fivethirthyeight--2020-11-25--It’s Hard To Measure NFL Matchups, So We Built A Better Metric

The NFL is a league of matchups , and no matchup is more crucial to wins and losses than the battle between a quarterback and the pass defense .
That ’ s important for more than just the coaches calling X ’ s and O ’ s : Each week , the media , betting markets and fantasy players all make predictions about which teams ( and which players ) will best take advantage of their opponent ’ s weaknesses .
Because football is such a complex sport , quantitative analysts haven ’ t found a great way to capture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and defensive passing unit in a way that lets us make reasonable predictions about future outcomes .
Perhaps the biggest flaw of most approaches to strength-of-schedule and matchup analyses , for example , is that they assume that because a defense has or has not allowed yards , completions and points generally , we should expect that performance to continue against a future opponent .
The problem : That isn ’ t really true .
Defenses have weaknesses , but to exploit them , an offense first needs to know they exist .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to actually take advantage .
In the NFL , neither of those circumstances is a given .
One approach to quantifying these matchups is to look at where on the field a quarterback tends to complete more passes than average and where a defense tends to allow more completions than average .
We ’ ve published heat maps like these before on FiveThirtyEight — both for defenses and for quarterbacks .
( We think they ’ re pretty cool . )
If we use some fancy math , we can roll these heat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that describes the similarity between where a QB ’ s passes are completed and where a defense allows passes in a given matchup , with higher numbers indicating a better matchup for the quarterback .
These similarity scores then give us an idea of which QBs have faced a more difficult slate and who might have a challenge ahead in the upcoming week .
Like most quantitative measures , similarity scores are worthless without a decent sample size .
To ensure we have enough pass attempts to make good comparisons , and to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calculate our scores only for matchups that occurred from Week 5 onward .
We then averaged the scores for each QB who played in at least three games over the seven-week period from Week 5 through Week 11 to see who ’ s had the toughest schedule , ranking them from the most challenging schedule to the most favorable .
Dolphins rookie quarterback Tua Tagovailoa — who was benched for poor performance on Sunday by Miami head coach Brian Flores — is at the top of our list , indicating that he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to begin his NFL career .
Meanwhile , Derek Carr — who is having the best season of his career — has had the easiest slate of matchups since Week 5 .
Tagovailoa ’ s situation , though , makes him difficult to score .
With only two passing attempts in his pro career going into his first start , which came against the Los Angeles Rams in Week 8 , his sample size was too small for us to calculate a score for that first start .
In his second start , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leading the Dolphins to a 34-31 win while throwing for 8.9 yards per attempt .
The similarity score we calculated for that matchup was low — 35.4 — but it was still based on a small sample : 24 career attempts .
By Week 10 , which he entered with 52 career attempts , Tagovailoa ’ s sim score rose to 67.2 against the Chargers , a game in which he threw for 169 yards and two touchdowns .
This past week against a Denver team with only three wins , his score @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the defense tends to allow completions lined up well with the places where he tends to make successful throws .
That might explain his coaches ’ frustration with his performance — this was a game in which he probably should have played well .
Seahawks quarterback Russell Wilson has had the second-toughest midseason schedule among current starting QBs .
In Week 11 , Wilson ’ s similarity to Arizona ’ s pass defense was just 67.9 .
Wilson led the Seahawks to a win , but he ended up throwing for only 197 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been allowing around 250 yards per game through the air .
If Wilson ’ s upcoming opponents turn out to be more accommodating , his numbers — and his case for league MVP — could improve .
Lions quarterback Matthew Stafford , who has the third-lowest average sim score this season , had his toughest game in Week 9 against the Minnesota Vikings — a matchup with a sim score of 42.5 .
The heat map for Stafford heading into the game showed that while the Viking pass defense was weak over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was Stafford , making him ill-equipped to take advantage of their vulnerabilities .
Meanwhile the Vikings were better than average at taking away deeper sideline passes , spots where Stafford is usually strong .
Stafford finished the Vikings game 23-of-32 for 211 yards with one touchdown and two interceptions .
His adjusted yards per attempt ( a stat that gives extra credit for touchdowns and penalizes for interceptions ) for the game was 4.41 , his worst performance of the year so far .
We ’ ve used our similarity scores to look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but let ’ s shift ahead to try to spot matchup problems in this weekend ’ s games .
We might have cause for concern about Aaron Rodgers against Chicago : A sim score of 59.8 will be Rodgers ’ s toughest matchup in the period we ’ re measuring .
Taysom Hill and P.J .
Walker also feature low sim scores , but both played decently in their first NFL starts , and sample size issues similar to Tagovailoa ’ s definitely apply here , so maybe we should be more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York , even if Sam Darnold is healthy , the Jets should probably start Joe Flacco against Miami .
Flacco ’ s matchup against the Dolphins is over 40 points higher than Darnold ’ s , which should make coach Adam Gase ’ s choice an easy one .
Unless , of course , the Jets ’ goal is to remain winless for the rest of the year , in which case starting Darnold is absolutely optimal .
Looking ahead : AFC South showdowns haven ’ t always been synonymous with “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ game of Week 12 is probably Sunday ’ s Indianapolis-Tennessee rematch , with the division lead on the line .
Philip Rivers and the Colts are fresh off a comeback victory over the Packers and have won four of their past five contests — including one against the Titans — elevating themselves into the top five of this week ’ s Elo rankings .
Their strong defense will look to slow down Ryan Tannehill , Derrick Henry and the rest of the Titans , who broke out of their recent skid with an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ road against the Ravens .
The more important matchup may be on the other side of the ball , however , as Tennessee struggled to stop Indy during the Colts ’ 34-17 win two weeks ago .
Both teams are 7-3 , and the winner ’ s division-title odds would soar from roughly 50-50 to about 85 percent , with the loser dropping to about 15 percent .
Our model gives the Colts the slight edge at home , with a 60 percent probability of moving into the AFC South driver ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Indianapolis -3

The NFL is a league of matchups, and no matchup is more crucial to wins and losses than the battle between a quarterback and the pass defense. That’s important for more than just the coaches calling X’s and O’s: Each week, the media, betting markets and fantasy players all make predictions about which teams (and which players) will best take advantage of their opponent’s weaknesses.
Because football is such a complex sport, quantitative analysts haven’t found a great way to capture all the relevant information for each offensive and defensive passing unit in a way that lets us make reasonable predictions about future outcomes. Perhaps the biggest flaw of most approaches to strength-of-schedule and matchup analyses, for example, is that they assume that because a defense has or has not allowed yards, completions and points generally, we should expect that performance to continue against a future opponent. The problem: That isn’t really true. Defenses have weaknesses, but to exploit them, an offense first needs to know they exist. Then it must possess the personnel needed to actually take advantage. In the NFL, neither of those circumstances is a given.
[How Do College Football Dynasties Fall?]
One approach to quantifying these matchups is to look at where on the field a quarterback tends to complete more passes than average and where a defense tends to allow more completions than average. We’ve published heat maps like these before on FiveThirtyEight — both for defenses and for quarterbacks. (We think they’re pretty cool.) If we use some fancy math, we can roll these heat maps into a single, convenient number that describes the similarity between where a QB’s passes are completed and where a defense allows passes in a given matchup, with higher numbers indicating a better matchup for the quarterback. These similarity scores then give us an idea of which QBs have faced a more difficult slate and who might have a challenge ahead in the upcoming week.
Like most quantitative measures, similarity scores are worthless without a decent sample size. To ensure we have enough pass attempts to make good comparisons, and to eliminate early-season variance, we chose to calculate our scores only for matchups that occurred from Week 5 onward. We then averaged the scores for each QB who played in at least three games over the seven-week period from Week 5 through Week 11 to see who’s had the toughest schedule, ranking them from the most challenging schedule to the most favorable.
Tagovailoa started his career with tough matchups Average similarity score for current starting quarterbacks with at least three qualifying appearances* in Weeks 5 through 11 of the 2020 season, ranked from toughest to easiest matchups Quarterback Team appearances Avg. sim score Tua Tagovailoa Miami Dolphins 3 63.1 Russell Wilson Seattle Seahawks 6 64.7 Matthew Stafford Detroit Lions 6 67.5 Lamar Jackson Baltimore Ravens 6 69.4 Kirk Cousins Minnesota Vikings 5 71.9 Nick Mullens San Francisco 49ers 3 75.1 Kyler Murray Arizona Cardinals 6 76.3 Ryan Tannehill Tennessee Titans 7 76.5 Justin Herbert Los Angeles Chargers 6 77.1 Joe Flacco New York Jets 4 78.2 Aaron Rodgers Green Bay Packers 6 79.8 Alex Smith Washington Football Team 3 80.3 Drew Lock Denver Broncos 6 80.3 Tom Brady Tampa Bay Buccaneers 6 80.5 Cam Newton New England Patriots 5 81.2 Matt Ryan Atlanta Falcons 6 81.4 Philip Rivers Indianapolis Colts 6 82.1 Josh Allen Buffalo Bills 6 83.3 Daniel Jones New York Giants 6 83.4 Deshaun Watson Houston Texans 6 83.7 Carson Wentz Philadelphia Eagles 6 83.8 Jared Goff Los Angeles Rams 5 84.2 Ben Roethlisberger Pittsburgh Steelers 7 85.5 Baker Mayfield Cleveland Browns 6 87.4 Patrick Mahomes Kansas City Chiefs 6 92.0 Nick Foles Chicago Bears 6 92.0 Derek Carr Las Vegas Raiders 6 92.9 A higher score indicates that a QB tends to complete more passes in areas where the defense he was facing also tends to allow more passes. Data includes games through Nov. 22. *Qualifying appearances are those for which a similarity score can be calculated; quarterbacks must have at least 15 previous pass attempts to calculate a score. Source: ESPN Stats & Information Group
Dolphins rookie quarterback Tua Tagovailoa — who was benched for poor performance on Sunday by Miami head coach Brian Flores — is at the top of our list, indicating that he’s had a tough set of matchups to begin his NFL career. Meanwhile, Derek Carr — who is having the best season of his career — has had the easiest slate of matchups since Week 5.
Tagovailoa’s situation, though, makes him difficult to score. With only two passing attempts in his pro career going into his first start, which came against the Los Angeles Rams in Week 8, his sample size was too small for us to calculate a score for that first start. In his second start, Tagovailoa faced Arizona in Week 9, leading the Dolphins to a 34-31 win while throwing for 8.9 yards per attempt. The similarity score we calculated for that matchup was low — 35.4 — but it was still based on a small sample: 24 career attempts. By Week 10, which he entered with 52 career attempts, Tagovailoa’s sim score rose to 67.2 against the Chargers, a game in which he threw for 169 yards and two touchdowns. This past week against a Denver team with only three wins, his score was 86.7, meaning the places where the defense tends to allow completions lined up well with the places where he tends to make successful throws. That might explain his coaches’ frustration with his performance — this was a game in which he probably should have played well.
Seahawks quarterback Russell Wilson has had the second-toughest midseason schedule among current starting QBs. In Week 11, Wilson’s similarity to Arizona’s pass defense was just 67.9. Wilson led the Seahawks to a win, but he ended up throwing for only 197 yards against a Cardinals team that had been allowing around 250 yards per game through the air. If Wilson’s upcoming opponents turn out to be more accommodating, his numbers — and his case for league MVP — could improve.
Lions quarterback Matthew Stafford, who has the third-lowest average sim score this season, had his toughest game in Week 9 against the Minnesota Vikings — a matchup with a sim score of 42.5. The heat map for Stafford heading into the game showed that while the Viking pass defense was weak over the middle and up the hashes, so was Stafford, making him ill-equipped to take advantage of their vulnerabilities. Meanwhile the Vikings were better than average at taking away deeper sideline passes, spots where Stafford is usually strong.
Stafford finished the Vikings game 23-of-32 for 211 yards with one touchdown and two interceptions. His adjusted yards per attempt (a stat that gives extra credit for touchdowns and penalizes for interceptions) for the game was 4.41, his worst performance of the year so far.
[The Indianapolis Colts Finally Built A Defensive Monster]
We’ve used our similarity scores to look back at a player’s performance, but let’s shift ahead to try to spot matchup problems in this weekend’s games.
Who might have a tough matchup in Week 12? Similarity scores for Week 12 quarterbacks* and the defenses they will face, sorted from toughest to easiest matchups quarterback vs. opponent opponent record Sim score Sam Darnold Miami Dolphins 6-4 49.0 P.J. Walker Minnesota Vikings 4-6 54.7 Aaron Rodgers Chicago Bears 5-5 59.8 Taysom Hill Denver Broncos 4-6 60.9 Nick Foles Green Bay Packers 7-3 63.9 Andy Dalton Washington Football Team 3-7 72.5 Cam Newton Arizona Cardinals 6-4 76.3 Nick Mullens Los Angeles Rams 7-3 77.7 Alex Smith Dallas Cowboys 3-7 78.4 Teddy Bridgewater Minnesota Vikings 4-6 80.0 Russell Wilson Philadelphia Eagles 3-6 81.6 Lamar Jackson Pittsburgh Steelers 10-0 81.6 Ryan Tannehill Indianapolis Colts 7-3 83.7 Josh Allen Los Angeles Chargers 3-7 85.7 Matthew Stafford Houston Texans 3-7 85.7 Justin Herbert Buffalo Bills 7-3 86.2 Derek Carr Atlanta Falcons 3-7 87.0 Ben Roethlisberger Baltimore Ravens 6-4 87.7 Kyler Murray New England Patriots 4-6 88.3 Jared Goff San Francisco 49ers 4-6 88.5 Joe Flacco Miami Dolphins 6-4 89.2 Baker Mayfield Jacksonville Jaguars 1-9 90.2 Deshaun Watson Detroit Lions 4-6 90.3 Tua Tagovailoa New York Jets 0-10 90.6 Kirk Cousins Carolina Panthers 4-7 92.6 Matt Ryan Las Vegas Raiders 6-4 92.9 Philip Rivers Tennessee Titans 7-3 93.9 Tom Brady Kansas City Chiefs 9-1 94.0 Patrick Mahomes Tampa Bay Buccaneers 7-4 94.6 Drew Lock New Orleans Saints 8-2 94.9 Daniel Jones Cincinnati Bengals 2-7 95.2 Carson Wentz Seattle Seahawks 7-3 95.8 Jake Luton Cleveland Browns 7-3 98.9 A higher score indicates that a QB tends to complete more passes in areas where the defense he’s facing also tends to allow more passes. Similarity scores based on games through Nov. 22. Quarterbacks need a minimum of 15 previous pass attempts to qualify for a similarity score. *Including backups if the regular starters are questionable for this week’s games. Source: ESPN Stats & Information Group
We might have cause for concern about Aaron Rodgers against Chicago: A sim score of 59.8 will be Rodgers’s toughest matchup in the period we’re measuring. Taysom Hill and P.J. Walker also feature low sim scores, but both played decently in their first NFL starts, and sample size issues similar to Tagovailoa’s definitely apply here, so maybe we should be more bullish about their matchups. But in New York, even if Sam Darnold is healthy, the Jets should probably start Joe Flacco against Miami. Flacco’s matchup against the Dolphins is over 40 points higher than Darnold’s, which should make coach Adam Gase’s choice an easy one. Unless, of course, the Jets’ goal is to remain winless for the rest of the year, in which case starting Darnold is absolutely optimal.
FiveThirtyEight’s NFL Elo ratings How each team ranks through Week 11 of the 2020 season, according to our quarterback-adjusted predictions Chance To … Rk Team Starting QB QB Rk* Elo Rating Proj. Wins Make Playoffs Win Division Win SB 1 Chiefs Mahomes 1 1744 13.6 >99% 98% 26% 2 Steelers Roethlisberger 6 1694 14.4 >99 96 18 3 Packers Rodgers 4 1619 11.3 96 88 7 4 Colts Rivers✚ 15 1605 10.7 77 56 3 5 Rams Goff 12 1603 10.8 94 45 6 6 Ravens Jackson 8 1600 10.2 72 2 2 7 Seahawks Wilson 5 1599 11.2 96 43 5 8 Bills Allen 7 1595 10.6 89 84 3 9 Buccaneers Brady 13 1592 10.1 85 14 4 10 Titans Tannehill 11 1569 10.6 82 43 2 11 Raiders Carr 9 1561 9.8 67 2 1 12 Cardinals Murray 2 1540 9.2 63 12 1 13 Browns Mayfield 24 1526 10.4 69 2 1 14 Vikings Cousins 18 1522 7.4 20 2 <1 15 Patriots Newton 16 1511 7.1 8 3 <1 16 49ers Mullens 29 1507 7.0 11 <1 <1 17 Bears Foles✚ 23 1487 8.0 34 10 <1 18 Dolphins Tagovailoa 25 1481 8.9 33 13 <1 19 Saints Hill 32 1478 11.5 99 86 19 20 Broncos Lock 28 1475 6.4 2 <1 <1 21 Texans Watson 3 1473 5.9 1 <1 <1 22 Falcons Ryan 17 1451 5.1 1 <1 <1 23 Chargers Herbert 10 1451 5.2 <1 <1 <1 24 Eagles Wentz 26 1429 5.8 35 35 <1 25 Washington Smith 21 1414 5.2 18 18 <1 26 Giants Jones 20 1408 5.4 25 25 <1 27 Panthers Bridgewater✚ 14 1407 5.9 1 <1 <1 28 Lions Stafford 19 1365 5.7 2 <1 <1 29 Cowboys Dalton 27 1365 5.4 23 23 <1 30 Jets Darnold✚ 30 1293 1.2 <1 <1 <1 31 Bengals Finley 31 1287 4.0 <1 <1 <1 32 Jaguars Minshew✚ 22 1214 2.1 <1 <1 <1 *Ranking among Week 12 starters, according to our QB Elo ratings. ✚ Starter is currently injured and may not play. †Starter could be replaced for performance reasons. Simulations as of Nov. 24, 2020. Source: ESPN
Looking ahead: AFC South showdowns haven’t always been synonymous with “epic action,” but the best game of Week 12 is probably Sunday’s Indianapolis-Tennessee rematch, with the division lead on the line. Philip Rivers and the Colts are fresh off a comeback victory over the Packers and have won four of their past five contests — including one against the Titans — elevating themselves into the top five of this week’s Elo rankings. Their strong defense will look to slow down Ryan Tannehill, Derrick Henry and the rest of the Titans, who broke out of their recent skid with an impressive comeback of their own on the road against the Ravens. The more important matchup may be on the other side of the ball, however, as Tennessee struggled to stop Indy during the Colts’ 34-17 win two weeks ago. Both teams are 7-3, and the winner’s division-title odds would soar from roughly 50-50 to about 85 percent, with the loser dropping to about 15 percent. Our model gives the Colts the slight edge at home, with a 60 percent probability of moving into the AFC South driver’s seat. Elo’s spread: Indianapolis -3
Neil Paine contributed research.
Check out our latest NFL predictions.


fivethirthyeight--2020-11-24--College Basketball Muddles Through The Pandemic Like Everyone Else

We start with college basketball ’ s plan to deal with the United States ’ worst surge in the coronavirus pandemic since it began in March .
That plan is , mostly , to muddle through , adapting to two-week halts when teams test positive and rolling with game postponements .
The NCAA Tournament itself will be in a bubble-like ( perhaps bubble-lite ) environment , but the regular season will do its best to look the same as always , with conferences not even attempting to create a bubble among themselves .
There ’ s hope that teams at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facto bubbles , once the main student population leaves campus after Thanksgiving , and every little bit helps .
But the situation also raises the issues of this “ amateur ” sport continuing to put its players at risk without any compensation .
It ’ s remarkable how much the sports world ’ s response to COVID-19 has mirrored the country ’ s response as a whole : The pandemic hasn ’ t gotten better , but NCAA basketball ’ s economic survival dictated that it wasn ’ t a matter of if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ season , but how .
Next , we take a look at the actual preseason rankings for both men ’ s and women ’ s teams .
On the men ’ s side , Gonzaga is No .
1 , followed by Baylor and Villanova .
Both Gonzaga and Baylor are interesting cases this year , edging out the traditional blue bloods like Kentucky and Duke as well as the champions of the last couple of years , Villanova and Virginia .
On the women ’ s side , South Carolina holds the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UConn .
And all three teams have exciting young players who might be able to take the star mantle from Sabrina Ionescu .
There are also some exciting new coaches , like former player Kara Lawson , who has taken the reins at Duke .
This is probably going to be a rough year for college basketball , but assuming that everyone can stay healthy , there are some bright spots to look forward to .
Finally , in the Rabbit Hole , Neil takes a look at Theo Epstein ’ s legacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Our hosts discuss what differences , if any , there are between “ rebuilding general managers ” and “ maintenance general managers ” in light of Epstein ’ s decision to leave the Chicago Cubs .
The GM ’ s job is more or less the same in most cases , but the emotional toll of , say , trading players is the difference .
What we ’ re looking at this week : • How a college basketball tournament moved to a hot spot for COVID-19 .
• What these WNBA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ draft stock .
• Neil ’ s story on the impact of the pandemic on women ’ s basketball .

We start with college basketball’s plan to deal with the United States’ worst surge in the coronavirus pandemic since it began in March. That plan is, mostly, to muddle through, adapting to two-week halts when teams test positive and rolling with game postponements. The NCAA Tournament itself will be in a bubble-like (perhaps bubble-lite) environment, but the regular season will do its best to look the same as always, with conferences not even attempting to create a bubble among themselves. There’s hope that teams at some schools will take advantage of de facto bubbles, once the main student population leaves campus after Thanksgiving, and every little bit helps. But the situation also raises the issues of this “amateur” sport continuing to put its players at risk without any compensation. It’s remarkable how much the sports world’s response to COVID-19 has mirrored the country’s response as a whole: The pandemic hasn’t gotten better, but NCAA basketball’s economic survival dictated that it wasn’t a matter of if college basketball should go on playing this season, but how.
Next, we take a look at the actual preseason rankings for both men’s and women’s teams. On the men’s side, Gonzaga is No. 1, followed by Baylor and Villanova. Both Gonzaga and Baylor are interesting cases this year, edging out the traditional blue bloods like Kentucky and Duke as well as the champions of the last couple of years, Villanova and Virginia. On the women’s side, South Carolina holds the top spot, followed by Stanford and UConn. And all three teams have exciting young players who might be able to take the star mantle from Sabrina Ionescu. There are also some exciting new coaches, like former player Kara Lawson, who has taken the reins at Duke. This is probably going to be a rough year for college basketball, but assuming that everyone can stay healthy, there are some bright spots to look forward to.
Finally, in the Rabbit Hole, Neil takes a look at Theo Epstein’s legacy as professional baseball’s preeminent curse-breaker. Our hosts discuss what differences, if any, there are between “rebuilding general managers” and “maintenance general managers” in light of Epstein’s decision to leave the Chicago Cubs. The GM’s job is more or less the same in most cases, but the emotional toll of, say, trading players is the difference.
What we’re looking at this week:


fivethirthyeight--2020-11-24--What We’ve Learned About The Biden Administration From His Staffing Choices So Far

Last week , President-elect Joe Biden selected many of his top White House aides .
This week , he ’ s announced some top Cabinet and national security posts .
There are many , many jobs left to fill — most notably defense secretary and attorney general — but here ’ s what we ’ re learning so far about Biden , the Biden administration and how he ’ ll govern … It ’ s back to normal — at least as far as Biden ’ s staffing is concerned As expected , Biden is appointing very traditional people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — except for Biden ’ s immediate predecessor , of course .
President Trump initially picked a chief of staff ( Reince Priebus ) and secretary of state ( Rex Tillerson ) with no prior experience in the federal government and two top White House advisers ( Steve Bannon , Stephen Miller ) whose views were fairly outside of the elite GOP mainstream .
It is unlikely that a President Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio would have named any of those four to those posts .
In contrast , Biden ’ s staff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similar jobs in the past and were in line for senior posts if Hillary Clinton had won in 2016 .
Biden ’ s pick for secretary of state , Antony Blinken , for example , was deputy secretary of state under President Barack Obama .
Avril Haines , who will be Biden ’ s director of national intelligence , was the deputy director of the CIA and then deputy national security adviser under Obama .
Nearly every person Biden has named to a very senior role was in a top post in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ necessarily mean that Biden will wind up carrying out what amounts to Obama ’ s third term ( although that might end up being true ) .
Rather , Biden is naming the most traditionally qualified people for these jobs , as previous presidents have done .
President George W. Bush ’ s first defense secretary ( Donald Rumsfeld ) and secretary of state ( Colin Powell ) had held top jobs in previous GOP administrations .
Obama ’ s first chief of staff ( Rahm Emanuel ) had been a top aide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s first attorney general ( Eric Holder ) had been deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration .
The Atlantic ’ s Graeme Wood captured the ethos of Biden ’ s selections nicely , referring to Blinken and Jake Sullivan , who has been designated to be national security adviser , as “ boring picks who , if you shook them awake and appointed them in the middle of the night at any time in the last decade , could have reported to their new jobs and started work competently by dawn.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ his party ’ s left wing Biden ran to the right of more liberal figures , such as Sens .
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren , during the Democratic primary .
But he has generally tried to court his party ’ s left wing — more so than House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other senior Democrats , at least .
So Biden ’ s picks , particularly Ron Klain ( chief of staff ) and Janet Yellen ( treasury secretary ) are people who are well-liked by the party ’ s more liberal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong : Biden is putting together a center-left administration , picking establishment figures who would be unlikely to get the same roles in a Sanders or Warren administration .
And Biden might still choose people for top jobs who more liberal Democrats really hate , most notably Emanuel and former Bill Clinton domestic policy adviser Bruce Reed .
But Biden seems to be trying to find people who are in the midpoint of the Democratic Party , a smart instinct in a party that is fairly fractured at its elite levels ( the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for example ) .
Biden is also trying not to annoy Republicans too much Biden might need some GOP votes to get his Cabinet picks confirmed in the U.S. Senate , so he ’ s trying not to antagonize Republicans too much either .
Susan Rice , who served as the national security adviser for Obama , was rumored to be under consideration to run the State Department .
But some Senate Republicans were already signaling opposition to her , so Blinken was a safer choice .
Democrats would control the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ runoffs on Jan 5 , but there is a decent chance Democrats won ’ t win both ( or either ) of those races .
So Biden seems to be keeping that possibility in mind — none of his selections are anyone Senate Republicans are known to strongly oppose .
( So Republicans ’ potential role in the confirmation process may be pushing Biden ’ s choices right , even as his Democratic Party ’ s progressive wing pushes him left . )
Overall , Biden is living up to his diversity commitments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pick a diverse Cabinet during the campaign and is following through : Alejandro Mayorkas , a Cuban American , would be the first Latino person to serve as Homeland Security secretary ; Yellen would be the first woman to serve as treasury secretary .
Indeed , there are a lot of women in key posts — from White House counsel ( Dana Remus ) to intelligence director ( Haines ) .
Also remember that Vice President-elect Kamala Harris will be the first woman , first Black American and first person of South Asian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , there ’ s less diversity among the positions with the most power and access to Biden In certain top-level jobs , you are basically guaranteed to speak to the president regularly ( chief of staff , counselor to the president ) or have a lot of decision-making power yourself , whether or not the president speaks to you regularly ( national security adviser , secretary of state ) .
The Biden administration , at least based on the picks so far , will look diverse but may not have much ideological @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Women , as I noted earlier , will almost certainly be in top decision-making roles .
But the women chosen so far generally share Biden ’ s more centrist politics .
There isn ’ t an obvious Squad/Warren/Sanders liberal in any top job so far .
And while Biden ’ s picks overall are racially diverse , it ’ s easy to imagine that many key decisions will be made by a mostly white group .
Again , that could change and is based only on his hires so far .
Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So Biden might choose more liberal figures for domestic and economic policy posts , and he could name people of color to powerful posts like attorney general or defense secretary .
So where ’ s all this leave us ?
Overall , Biden looks like he ’ s trying to fulfill his unstated-but-obvious goal of making the U.S. government boring again .
And his picks so far are indeed boringly normal .
In terms of respecting democratic norms and values , that will likely be a very good thing .
But the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as president might not allow him to have a boring presidency .
Biden is a centrist , establishment figure .
He ’ s long been a presence in Washington .
And he ’ s surrounding himself with similar people , many of whom have long histories with Biden himself .
The advantage of such people is that they understand how the government works .
The disadvantage is that Biden ’ s team may not be especially well-equipped to deal with new problems the nation faces , in particular the coronavirus outbreak , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a country growing more aware of its enduring racial divides and other issues that were not as pressing as in 2009 or 1993 .
So Biden is creating a normal team — but the big question is whether normal will work in these very abnormal times .

Perry Bacon Jr. (perry.bacon@fivethirtyeight.com)

Last week, President-elect Joe Biden selected many of his top White House aides. This week, he’s announced some top Cabinet and national security posts. There are many, many jobs left to fill — most notably defense secretary and attorney general — but here’s what we’re learning so far about Biden, the Biden administration and how he’ll govern …
It’s back to normal — at least as far as Biden’s staffing is concerned
As expected, Biden is appointing very traditional people, in the mode of most other presidents — except for Biden’s immediate predecessor, of course. President Trump initially picked a chief of staff (Reince Priebus) and secretary of state (Rex Tillerson) with no prior experience in the federal government and two top White House advisers (Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller) whose views were fairly outside of the elite GOP mainstream. It is unlikely that a President Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio would have named any of those four to those posts.
[Related: The Cabinet Appointments That Really Matter In The Incoming Biden Administration]
In contrast, Biden’s staff is heavy on people who have held similar jobs in the past and were in line for senior posts if Hillary Clinton had won in 2016. Biden’s pick for secretary of state, Antony Blinken, for example, was deputy secretary of state under President Barack Obama. Avril Haines, who will be Biden’s director of national intelligence, was the deputy director of the CIA and then deputy national security adviser under Obama. Nearly every person Biden has named to a very senior role was in a top post in the Obama administration. That doesn’t necessarily mean that Biden will wind up carrying out what amounts to Obama’s third term (although that might end up being true). Rather, Biden is naming the most traditionally qualified people for these jobs, as previous presidents have done. President George W. Bush’s first defense secretary (Donald Rumsfeld) and secretary of state (Colin Powell) had held top jobs in previous GOP administrations. Obama’s first chief of staff (Rahm Emanuel) had been a top aide to President Bill Clinton, and Obama’s first attorney general (Eric Holder) had been deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration.
The Atlantic’s Graeme Wood captured the ethos of Biden’s selections nicely, referring to Blinken and Jake Sullivan, who has been designated to be national security adviser, as “boring picks who, if you shook them awake and appointed them in the middle of the night at any time in the last decade, could have reported to their new jobs and started work competently by dawn.”
Trump is setting a dangerous precedent for American democracy
Biden is trying not to annoy his party’s left wing
Biden ran to the right of more liberal figures, such as Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, during the Democratic primary. But he has generally tried to court his party’s left wing — more so than House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other senior Democrats, at least. So Biden’s picks, particularly Ron Klain (chief of staff) and Janet Yellen (treasury secretary) are people who are well-liked by the party’s more liberal wing.
[What We Know About How White and Latino Americans Voted In 2020]
Don’t get me wrong: Biden is putting together a center-left administration, picking establishment figures who would be unlikely to get the same roles in a Sanders or Warren administration. And Biden might still choose people for top jobs who more liberal Democrats really hate, most notably Emanuel and former Bill Clinton domestic policy adviser Bruce Reed. But Biden seems to be trying to find people who are in the midpoint of the Democratic Party, a smart instinct in a party that is fairly fractured at its elite levels (the Squad vs. the moderates in the House, for example).
Biden is also trying not to annoy Republicans too much
Biden might need some GOP votes to get his Cabinet picks confirmed in the U.S. Senate, so he’s trying not to antagonize Republicans too much either. Susan Rice, who served as the national security adviser for Obama, was rumored to be under consideration to run the State Department. But some Senate Republicans were already signaling opposition to her, so Blinken was a safer choice. Democrats would control the Senate if they win both of the Georgia runoffs on Jan 5, but there is a decent chance Democrats won’t win both (or either) of those races. So Biden seems to be keeping that possibility in mind — none of his selections are anyone Senate Republicans are known to strongly oppose. (So Republicans’ potential role in the confirmation process may be pushing Biden’s choices right, even as his Democratic Party’s progressive wing pushes him left.)
Overall, Biden is living up to his diversity commitments
The former vice president said he would pick a diverse Cabinet during the campaign and is following through: Alejandro Mayorkas, a Cuban American, would be the first Latino person to serve as Homeland Security secretary; Yellen would be the first woman to serve as treasury secretary. Indeed, there are a lot of women in key posts — from White House counsel (Dana Remus) to intelligence director (Haines). Also remember that Vice President-elect Kamala Harris will be the first woman, first Black American and first person of South Asian descent to hold that job.
What divided the electorate in 2020 | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast
That said, there’s less diversity among the positions with the most power and access to Biden
In certain top-level jobs, you are basically guaranteed to speak to the president regularly (chief of staff, counselor to the president) or have a lot of decision-making power yourself, whether or not the president speaks to you regularly (national security adviser, secretary of state). The Biden administration, at least based on the picks so far, will look diverse but may not have much ideological or racial diversity in its top-level decision-making.
Women, as I noted earlier, will almost certainly be in top decision-making roles. But the women chosen so far generally share Biden’s more centrist politics. There isn’t an obvious Squad/Warren/Sanders liberal in any top job so far. And while Biden’s picks overall are racially diverse, it’s easy to imagine that many key decisions will be made by a mostly white group.
Again, that could change and is based only on his hires so far. Biden is far from filling out his team. So Biden might choose more liberal figures for domestic and economic policy posts, and he could name people of color to powerful posts like attorney general or defense secretary.
So where’s all this leave us?
Overall, Biden looks like he’s trying to fulfill his unstated-but-obvious goal of making the U.S. government boring again. And his picks so far are indeed boringly normal.
In terms of respecting democratic norms and values, that will likely be a very good thing. But the nature of the issues Biden will face as president might not allow him to have a boring presidency.
Biden is a centrist, establishment figure. He’s long been a presence in Washington. And he’s surrounding himself with similar people, many of whom have long histories with Biden himself. The advantage of such people is that they understand how the government works. The disadvantage is that Biden’s team may not be especially well-equipped to deal with new problems the nation faces, in particular the coronavirus outbreak, the increasingly anti-democratic tendencies of the Republican Party, a country growing more aware of its enduring racial divides and other issues that were not as pressing as in 2009 or 1993.
So Biden is creating a normal team — but the big question is whether normal will work in these very abnormal times.


fivethirthyeight--2020-11-24--How These WNBA Prospects Can Improve Their Draft Stock

It ’ s the strangest women ’ s college basketball season anyone can remember .
Teams simply don ’ t know who they ’ ll be playing .
Don ’ t believe me ?
Here ’ s Jeff Walz , Louisville head coach , on Twitter on Monday , looking for someone to play … on Wednesday .
But if that seems scary enough — and it does — spare a thought for the WNBA talent evaluators , who need to prepare for next spring ’ s draft without many of the tools customarily used to formulate and update their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most quarters embraced analytics , the larger picture includes live looks and interactions .
This is particularly important when a collegiate season is only , at maximum , something like 40 games long , making the data noisy .
Still , consider that in 2020-21 , we aren ’ t likely to get anything close to 40 games from anyone .
As of now , teams will need to play 13 games to be eligible for the NCAA Tournament — and even that number could be daunting as COVID-19 continues to spread .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ wild card : The NCAA ruled this a free year for college basketball players , eligibility-wise , allowing even seniors to return for another season .
So no one can be sure which players will come out for the draft .
What WNBA front offices will be looking for , then , is a legitimate , quantifiable leap or further development of a skill already flashed , while they cast a net wider than the top prospects for 2021 and think in multi-year terms .
We ’ ll do the same .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a few of these notable prospects and their coaches , looking both at the numbers and at how they see their own games .
For Tennessee senior Rennia Davis , a versatile 6-foot-2 wing near the top of many WNBA wishlists , last year saw some encouraging advances — a near-doubling of her assist percentage , for instance — but some regression in other areas , including her efficiency from beyond the arc .
Her head coach , Kellie Harper , views the improvement around the rim for Davis — she shot 52.9 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for 286th in the nation — as a place to add to her game , simply by doing more of it .
“ I think Rennia has a very complete game , ” Harper said .
“ I think she can do everything .
However , we want to see her improve on getting to the basket — getting into the paint more , and maybe playing a little bit more physical there .
She makes free throws , she can knock down shots and she is super in transition .
So we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this summer .
She has worked very hard on that , and it is giving her even an added dimension to her game.
” For 6-foot-1 senior Chloe Bibby , the track record of Maryland itself was a primary reason that she transferred to College Park after three years at Mississippi State .
( Bibby is immediately eligible to play for the Terps after receiving an NCAA waiver . )
Her shot beyond the arc is not in question , though her percentage dipped last year , to 31.7 percent , after she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018-19 .
But now , nearly two years after an ACL tear that cost her the final half of the 2018-19 season , few worry about her resuming her previous level of proficiency from deep , and she has a green light from Maryland head coach Brenda Frese .
Instead , for Bibby , enhancing her all-around game is a critical part of how she intends to grow this season , while she is delaying the decision to return or move on until we know more about what the future looks like .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ improve on is just my ball handling , ” Bibby said in an interview earlier this month .
“ I think you can always get better at that .
And that ’ s something that I need to continue to improve on , be able to come off the on-ball screens , as a guard.
” Bibby excelled in that role last season with Mississippi State — allowing just .556 points per possession off screens — but in only 18 possessions total , per Synergy .
That ’ s not how she ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a team chock full of bigger guards and wings switch on everything and cause havoc against smaller opponents .
So next-level talent evaluators will be able to see Bibby in more of a positionless context , a vital prerequisite for projecting her into the league .
Bibby sees Diana Taurasi as the ultimate example of where she wants her game to get to , but she understands that a lot of her value comes from versatility as a wing — strength that Taurasi didn ’ t have entering the league .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an advantage is that I am able to play that two , three and the four if need be , ” Bibby said .
“ And that ’ s what I ’ m learning a lot with Brenda here , too .
She ’ s like , you already know you can shoot it , so , you know , let ’ s work on being more of a power forward , getting those easy bunnies.
” Bibby ’ s fellow Australian , Syracuse point guard Tiana Mangakahia , has already demonstrated an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So in this , a season Mangakahia says is almost certainly her last with the Orange , the senior wants to prove that she is an elite scorer , too .
“ I think one thing when I look at players that get drafted high , top five picks , they score a lot of points , ” Mangakahia said in a Zoom interview .
“ My average scoring is , like , 17 .
When I look at players that are getting picked top 10 , top five , they score over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m not that type of point guard .
I am not a score-first — I tend to pass first .
But I think , sometimes I do just need to score myself.
” The numbers bear her out .
In 2018-19 , she scored 16.9 points per game , 101st in the nation .
But her usage rate of 27.6 percent ?
Just 225th .
A willingness to be more selfish is a goal for another elite point guard prospect , Indiana senior Ali Patberg .
Her split was even more pronounced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ points per game in 2019-20 at 15.6 , but with a usage rate of 22 percent , 951st in the country .
Head coach Teri Moren cited Patberg ’ s “ tireless , relentless passion ” as one of many reasons she should excel in the WNBA .
But key to Indiana ’ s season — and , in Moren ’ s eyes , to making that jump to the pros — is Patberg looking for her own shot more often .
“ Ali has to score , ” Moren said earlier this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she has to be more selfish , if that makes sense .
And I think sometimes Ali — she wants to facilitate , she wants to get everybody involved in the offense , and that ’ s great .
But Ali , we believe as a staff , can go get a bucket anytime she wants .
It ’ s just her mindset has to shift.
” For the talent scouts watching these WNBA prospects , so much of their evaluation will come down to a combination of seeing it in the numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the season is limited — extrapolating it as best as everyone can .
But what happens this season will have an effect not just on this year , but on the futures of the game ’ s brightest stars for years to come .

It’s the strangest women’s college basketball season anyone can remember. Teams simply don’t know who they’ll be playing. Don’t believe me? Here’s Jeff Walz, Louisville head coach, on Twitter on Monday, looking for someone to play … on Wednesday.
Game at MTSU cancelled for Wednesday, Nov. 25. Louisville willing to travel, if you have an opening for 25th. DM or call me and let’s make it happen. #goingtobeonehellofayear — Jeff Walz (@CoachJeffWalz) November 23, 2020
But if that seems scary enough — and it does — spare a thought for the WNBA talent evaluators, who need to prepare for next spring’s draft without many of the tools customarily used to formulate and update their priorities. Though the league has in most quarters embraced analytics, the larger picture includes live looks and interactions. This is particularly important when a collegiate season is only, at maximum, something like 40 games long, making the data noisy.
Still, consider that in 2020-21, we aren’t likely to get anything close to 40 games from anyone. As of now, teams will need to play 13 games to be eligible for the NCAA Tournament — and even that number could be daunting as COVID-19 continues to spread. And then there’s yet another wild card: The NCAA ruled this a free year for college basketball players, eligibility-wise, allowing even seniors to return for another season. So no one can be sure which players will come out for the draft.
What WNBA front offices will be looking for, then, is a legitimate, quantifiable leap or further development of a skill already flashed, while they cast a net wider than the top prospects for 2021 and think in multi-year terms. We’ll do the same.
So let’s get a sense from a few of these notable prospects and their coaches, looking both at the numbers and at how they see their own games.
For Tennessee senior Rennia Davis, a versatile 6-foot-2 wing near the top of many WNBA wishlists, last year saw some encouraging advances — a near-doubling of her assist percentage, for instance — but some regression in other areas, including her efficiency from beyond the arc.
Her head coach, Kellie Harper, views the improvement around the rim for Davis — she shot 52.9 percent from two in 2019-20, good for 286th in the nation — as a place to add to her game, simply by doing more of it.
“I think Rennia has a very complete game,” Harper said. “I think she can do everything. However, we want to see her improve on getting to the basket — getting into the paint more, and maybe playing a little bit more physical there. She makes free throws, she can knock down shots and she is super in transition. So we talked to her a lot about that this summer. She has worked very hard on that, and it is giving her even an added dimension to her game.”
For 6-foot-1 senior Chloe Bibby, the track record of Maryland itself was a primary reason that she transferred to College Park after three years at Mississippi State. (Bibby is immediately eligible to play for the Terps after receiving an NCAA waiver.)
Her shot beyond the arc is not in question, though her percentage dipped last year, to 31.7 percent, after she hit 45 percent of her threes in 2018-19. But now, nearly two years after an ACL tear that cost her the final half of the 2018-19 season, few worry about her resuming her previous level of proficiency from deep, and she has a green light from Maryland head coach Brenda Frese.
Instead, for Bibby, enhancing her all-around game is a critical part of how she intends to grow this season, while she is delaying the decision to return or move on until we know more about what the future looks like. “What I need to continue to improve on is just my ball handling,” Bibby said in an interview earlier this month. “I think you can always get better at that. And that’s something that I need to continue to improve on, be able to come off the on-ball screens, as a guard.”
Bibby excelled in that role last season with Mississippi State — allowing just .556 points per possession off screens — but in only 18 possessions total, per Synergy. That’s not how she’ll be used at Maryland, where a team chock full of bigger guards and wings switch on everything and cause havoc against smaller opponents. So next-level talent evaluators will be able to see Bibby in more of a positionless context, a vital prerequisite for projecting her into the league.
Bibby sees Diana Taurasi as the ultimate example of where she wants her game to get to, but she understands that a lot of her value comes from versatility as a wing — strength that Taurasi didn’t have entering the league.
“I think that’s where I have an advantage is that I am able to play that two, three and the four if need be,” Bibby said. “And that’s what I’m learning a lot with Brenda here, too. She’s like, you already know you can shoot it, so, you know, let’s work on being more of a power forward, getting those easy bunnies.”
Bibby’s fellow Australian, Syracuse point guard Tiana Mangakahia, has already demonstrated an otherworldly ability to pass the ball. So in this, a season Mangakahia says is almost certainly her last with the Orange, the senior wants to prove that she is an elite scorer, too.
“I think one thing when I look at players that get drafted high, top five picks, they score a lot of points,” Mangakahia said in a Zoom interview. “My average scoring is, like, 17. When I look at players that are getting picked top 10, top five, they score over 20. And I think, I’m not that type of point guard. I am not a score-first — I tend to pass first. But I think, sometimes I do just need to score myself.”
The numbers bear her out. In 2018-19, she scored 16.9 points per game, 101st in the nation. But her usage rate of 27.6 percent? Just 225th.
A willingness to be more selfish is a goal for another elite point guard prospect, Indiana senior Ali Patberg. Her split was even more pronounced than Mangakahia’s: 150th in points per game in 2019-20 at 15.6, but with a usage rate of 22 percent, 951st in the country. Head coach Teri Moren cited Patberg’s “tireless, relentless passion” as one of many reasons she should excel in the WNBA. But key to Indiana’s season — and, in Moren’s eyes, to making that jump to the pros — is Patberg looking for her own shot more often.
“Ali has to score,” Moren said earlier this month in an interview. “So she has to be more selfish, if that makes sense. And I think sometimes Ali — she wants to facilitate, she wants to get everybody involved in the offense, and that’s great. But Ali, we believe as a staff, can go get a bucket anytime she wants. It’s just her mindset has to shift.”
For the talent scouts watching these WNBA prospects, so much of their evaluation will come down to a combination of seeing it in the numbers, watching it on film and — if the season is limited — extrapolating it as best as everyone can.
But what happens this season will have an effect not just on this year, but on the futures of the game’s brightest stars for years to come.


fivethirthyeight--2020-11-30--What Makes A One-Term President?

What Makes A One-Term President?

Donald Trump is officially a one-term president , the first to fail a reelection bid in nearly 30 years .
But history shows his loss isn ’ t surprising , given the circumstances .
One-term presidents used to be a lot more common .
Take the period between 1837 ( when Andrew Jackson ’ s second term ended ) and 1860 , for example — no president served more than one term .
And between 1900 and 1932 , we had seven presidents , only one of whom served two full terms .
( Some died in office , some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to run for another term . )
But in the modern era , presidents have increasingly left office because term limits prevent them from staying , not because the voters have turned them out .
One of the major questions about one-term presidents is whether their fates are shaped mainly by their actions and political failings , or primarily by conditions beyond their control .
This is , of course , a tricky question to answer , as there are some traits one-term presidents seem to share — a bad economy , poor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to know how much any of those factors are actually within their control .
Let ’ s start with the biggest factor that ties one-term presidents together : a major economic downturn .
Herbert Hoover , who was president at the start of the Great Depression , is perhaps the most extreme example .
It ’ s estimated that unemployment during the Great Depression was around 20 percent or more , and thousands of banks failed .
And although Hoover did take measures to address the crisis , his view that voluntary programs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stabilizing the economy ultimately cost him .
More recent presidents like Jimmy Carter , who was in office during a less severe but still serious economic recession , also paid for it at the ballot box .
Similarly , the same inflation problems that plagued Carter had previously dragged down Gerald Ford , who had lost to Carter four years earlier .
And the rising unemployment in 1992 quickly eroded support for George H.W .
Bush in that year ’ s election , even after he had been quite popular throughout his presidency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a president ’ s reelection bid also hinges on timing .
When a crisis or a recession hits in a reelection year , that tends to spell trouble .
In contrast , Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower both weathered recessions during their time in office , but those downturns hit a few years before they faced reelection .
So while the coronavirus pandemic was ( and is ) an extraordinary event , the economic crisis it produced actually falls somewhat in line with the situations faced by other one-term presidents .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a positive opinion of Trump ’ s handling of the economy even amid this year ’ s massive layoffs , but public opinion data also suggested that voters were particularly worried about the pandemic .
Furthemore , they generally thought Trump had done a poor job of handling it , making it difficult to untangle the public health crisis from the economic downturn it caused .
There ’ s also the question of how a president leads in a moment of crisis , which has been the downfall of many a one-term president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again , popular memory is especially unforgiving of his handling of the Great Depression .
At the time , his name was attached to camps built by unemployed Americans as shelter when they lost their homes , and a “ Hoover flag ” referred to an empty pocket turned inside out .
Of course , Hoover is an extreme example , but other one-term presidents have experienced a similar fate , earning reputations for being hapless and bumbling in the face of serious challenges .
This has certainly been the case with Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic and , by downplaying the severity of the disease , worsened the partisan divides on how to best combat it .
What ’ s hard , though , in analyzing one-term presidents is knowing just how much any of this is actually within their control .
We know that presidents are not infinitely powerful , especially when it comes to engineering major legislation to address complicated economic problems .
Take Carter .
Economists at the time thought government spending needed to be curtailed to stop inflation , which meant making major @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was politically impossible for Carter , as Congress would have resisted and he would have lost support among New Deal Democrats , which were still an important part of the party ’ s coalition .
Political scientist Stephen Skowronek refers to this quandary , which presidents periodically find themselves in , as the “ politics of disjunction ” — circumstances in which a party coalition ( in Carter ’ s case , New Deal Democrats ) has dominated politics for decades , and politicians elected by that coalition feel beholden to the ideas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but those ideas are no longer a good match for addressing the problems facing the country .
Presidents in these situations often try to fix the crises that arise on their watch , but they face serious political limitations in doing so .
Hoover falls into this category as well .
He did engage in some policy experimentation , including the creation of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation , which sought to provide some public support to banks and railroads .
But like Carter , Hoover was caught between pushing the boundaries of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , especially within his own party , and the reality that much greater change was needed to address the economic crisis .
How does this apply to Trump ?
In one way , we can sort of see how the problems of political feasibility have shaped the stimulus negotiations .
It would have been almost impossible to get congressional Republicans to agree to a big relief bill regardless of who was president .
But it ’ s also hard to say that the White House took the pandemic seriously and was then thwarted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Instead , Trump publicly battled with Democratic governors over whether to reopen some types of businesses , urged the public not to let the virus control their lives ( after being diagnosed with it himself ) , and denied the seriousness of the situation at almost every stage .
This isn ’ t a typical story , even for presidents who mishandled the crises they faced and subsequently lost reelection , which makes it especially hard to answer the question of how much of Trump ’ s failure to be reelected was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much was due to factors beyond his control .
What is interesting here , though , is that in spite of these conditions , Trump was a competitive incumbent .
Both parties benefited from record turnout , and , in the end , he will probably have won about 47 percent of the popular vote , compared to more like 40 percent for Hoover , Carter , and Bush .
Despite Trump ’ s low approval ratings , he didn ’ t face a serious primary challenger either — which also makes his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Carter and Bush .
This last point might give us a clue as to why it ’ s been so long since a president lost reelection .
We ’ ve become more polarized as a county , and as a result , the parties have become more ideologically uniform , making the factional politics that drive primary challengers less likely .
Negative partisanship has also raised the stakes , crowding out the possibilities for a centrist independent candidacy to divide a party .
In fact , the consolidation of party support around presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ George W. Bush and Barack Obama win reelection .
Ultimately , Trump ’ s presidency faced some of the same problems that have brought down other administrations : economic woes and political dissatisfaction with poor leadership .
But he also brought his own political baggage .
And while it might be difficult to disentangle the two , even in today ’ s highly polarized environment , that combination didn ’ t bode well for his reelection chances .

Donald Trump is officially a one-term president, the first to fail a reelection bid in nearly 30 years. But history shows his loss isn’t surprising, given the circumstances.
One-term presidents used to be a lot more common. Take the period between 1837 (when Andrew Jackson’s second term ended) and 1860, for example — no president served more than one term. And between 1900 and 1932, we had seven presidents, only one of whom served two full terms. (Some died in office, some lost reelection, and some chose not to run for another term.) But in the modern era, presidents have increasingly left office because term limits prevent them from staying, not because the voters have turned them out.
Trump is setting a dangerous precedent for American democracy
One of the major questions about one-term presidents is whether their fates are shaped mainly by their actions and political failings, or primarily by conditions beyond their control. This is, of course, a tricky question to answer, as there are some traits one-term presidents seem to share — a bad economy, poor leadership — but it’s hard to know how much any of those factors are actually within their control.
[The Birther Myth Stuck Around For Years. The Election Fraud Myth Might Too.]
Let’s start with the biggest factor that ties one-term presidents together: a major economic downturn. Herbert Hoover, who was president at the start of the Great Depression, is perhaps the most extreme example. It’s estimated that unemployment during the Great Depression was around 20 percent or more, and thousands of banks failed. And although Hoover did take measures to address the crisis, his view that voluntary programs were preferable to direct government involvement in stabilizing the economy ultimately cost him. More recent presidents like Jimmy Carter, who was in office during a less severe but still serious economic recession, also paid for it at the ballot box. Similarly, the same inflation problems that plagued Carter had previously dragged down Gerald Ford, who had lost to Carter four years earlier. And the rising unemployment in 1992 quickly eroded support for George H.W. Bush in that year’s election, even after he had been quite popular throughout his presidency.
The importance of the economy to a president’s reelection bid also hinges on timing. When a crisis or a recession hits in a reelection year, that tends to spell trouble. In contrast, Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower both weathered recessions during their time in office, but those downturns hit a few years before they faced reelection.
So while the coronavirus pandemic was (and is) an extraordinary event, the economic crisis it produced actually falls somewhat in line with the situations faced by other one-term presidents. It’s true that many voters still had a positive opinion of Trump’s handling of the economy even amid this year’s massive layoffs, but public opinion data also suggested that voters were particularly worried about the pandemic. Furthemore, they generally thought Trump had done a poor job of handling it, making it difficult to untangle the public health crisis from the economic downturn it caused.
There’s also the question of how a president leads in a moment of crisis, which has been the downfall of many a one-term president. For example, to cite Hoover again, popular memory is especially unforgiving of his handling of the Great Depression. At the time, his name was attached to camps built by unemployed Americans as shelter when they lost their homes, and a “Hoover flag” referred to an empty pocket turned inside out. Of course, Hoover is an extreme example, but other one-term presidents have experienced a similar fate, earning reputations for being hapless and bumbling in the face of serious challenges. This has certainly been the case with Trump, who is thought to have mismanaged the pandemic and, by downplaying the severity of the disease, worsened the partisan divides on how to best combat it.
What’s hard, though, in analyzing one-term presidents is knowing just how much any of this is actually within their control. We know that presidents are not infinitely powerful, especially when it comes to engineering major legislation to address complicated economic problems. Take Carter. Economists at the time thought government spending needed to be curtailed to stop inflation, which meant making major cuts to government programs, but this was politically impossible for Carter, as Congress would have resisted and he would have lost support among New Deal Democrats, which were still an important part of the party’s coalition.
Political scientist Stephen Skowronek refers to this quandary, which presidents periodically find themselves in, as the “politics of disjunction” — circumstances in which a party coalition (in Carter’s case, New Deal Democrats) has dominated politics for decades, and politicians elected by that coalition feel beholden to the ideas and policies that got them into office, but those ideas are no longer a good match for addressing the problems facing the country.
Presidents in these situations often try to fix the crises that arise on their watch, but they face serious political limitations in doing so. Hoover falls into this category as well. He did engage in some policy experimentation, including the creation of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which sought to provide some public support to banks and railroads. But like Carter, Hoover was caught between pushing the boundaries of what was politically feasible at the time, especially within his own party, and the reality that much greater change was needed to address the economic crisis.
How does this apply to Trump? In one way, we can sort of see how the problems of political feasibility have shaped the stimulus negotiations. It would have been almost impossible to get congressional Republicans to agree to a big relief bill regardless of who was president. But it’s also hard to say that the White House took the pandemic seriously and was then thwarted by politics in Congress or anywhere else. Instead, Trump publicly battled with Democratic governors over whether to reopen some types of businesses, urged the public not to let the virus control their lives (after being diagnosed with it himself), and denied the seriousness of the situation at almost every stage.
[Could Social Alienation Among Some Trump Supporters Help Explain Why Polls Underestimated Trump Again?]
This isn’t a typical story, even for presidents who mishandled the crises they faced and subsequently lost reelection, which makes it especially hard to answer the question of how much of Trump’s failure to be reelected was Trump’s own fault and how much was due to factors beyond his control.
What is interesting here, though, is that in spite of these conditions, Trump was a competitive incumbent. Both parties benefited from record turnout, and, in the end, he will probably have won about 47 percent of the popular vote, compared to more like 40 percent for Hoover, Carter, and Bush. Despite Trump’s low approval ratings, he didn’t face a serious primary challenger either — which also makes his experience different from that of Ford, Carter and Bush.
This last point might give us a clue as to why it’s been so long since a president lost reelection. We’ve become more polarized as a county, and as a result, the parties have become more ideologically uniform, making the factional politics that drive primary challengers less likely. Negative partisanship has also raised the stakes, crowding out the possibilities for a centrist independent candidacy to divide a party. In fact, the consolidation of party support around presidential candidates has arguably even helped incumbents like George W. Bush and Barack Obama win reelection.
Ultimately, Trump’s presidency faced some of the same problems that have brought down other administrations: economic woes and political dissatisfaction with poor leadership. But he also brought his own political baggage. And while it might be difficult to disentangle the two, even in today’s highly polarized environment, that combination didn’t bode well for his reelection chances.
‘I buy that COVID was a factor in polls underestimating’ GOP: Nate Silver


fivethirthyeight--2020-11-30--Politics Podcast: Why Did Down-Ballot Democrats Have Such A Mediocre Showing?

Biden ’ s 2020 electoral map was ultimately a pretty good one for Democrats .
While several states may have been closer than Democrats would have liked , Biden won back the “ blue wall ” states in the Upper Midwest and expanded Democrats ’ map in the Sun Belt .
He also won a record breaking 80 million votes nationally .
Democrats down-ballot can ’ t quite say the same , though .
In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew discusses the challenges that the party faced in House , Senate and state legislature races @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a good use of polling to survey preferences for the 2024 Republican primary before Trump has even left the White House .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggestion for “ good polling vs. bad polling ” ?
Get in touch by email , on Twitter or in the comments .

Biden’s 2020 electoral map was ultimately a pretty good one for Democrats. While several states may have been decided by smaller margins than Democrats would have liked, Biden won back the “blue wall” states in the Upper Midwest and expanded Democrats’ map in the Sun Belt. He also won a record-breaking 80 million votes nationally. Democrats further down the ballot didn’t fare quite as well, though. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew discusses the challenges the party faced in House, Senate and state legislature races. They also ask whether it was a good use of polling to survey preferences for the 2024 Republican primary before Trump has even left the White House.
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.