t been quite the pace-setter in its first season with quarterback Spencer Rattler. The redshirt freshman has posted the lowest QBR through three games of Lincoln Riley’s tenure, and the Sooners are scoring 3.14 points per drive, the worst mark since 2016.
It’s not that the generally disastrous Big 12 defenses have ascended, either: The conference aggregate defensive efficiency through three games is below average when compared to the previous 12 seasons.
The Big 12’s scoring deterioration isn’t reflected nationally: Points per drive, score rate and offensive points per game through three games across Football Bowl Subdivision teams were the highest since 2008, the first year for which data is available.
In the conference’s annual benchmark game, this year’s Red River Showdown feels less like a measuring stick for conference supremacy and more like a test for a pulse. “September was the most volatile first month of a season that we’ve ever seen,” wrote ESPN’s Bill Connelly. That’s a sentiment co-signed and shared by most fan bases in the Big 12.