fivethirthyeight--2020-10-12--How President Trump Could Still Win Reelection

In this episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew considers how President Trump might pull off getting reelected @ @ @ @ @ is going in the Sun Belt states .

In this episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew considers how President Trump might pull off getting reelected and how the 2020 race is going in the Sun Belt states.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-14--How Conservative Is Amy Coney Barrett?

How Conservative Is Amy Coney Barrett?

Just how conservative is Amy Coney Barrett ?
It ’ s a question we ’ ve asked before with other appellate judges who have been nominated to the Supreme Court — most recently with Justice Brett Kavanaugh — but it ’ s surprisingly difficult to answer with any precision .
On the one hand , we know that Barrett ’ s appointment would mean a huge rightward shift on the court , as she is far more ideologically conservative than the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
But on the other hand , we don ’ t really know how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s confirmed .
We can look to her track record on the 7th U.S .
Circuit Court of Appeals , though , for clues .
Barrett has served on that court for almost three years now , and two different analyses of her rulings point to the same conclusion : Barrett is one of the more conservative judges on the circuit — and maybe even the most conservative .
University of Virginia law professors Joshua Fischman and Kevin Cope analyzed more than 1,700 cases that the 7th Circuit has heard since Barrett joined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where Barrett cast a vote , and according to their analysis , Barrett is part of a cluster of conservative judges at the rightmost edge of the 7th Circuit .
However , even though her ideological estimate was furthest to the right of the judges currently on the 7th Circuit , Barrett was statistically indistinguishable from the three other Trump appointees and three judges appointed by other Republicans , including prominent conservative Judges Diane Sykes and Frank Easterbrook .
“ [ Barrett is ] clearly near the right side of the conservative spectrum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us .
“ She ’ s not off the charts , though — she ’ s in line with other well-known , well-respected conservative judges on the court.
” But there are some differences between Barrett and her current conservative colleagues .
Fischman and Cope also dug into how judges ruled on various types of issues and found that Barrett is closer to the middle of the court on cases involving employment discrimination , labor and criminal defendants , but much more conservative in cases involving civil rights — a category that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights and civil rights claims against government employees , but also includes hot-button issues like gun rights , voting rights and abortion rights .
Barrett ’ s record on abortion has come under a lot of scrutiny , but Fischman noted that she might also be especially conservative on gun rights .
She only heard a handful of cases involving Second Amendment rights during her time on the 7th Circuit , but she came out strongly against several of her conservative colleagues in a case involving a law stripping felons of their gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t allow such a blanket ban .
Those views could be especially relevant on the Supreme Court , which hasn ’ t heard a major case involving gun rights in almost a decade .
We can also look at how Barrett has ruled in special cases known as “ en banc ” hearings , which are used when there ’ s a serious disagreement among the judges about an outcome , or when circuit precedent is being reconsidered .
These cases are not very common — Barrett , for instance , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ panels in her three years on the court — but they can offer a clearer snapshot of a judge ’ s ideology , as judges often have more freedom in how they rule in these cases , in part because they are not constrained by circuit precedent as they normally would be .
En banc hearings are also more comparable to cases the Supreme Court might hear because the legal issues are knottier .
And they ’ re more similar to how the Supreme Court works , because they require all the circuit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them into smaller panels of three judges , which is how the appeals court normally operates .
An analysis of 7th Circuit en banc cases by Tom Clark , a political science professor at Emory University , mirrored what Fischman and Cope found : After just six cases , Barrett fell on the rightmost edge of the court , along with two other Trump appointees and Sykes .
( There was considerably more uncertainty in her estimate , though , since Clark ’ s model was drawing on less data for judges who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time . )
“ Things could be different with more data , of course , ” said Clark .
But overall , he thought her ideological profile was remarkably clear .
“ She ’ s voting very consistently in these cases so far .
Even with this small number of cases , she ’ s showing up on the far right edge of the court.
” It ’ s hard , of course , to directly extrapolate from Barrett ’ s record as an appellate judge to how she might rule as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s reasonable to expect she will be reliably conservative .
That said , Barrett has not always ruled in line with fellow conservatives on the 7th Circuit , and even the conservative justices on the Supreme Court disagree with each other on some topics or differ on which issues are more important .
It remains to be seen just how persuadable Barrett might be if she ’ s confirmed , or how her perspective might change after a few years on the bench .
This is important , too , because to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the right on hot-button issues , Chief Justice John Roberts may try to peel off another conservative vote .
Whether Barrett might be amenable to such overtures is hard to say , but we do know that during her time on the 7th Circuit , Fischman and Cope found that she has voted in a liberal direction about 20 percent of the time when at least one Democratic nominee is on the panel but only about 9 percent of the time when the panel is composed of three Republican nominees .
That could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arguments of her more liberal colleagues — or that she is choosing not to dissent in some cases for the sake of collegiality .
Either way , though , it ’ s a sign that she does vote slightly differently depending on the composition of the panel , rather than being consistently conservative regardless of who she ’ s voting with .
Clifford W. Berlow , a partner at the law firm Jenner & Block who specializes in appellate litigation , said that this is in line with the 7th Circuit ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ circuit .
“ I don ’ t think you ’ ve seen from Barrett or any of the other [ Trump appointees ] the sort of scathing , scorched-earth dissents or biting concurrences that you might see in some other circuits , ” Berlow said .
He added that he wouldn ’ t be surprised if Barrett carried this sense of collegiality with her to the Supreme Court .
Overall , though , it ’ s plain from Barrett ’ s record why Republicans are eager to confirm her before the election and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ With only a few years under her belt as a judge , she ’ s established herself as one of the most conservative members of a court that already has a lot of Republican appointees .
If she ’ s confirmed , it seems fairly safe to assume that she would continue that pattern — even if she ’ s occasionally willing to break from her fellow conservatives .

Just how conservative is Amy Coney Barrett?
It’s a question we’ve asked before with other appellate judges who have been nominated to the Supreme Court — most recently with Justice Brett Kavanaugh — but it’s surprisingly difficult to answer with any precision. On the one hand, we know that Barrett’s appointment would mean a huge rightward shift on the court, as she is far more ideologically conservative than the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But on the other hand, we don’t really know how conservative Barrett would be if she’s confirmed.
We can look to her track record on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, though, for clues. Barrett has served on that court for almost three years now, and two different analyses of her rulings point to the same conclusion: Barrett is one of the more conservative judges on the circuit — and maybe even the most conservative.
University of Virginia law professors Joshua Fischman and Kevin Cope analyzed more than 1,700 cases that the 7th Circuit has heard since Barrett joined the court in 2017, including 378 where Barrett cast a vote, and according to their analysis, Barrett is part of a cluster of conservative judges at the rightmost edge of the 7th Circuit.
However, even though her ideological estimate was furthest to the right of the judges currently on the 7th Circuit, Barrett was statistically indistinguishable from the three other Trump appointees and three judges appointed by other Republicans, including prominent conservative Judges Diane Sykes and Frank Easterbrook. “[Barrett is] clearly near the right side of the conservative spectrum on the court,” Fischman told us. “She’s not off the charts, though — she’s in line with other well-known, well-respected conservative judges on the court.”
But there are some differences between Barrett and her current conservative colleagues. Fischman and Cope also dug into how judges ruled on various types of issues and found that Barrett is closer to the middle of the court on cases involving employment discrimination, labor and criminal defendants, but much more conservative in cases involving civil rights — a category that is mainly composed of cases involving prisoners’ rights and civil rights claims against government employees, but also includes hot-button issues like gun rights, voting rights and abortion rights.
Barrett is particularly conservative on civil rights issues Share of decisions in which Amy Coney Barrett voted conservatively, compared to all judges on 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, since 2017 conservative share of decisions Type of cases Barrett 7th Circuit Diff. Discrimination + labor 83.8% 83.2% +0.6 Criminal + habeas corpus 87.9 86.2 +1.6 Civil rights 83.2 77.6 +5.6 Each decision was coded as liberal or conservative, where “liberal” generally meant a decision was in favor of a criminal defendant or against the state. Decisions that were part liberal and part conservative were coded as a fraction of a decision for each side. Does not include about a thousand cases that could not be classified as liberal or conservative. Source: Fischman & Cope
Barrett’s record on abortion has come under a lot of scrutiny, but Fischman noted that she might also be especially conservative on gun rights. She only heard a handful of cases involving Second Amendment rights during her time on the 7th Circuit, but she came out strongly against several of her conservative colleagues in a case involving a law stripping felons of their gun rights, arguing that the Second Amendment doesn’t allow such a blanket ban. Those views could be especially relevant on the Supreme Court, which hasn’t heard a major case involving gun rights in almost a decade.
We can also look at how Barrett has ruled in special cases known as “en banc” hearings, which are used when there’s a serious disagreement among the judges about an outcome, or when circuit precedent is being reconsidered. These cases are not very common — Barrett, for instance, has only sat on six en banc panels in her three years on the court — but they can offer a clearer snapshot of a judge’s ideology, as judges often have more freedom in how they rule in these cases, in part because they are not constrained by circuit precedent as they normally would be. En banc hearings are also more comparable to cases the Supreme Court might hear because the legal issues are knottier. And they’re more similar to how the Supreme Court works, because they require all the circuit judges to vote together rather than splitting them into smaller panels of three judges, which is how the appeals court normally operates.
An analysis of 7th Circuit en banc cases by Tom Clark, a political science professor at Emory University, mirrored what Fischman and Cope found: After just six cases, Barrett fell on the rightmost edge of the court, along with two other Trump appointees and Sykes. (There was considerably more uncertainty in her estimate, though, since Clark’s model was drawing on less data for judges who have been on the court for less time.)
“Things could be different with more data, of course,” said Clark. But overall, he thought her ideological profile was remarkably clear. “She’s voting very consistently in these cases so far. Even with this small number of cases, she’s showing up on the far right edge of the court.”
It’s hard, of course, to directly extrapolate from Barrett’s record as an appellate judge to how she might rule as a Supreme Court justice, but it’s reasonable to expect she will be reliably conservative. That said, Barrett has not always ruled in line with fellow conservatives on the 7th Circuit, and even the conservative justices on the Supreme Court disagree with each other on some topics or differ on which issues are more important. It remains to be seen just how persuadable Barrett might be if she’s confirmed, or how her perspective might change after a few years on the bench.
This is important, too, because to keep the Supreme Court from moving quickly to the right on hot-button issues, Chief Justice John Roberts may try to peel off another conservative vote. Whether Barrett might be amenable to such overtures is hard to say, but we do know that during her time on the 7th Circuit, Fischman and Cope found that she has voted in a liberal direction about 20 percent of the time when at least one Democratic nominee is on the panel but only about 9 percent of the time when the panel is composed of three Republican nominees. That could indicate that Barrett is open to the arguments of her more liberal colleagues — or that she is choosing not to dissent in some cases for the sake of collegiality. Either way, though, it’s a sign that she does vote slightly differently depending on the composition of the panel, rather than being consistently conservative regardless of who she’s voting with.
Clifford W. Berlow, a partner at the law firm Jenner & Block who specializes in appellate litigation, said that this is in line with the 7th Circuit’s general reputation as a polite, respectful circuit. “I don’t think you’ve seen from Barrett or any of the other [Trump appointees] the sort of scathing, scorched-earth dissents or biting concurrences that you might see in some other circuits,” Berlow said. He added that he wouldn’t be surprised if Barrett carried this sense of collegiality with her to the Supreme Court.
Overall, though, it’s plain from Barrett’s record why Republicans are eager to confirm her before the election and why Democrats are dead-set against her. With only a few years under her belt as a judge, she’s established herself as one of the most conservative members of a court that already has a lot of Republican appointees. If she’s confirmed, it seems fairly safe to assume that she would continue that pattern — even if she’s occasionally willing to break from her fellow conservatives.
What to watch for during Supreme Court confirmation hearings | FiveThirtyEight


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-14--Will Georgia Turn Blue?

Will Georgia Turn Blue?

For all the turmoil in the country this year , our presidential election forecast has been remarkably stable .
Dating back to June 1 , the first date that we ran the forecast , only two states had flipped between Donald Trump and Joe Biden at any point : North Carolina and Ohio .
On Wednesday , though , they were joined by a third state , Georgia , where for the first time all year , Joe Biden is the favorite — the ever-so-slight favorite !
— in our forecast .
Of course , it ’ s a bit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when FiveThirtyEight ’ s forecasts are probabilistic .
With the addition of a new Quinnipiac University poll showing him 7 percentage points ahead there — more about that poll in a moment — Biden ’ s chances in Georgia rose from 46 percent to 51 percent .
( They ’ ve since fallen to an even 50/50 . )
So a ) that ’ s not really that big of a change and b ) the race is tossup ; Trump could easily re-emerge as the nominal favorite ( turning Georgia red again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time that you ’ re reading this .
In another sense , though , the shift in Georgia should come as no surprise .
Consider : • In 2016 , Trump won Georgia by only 5 points in an election where he lost the popular vote by 2 points nationally .
Thus , Georgia was only 7 points more Republican than the country as a whole .
• In 2018 , Brian Kemp won Georgia ’ s gubernatorial election by 1 point over Stacey Abrams , in an election where Democrats won the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 9 points .
Thus , Georgia was 10 points redder than the country overall .
And if Georgia is 7 to 10 points more Republican than the country as a whole , then you might expect it to turn blue with Biden having a 10-point lead in national polls , as he currently does .
Our model has been a bit more skeptical about Biden ’ s Georgia chances , though , for a couple of important reasons .
First , the state is relatively inelastic , meaning that it tends not to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a whole does .
That ’ s because there haven ’ t traditionally been a lot of swing voters in Georgia .
Republicans have a base of conservative , religious , white voters ; Democrats have a base of Black voters , plus younger white , Asian and Hispanic voters in Atlanta and in college towns .
The Republican base has historically been slightly larger , though , so while Democrats could get to 45 percent or 48 percent or 49 percent statewide … 50 percent has been hard .
Second , Georgia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Cost of Voting Index , a measure of how easy it is to vote in each state , those laws have gotten stricter since 2016 .
Our research shows that enacting stricter voting laws tends to hurt Democrats , too , which is factored into our estimates of the partisan baselines in each state .
So even as Atlanta ’ s suburbs have been shifting blue — leading to a win by Democrat Lucy McBath in the 6th Congressional District in the upscale northern suburbs of Atlanta in 2018 — these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats to overcome to achieve statewide wins .
That ’ s why even though Biden had already been ahead in our Georgia polling average , our forecast — which also accounts for these other factors and also slightly discounts Biden ’ s current national lead — still had Trump slightly favored in Georgia .
Then came the Quinnipiac poll .
What should you make of a poll that has one candidate 7 points ahead when everybody else has the race tied , or virtually so ?
Well , you should … throw it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s good when high-quality pollsters such as Quinnipiac are willing to deviate from the consensus ; it means they ’ re not herding toward what everybody else says .
At the same time , Quinnipiac has produced perhaps the best set of numbers for Biden of any major pollster .
Another recent release of Quinnipiac polls had Biden ahead by 11 points in Florida , 13 points in Pennsylvania and 5 points in Iowa , far better than the FiveThirtyEight averages in each state .
I ’ m not one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the crosstabs and declare whether a particular firm ’ s approach is right or wrong .
Unless there ’ s something egregious , I think the right approach is to trust the process of averaging the polls .
At the same time , a 7-point lead coming from Quinnipiac doesn ’ t mean quite the same thing as it would from a pollster like , say , Monmouth University , which has tended to show results for Biden that are near to or slightly worse than the consensus .
( Monmouth ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the debate — had shown Trump slightly ahead . )
Our model tries to account for all of these tendencies with our house effects adjustment ; it accounted for the fact that Quinnipiac had previously shown Biden ahead by 3 points in Georgia , for instance , at a time when Trump was leading in our polling average there .
Still , a 7-point lead for Biden was enough to impress our model , even coming from Quinnipiac .
Next question : Although Georgia could obviously go either way , could it actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other words , could it be the tipping-point state , the one that nets Biden or Trump his 270th electoral vote ?
That ’ s pretty unlikely : The model says there ’ s only a 2.4 percent chance that Georgia is the tipping point .
That ’ s because if Biden has won Georgia , he ’ ll probably also have won at least one of its neighbors , North Carolina or Florida , where he has somewhat clearer leads in polls .
And if Biden wins North Carolina or Florida , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without Georgia .
In theory , Georgia could matter if Biden completely collapsed in the Midwest : If he lost Michigan and Minnesota and Pennsylvania and Wiscosnin then Biden could still win the Electoral College by flipping Georgia and North Carolina and Florida while holding the other states that Hillary Clinton won .
Again , though , we ’ re talking about some long-shot scenarios .
But where Georgia could be of great importance is in the U.S. Senate , where it actually has two races : a standard Class II Senate election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democrat Jon Ossoff , and a special election where the appointed Republican incumbent Kelly Loeffler is defending her seat against challengers from both parties .
Georgia requires runoffs if no candidate gets 50 percent of the vote , so the Perdue-Ossoff race could potentially require a runoff if the Libertarian candidate gets enough votes there .
And the special election is very likely to require a runoff , since it has more than a dozen candidates and no candidate is polling particularly close to 50 percent of the vote there .
Recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the special election , too .
One Democrat — Raphael Warnock , the pastor at Ebenezer Baptist Church — has consolidated the large majority of the Democratic vote following endorsements from Barack Obama and other prominent Democrats .
He is very likely to advance to the runoff , based on recent polls .
Meanwhile , the second runoff slot is a bitter feud between Loeffler and another Republican , Rep. Doug Collins , who have been trying to outcompete one another by bragging about how conservative they are and how much they support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an increasingly purple state where Trump isn ’ t that popular .
And indeed , Loffler and Collins have fallen behind Warnock in some recent polls that test one-on-one matchups .
Our model tries to consider all of these complexities — as well as the likelihood that the environment might not be as favorable for Democrats in January as it is in November — and now has Warnock with a 50 percent chance of eventually winning , Loeffler with a 29 percent chance and Collins with a 21 percent chance .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lieberman , have virtually zero chance .
In the regular Georgia Senate race , Perdue has a 72 percent chance and Ossoff a 28 percent chance , per our “ Deluxe ” forecast .
There ’ s around a one-in-four chance that race will require a runoff , too , which could mean there could be two uncalled Senate until the runoff is held on Jan. 5 .
So there are certainly no sure things for Democrats in Georgia .
But the fact that a formerly red state has become perhaps the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bad sign for Republicans .

Will Georgia Turn Blue? Our model has been skeptical about Biden’s Georgia chances, but that may no longer be true.
For all the turmoil in the country this year, our presidential election forecast has been remarkably stable. Dating back to June 1, the first date that we ran the forecast, only two states had flipped between Donald Trump and Joe Biden at any point: North Carolina and Ohio. On Wednesday, though, they were joined by a third state, Georgia, where for the first time all year, Joe Biden is the favorite — the ever-so-slight favorite! — in our forecast.
Look which state just turned blue in the snake.https://t.co/ajG88SznSA pic.twitter.com/sHnroFJKtS — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) October 14, 2020
Of course, it’s a bit silly to talk about states switching sides when FiveThirtyEight’s forecasts are probabilistic. With the addition of a new Quinnipiac University poll showing him 7 percentage points ahead there — more about that poll in a moment — Biden’s chances in Georgia rose from 46 percent to 51 percent. (They’ve since fallen to an even 50/50.) So a) that’s not really that big of a change and b) the race is tossup; Trump could easily re-emerge as the nominal favorite (turning Georgia red again in the snake diagram) by the time that you’re reading this.
How does early voting affect the forecast? l FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast
In another sense, though, the shift in Georgia should come as no surprise. Consider:
In 2016, Trump won Georgia by only 5 points in an election where he lost the popular vote by 2 points nationally. Thus, Georgia was only 7 points more Republican than the country as a whole.
In 2018, Brian Kemp won Georgia’s gubernatorial election by 1 point over Stacey Abrams, in an election where Democrats won the popular vote for the U.S. House by 9 points. Thus, Georgia was 10 points redder than the country overall.
And if Georgia is 7 to 10 points more Republican than the country as a whole, then you might expect it to turn blue with Biden having a 10-point lead in national polls, as he currently does.
Our model has been a bit more skeptical about Biden’s Georgia chances, though, for a couple of important reasons. First, the state is relatively inelastic, meaning that it tends not to swing as much as the country as a whole does. That’s because there haven’t traditionally been a lot of swing voters in Georgia. Republicans have a base of conservative, religious, white voters; Democrats have a base of Black voters, plus younger white, Asian and Hispanic voters in Atlanta and in college towns. The Republican base has historically been slightly larger, though, so while Democrats could get to 45 percent or 48 percent or 49 percent statewide … 50 percent has been hard.
[Live Updates: We’re Tracking The Vote And Voting Problems]
Second, Georgia has strict voting laws, and according to the Cost of Voting Index, a measure of how easy it is to vote in each state, those laws have gotten stricter since 2016. Our research shows that enacting stricter voting laws tends to hurt Democrats, too, which is factored into our estimates of the partisan baselines in each state.
So even as Atlanta’s suburbs have been shifting blue — leading to a win by Democrat Lucy McBath in the 6th Congressional District in the upscale northern suburbs of Atlanta in 2018 — these are still some fairly big hurdles for Democrats to overcome to achieve statewide wins. That’s why even though Biden had already been ahead in our Georgia polling average, our forecast — which also accounts for these other factors and also slightly discounts Biden’s current national lead — still had Trump slightly favored in Georgia.
Then came the Quinnipiac poll. What should you make of a poll that has one candidate 7 points ahead when everybody else has the race tied, or virtually so? Well, you should … throw it in the polling average. Generally speaking, it’s good when high-quality pollsters such as Quinnipiac are willing to deviate from the consensus; it means they’re not herding toward what everybody else says.
At the same time, Quinnipiac has produced perhaps the best set of numbers for Biden of any major pollster. Another recent release of Quinnipiac polls had Biden ahead by 11 points in Florida, 13 points in Pennsylvania and 5 points in Iowa, far better than the FiveThirtyEight averages in each state.
I’m not one to play poll doctor and dive into the crosstabs and declare whether a particular firm’s approach is right or wrong. Unless there’s something egregious, I think the right approach is to trust the process of averaging the polls. At the same time, a 7-point lead coming from Quinnipiac doesn’t mean quite the same thing as it would from a pollster like, say, Monmouth University, which has tended to show results for Biden that are near to or slightly worse than the consensus. (Monmouth’s most recent Georgia poll — taken before the debate — had shown Trump slightly ahead.)
How voting is going so far in 2020 | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast
Our model tries to account for all of these tendencies with our house effects adjustment; it accounted for the fact that Quinnipiac had previously shown Biden ahead by 3 points in Georgia, for instance, at a time when Trump was leading in our polling average there. Still, a 7-point lead for Biden was enough to impress our model, even coming from Quinnipiac.
Next question: Although Georgia could obviously go either way, could it actually be decisive in the election? In other words, could it be the tipping-point state, the one that nets Biden or Trump his 270th electoral vote?
That’s pretty unlikely: The model says there’s only a 2.4 percent chance that Georgia is the tipping point. That’s because if Biden has won Georgia, he’ll probably also have won at least one of its neighbors, North Carolina or Florida, where he has somewhat clearer leads in polls. And if Biden wins North Carolina or Florida, Trump is probably toast, with or without Georgia.
In theory, Georgia could matter if Biden completely collapsed in the Midwest: If he lost Michigan and Minnesota and Pennsylvania and Wiscosnin then Biden could still win the Electoral College by flipping Georgia and North Carolina and Florida while holding the other states that Hillary Clinton won. Again, though, we’re talking about some long-shot scenarios.
But where Georgia could be of great importance is in the U.S. Senate, where it actually has two races: a standard Class II Senate election between the Republican incumbent David Perdue and the Democrat Jon Ossoff, and a special election where the appointed Republican incumbent Kelly Loeffler is defending her seat against challengers from both parties.
Georgia requires runoffs if no candidate gets 50 percent of the vote, so the Perdue-Ossoff race could potentially require a runoff if the Libertarian candidate gets enough votes there. And the special election is very likely to require a runoff, since it has more than a dozen candidates and no candidate is polling particularly close to 50 percent of the vote there.
Recent developments have been favorable to Democrats in the special election, too. One Democrat — Raphael Warnock, the pastor at Ebenezer Baptist Church — has consolidated the large majority of the Democratic vote following endorsements from Barack Obama and other prominent Democrats. He is very likely to advance to the runoff, based on recent polls. Meanwhile, the second runoff slot is a bitter feud between Loeffler and another Republican, Rep. Doug Collins, who have been trying to outcompete one another by bragging about how conservative they are and how much they support Trump. This is potentially toxic messaging in an increasingly purple state where Trump isn’t that popular. And indeed, Loffler and Collins have fallen behind Warnock in some recent polls that test one-on-one matchups.
Our model tries to consider all of these complexities — as well as the likelihood that the environment might not be as favorable for Democrats in January as it is in November — and now has Warnock with a 50 percent chance of eventually winning, Loeffler with a 29 percent chance and Collins with a 21 percent chance. The other candidates, such as Democrat Matt Lieberman, have virtually zero chance.
In the regular Georgia Senate race, Perdue has a 72 percent chance and Ossoff a 28 percent chance, per our “Deluxe” forecast. There’s around a one-in-four chance that race will require a runoff, too, which could mean there could be two uncalled Senate until the runoff is held on Jan. 5.
So there are certainly no sure things for Democrats in Georgia. But the fact that a formerly red state has become perhaps the most competitive battleground in the country is a bad sign for Republicans.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-14--What We’ve Managed To Learn About How Amy Coney Barrett Would Rule On Abortion And The Election

Modern Supreme Court confirmation hearings seem like they should be deeply consequential — especially when the nominee has the power to fundamentally shift the balance of the court .
But in reality , they can feel like an exercise in futility .
Amy Coney Barrett ’ s hearings , which just wrapped up their third day , are no exception .
As my colleague Perry Bacon Jr. wrote yesterday , we ’ ve mostly learned that Barrett is very good at politely declining to answer senators ’ questions .
And at one point during the hearings on Wednesday , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among the Republican senators about the Houston Astros .
There were some crumbs of information that came out of the two days of questioning , though .
Here are three takeaways from the hearings on Tuesday and Wednesday : Barrett refused to answer basic questions about how she ’ d rule on the election One of the biggest questions looming over the hearings was how Barrett might rule in a dispute about the election — which could arrive at the Supreme Court ’ s doorstep just days after she ’ s confirmed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be Trump ’ s “ pawn , ” but then she mostly evaded questions about presidential power and how she ’ d rule in various situations involving the 2020 election , including a query from Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein about whether the president has the power to unilaterally delay the election .
( Short answer : He can ’ t . )
Democrats pressed Barrett to say she ’ d recuse herself from any election-related case , but she refused to do so , although she said she ’ d take the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a case came her way .
When asked by Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar if she thought absentee ballots were “ an essential way to vote for millions of Americans right now , ” she said she couldn ’ t comment .
And she also declined to answer a question about whether voter intimidation was illegal — even though this question arguably has an easy , factual answer .
These responses might seem like they ’ re largely in keeping with Barrett ’ s broader tactic of batting away the senators ’ hypotheticals .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on even fairly straightforward legal issues is perhaps a sign of just how important she knows her views on all of these issues could be in just a few weeks .
She may not view precedents on abortion and birth control as “ settled law ” If you tuned into the confirmation hearings on Tuesday and Wednesday , you probably learned a lot of Constitutional Law 101 — because if there was a theme during the second and third day of Barrett ’ s hearings , it was precedent .
Specifically , what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more recent ) Supreme Court precedents on issues like school segregation , birth control , abortion and same-sex marriage .
For the most part , Barrett wasn ’ t willing to say that these major precedents were “ settled law ” — a term that ’ s generally used to refer to cases that are so well-established that the high court wouldn ’ t revisit them .
She did confirm that she saw Brown v. Board of Education , which struck down school segregation , and Loving v. Virginia , which struck down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decided .
But she wasn ’ t willing to do the same for any other case .
Roe v. Wade , the 1973 ruling that established a constitutional right to abortion , was one such case where Barrett refused to declare a perspective .
In fairness , every would-be Supreme Court justice gets asked about it , and they typically tend to dodge — for instance , during his confirmation hearings in 2018 , Brett Kavanaugh said , “ one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the past 45 years.
” But Barrett was perhaps even more cautious in her response .
In response to another question from Klobuchar , she said that while there are some cases that are clearly so settled that nobody is pushing for them to be overruled , the fact that she was answering a lot of questions from the senators about Roe indicated to her that Roe wasn ’ t among them .
Barrett was very careful , of course , to say that her silence on Roe was not a sign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Barrett also demurred when several senators asked her about Griswold v. Connecticut , the 1965 ruling that struck down a law criminalizing birth control as an invasion of marital privacy .
Her answer to a series of questions about the case was essentially — Griswold isn ’ t up for debate because no one is challenging Griswold .
She did not , notably , say that she thought the case was correctly decided — which is a stark contrast from previous Republican nominees , including Chief Justice John Roberts , who said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I agree with the Griswold court ’ s conclusion that marital privacy extends to contraception and availability of that.
” She presented herself as an independent thinker with an “ open mind ” While she repeatedly acknowledged her debt to her mentor , the late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia , she also said she ’ d be her own justice who keeps an “ open mind ” about every case .
But she didn ’ t elaborate further about what that would mean in practice .
It ’ s an interesting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was known as an extremely conservative judge , he also had an independent streak , which was most visible in some occasional liberal votes in cases involving policing and the rights of criminal defendants .
It ’ s possible that Barrett will also have issues where she similarly breaks the conservative mold — but we didn ’ t get many clues for what those might be .
We do know from a recent analysis from her votes as a judge on the 7th Circuit that she is much closer to the middle of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employment discrimination and criminal defendants .
But those were not the issues that took center stage on Tuesday and Wednesday — and overall , the hearings ended without much of a sense of what an “ open mind ” means to Barrett .

Modern Supreme Court confirmation hearings seem like they should be deeply consequential — especially when the nominee has the power to fundamentally shift the balance of the court. But in reality, they can feel like an exercise in futility. Amy Coney Barrett’s hearings, which just wrapped up their third day, are no exception. As my colleague Perry Bacon Jr. wrote yesterday, we’ve mostly learned that Barrett is very good at politely declining to answer senators’ questions. And at one point during the hearings on Wednesday, the question-and-answer session devolved into some friendly wrangling among the Republican senators about the Houston Astros.
There were some crumbs of information that came out of the two days of questioning, though. Here are three takeaways from the hearings on Tuesday and Wednesday:
Barrett refused to answer basic questions about how she’d rule on the election
One of the biggest questions looming over the hearings was how Barrett might rule in a dispute about the election — which could arrive at the Supreme Court’s doorstep just days after she’s confirmed. Barrett said she didn’t intend to be Trump’s “pawn,” but then she mostly evaded questions about presidential power and how she’d rule in various situations involving the 2020 election, including a query from Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein about whether the president has the power to unilaterally delay the election. (Short answer: He can’t.)
Democrats pressed Barrett to say she’d recuse herself from any election-related case, but she refused to do so, although she said she’d take the idea “very seriously” if such a case came her way. When asked by Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar if she thought absentee ballots were “an essential way to vote for millions of Americans right now,” she said she couldn’t comment. And she also declined to answer a question about whether voter intimidation was illegal — even though this question arguably has an easy, factual answer.
These responses might seem like they’re largely in keeping with Barrett’s broader tactic of batting away the senators’ hypotheticals. But her refusal to take a stand on even fairly straightforward legal issues is perhaps a sign of just how important she knows her views on all of these issues could be in just a few weeks.
She may not view precedents on abortion and birth control as “settled law”
If you tuned into the confirmation hearings on Tuesday and Wednesday, you probably learned a lot of Constitutional Law 101 — because if there was a theme during the second and third day of Barrett’s hearings, it was precedent. Specifically, what Barrett thinks about long-standing (and some more recent) Supreme Court precedents on issues like school segregation, birth control, abortion and same-sex marriage. For the most part, Barrett wasn’t willing to say that these major precedents were “settled law” — a term that’s generally used to refer to cases that are so well-established that the high court wouldn’t revisit them. She did confirm that she saw Brown v. Board of Education, which struck down school segregation, and Loving v. Virginia, which struck down bans on interracial marriage, as correctly decided. But she wasn’t willing to do the same for any other case.
Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that established a constitutional right to abortion, was one such case where Barrett refused to declare a perspective. In fairness, every would-be Supreme Court justice gets asked about it, and they typically tend to dodge — for instance, during his confirmation hearings in 2018, Brett Kavanaugh said, “one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years.” But Barrett was perhaps even more cautious in her response. In response to another question from Klobuchar, she said that while there are some cases that are clearly so settled that nobody is pushing for them to be overruled, the fact that she was answering a lot of questions from the senators about Roe indicated to her that Roe wasn’t among them.
Barrett was very careful, of course, to say that her silence on Roe was not a sign that she thought it should be overruled. Barrett also demurred when several senators asked her about Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 ruling that struck down a law criminalizing birth control as an invasion of marital privacy. Her answer to a series of questions about the case was essentially — Griswold isn’t up for debate because no one is challenging Griswold. She did not, notably, say that she thought the case was correctly decided — which is a stark contrast from previous Republican nominees, including Chief Justice John Roberts, who said during his confirmation hearings in 2005, “I agree with the Griswold court’s conclusion that marital privacy extends to contraception and availability of that.”
She presented herself as an independent thinker with an “open mind”
While she repeatedly acknowledged her debt to her mentor, the late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, she also said she’d be her own justice who keeps an “open mind” about every case. But she didn’t elaborate further about what that would mean in practice. It’s an interesting question, though, because while Scalia was known as an extremely conservative judge, he also had an independent streak, which was most visible in some occasional liberal votes in cases involving policing and the rights of criminal defendants.
It’s possible that Barrett will also have issues where she similarly breaks the conservative mold — but we didn’t get many clues for what those might be. We do know from a recent analysis from her votes as a judge on the 7th Circuit that she is much closer to the middle of the court on issues involving labor and employment discrimination and criminal defendants. But those were not the issues that took center stage on Tuesday and Wednesday — and overall, the hearings ended without much of a sense of what an “open mind” means to Barrett.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-14--Can The Georgia Bulldogs Finally Win The Big Game?

At the highest levels of college football , only the slimmest of margins separate the best teams .
That ’ s never been more clear than in the tiny space between Alabama and Georgia .
Entering the 2019 season , Alabama had the highest-rated roster in the country , at 99.3 percent in Bill Connelly ’ s weighted four-year recruiting rankings .
Georgia , meanwhile , was almost exactly tied for first , also with a rating of 99.3 , behind by mere hundredths of a percentage point .
This is only one way of measuring a football team , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how close coach Kirby Smart ’ s program was to the top — and if not for a few close calls in the biggest games , it could have gotten there .
The Bulldogs have not won a national championship since 1980 , though they have won double-digit games in a season 13 times this century .
That history makes them one of the SEC ’ s top programs .
It may also be their ceiling until they take their offense to the next level .
Last year , the Bulldogs ’ defense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course of the season , they led the nation in win probability added ( +0.13 ) and finished third in expected points added .
But the Georgia offense ranked just 121st in win probability added and 42nd in expected points added , inching dangerously into the extreme quadrant populated by teams with stingy defenses and mediocre offenses .
Georgia ’ s offense will be under the microscope this weekend in a rare regular-season showdown against Alabama , the dynasty that crushed the Bulldogs ’ title dreams in 2017 ( on an overtime heave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2018 ( on a stunning effort by backup quarterback Jalen Hurts in the SEC championship game ) .
The teams haven ’ t played in the regular season since 2015 and won ’ t meet again until at least 2026 , so this matchup represents a valuable opportunity .
The Bulldogs have championship components .
They stocked their roster with players from recruiting classes ranked No .
1 ( 2020 and 2018 ) , No .
2 ( 2019 ) or No .
3 ( 2017 ) .
They were No .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ per play last season .
From 2016 ( Smart ’ s first season ) through 2019 , they ranked fourth in yards after contact per rush , with running backs like Nick Chubb and Sony Michel , as well as 22nd in drop rate and 25th in average yards after the catch .
All of the pieces were there but one : an elite quarterback .
It ’ s not that previous Bulldog quarterbacks haven ’ t shown promise .
From 2017 to 2019 , Jake Fromm threw 78 passes for touchdowns against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reached the level of Joe Burrow , Tagovailoa or even Ohio State ’ s Justin Fields , a Georgia transfer — the top three quarterbacks by total QBR in 2019 .
That last piece of a championship-level team has always been close and yet also elusive .
The answer appeared to arrive last offseason in the form of a Wake Forest transfer named Jamie Newman , who inspired hope about what he could do on an elite team .
But Newman opted out of the 2020 season because of concerns about COVID-19 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Promising recruit D ’ Wan Mathis started 8-for-17 for 55 yards and an interception .
Southern California transfer JT Daniels suffered an injury in camp and has not thrown a pass yet .
By halftime of the season opener , Georgia had moved on to a former walk-on named Stetson Bennett ( who , while not the answer the team had in mind entering the season , is third in the country in total QBR at 93.1 after three games ) .
Last offseason , Georgia made one more critical move , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NFL .
During his three years with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers , Monken headed up offenses that led the league in air yards per attempt by more than a full yard .
In that sense , he was the perfect candidate to speed up Georgia ’ s plodding offense , and Smart seemed to know it .
“ People can say , well , ‘ Coach Smart wants to play man ball , ’ ” the coach said after last year ’ s loss in the SEC championship game , apparently aware of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ranked 102nd in the country in passing routes run and 113th in first-down pass rate ( 32.9 percent ) during the first four seasons of Smart ’ s tenure , indicating Georgia wasn ’ t taking advantage of the arsenal it had assembled at the skill positions .
Even their best team , the 2017 national runner-up , called pass plays on only 34.9 percent of snaps , the lowest rate of any of the 24 playoff teams to date .
Has Georgia changed enough ?
Saturday may provide an answer .
Smart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offensive transformation when he said last year , “ I don ’ t know that the adage ‘ defense wins championships ’ stands as much as it used to .
When you saw scores from the ’ 60s and the ’ 70s and the ’ 80s and you saw scores of games , it was indicative of defense , compared to now .
Now , it ’ s like , I got to play pretty good defense and I got to score a lot of points.
” Smart ’ s first four teams @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won a lot of games .
Their next task is to win the biggest ones .

At the highest levels of college football, only the slimmest of margins separate the best teams. That’s never been more clear than in the tiny space between Alabama and Georgia.
Entering the 2019 season, Alabama had the highest-rated roster in the country, at 99.3 percent in Bill Connelly’s weighted four-year recruiting rankings. Georgia, meanwhile, was almost exactly tied for first, also with a rating of 99.3, behind by mere hundredths of a percentage point. This is only one way of measuring a football team, of course, but it speaks to how close coach Kirby Smart’s program was to the top — and if not for a few close calls in the biggest games, it could have gotten there.
The Bulldogs have not won a national championship since 1980, though they have won double-digit games in a season 13 times this century. That history makes them one of the SEC’s top programs. It may also be their ceiling until they take their offense to the next level.
Last year, the Bulldogs’ defense was their best yet — over the course of the season, they led the nation in win probability added (+0.13) and finished third in expected points added. But the Georgia offense ranked just 121st in win probability added and 42nd in expected points added, inching dangerously into the extreme quadrant populated by teams with stingy defenses and mediocre offenses.
Georgia’s offense will be under the microscope this weekend in a rare regular-season showdown against Alabama, the dynasty that crushed the Bulldogs’ title dreams in 2017 (on an overtime heave from then-freshman quarterback Tua Tagovailoa) and in 2018 (on a stunning effort by backup quarterback Jalen Hurts in the SEC championship game). The teams haven’t played in the regular season since 2015 and won’t meet again until at least 2026, so this matchup represents a valuable opportunity.
The Bulldogs have championship components. They stocked their roster with players from recruiting classes ranked No. 1 (2020 and 2018), No. 2 (2019) or No. 3 (2017). They were No. 2 in the nation in yards allowed per play last season. From 2016 (Smart’s first season) through 2019, they ranked fourth in yards after contact per rush, with running backs like Nick Chubb and Sony Michel, as well as 22nd in drop rate and 25th in average yards after the catch. All of the pieces were there but one: an elite quarterback.
It’s not that previous Bulldog quarterbacks haven’t shown promise. From 2017 to 2019, Jake Fromm threw 78 passes for touchdowns against 18 interceptions. But he never quite reached the level of Joe Burrow, Tagovailoa or even Ohio State’s Justin Fields, a Georgia transfer — the top three quarterbacks by total QBR in 2019. That last piece of a championship-level team has always been close and yet also elusive.
The answer appeared to arrive last offseason in the form of a Wake Forest transfer named Jamie Newman, who inspired hope about what he could do on an elite team. But Newman opted out of the 2020 season because of concerns about COVID-19, and the other options have been uninspiring. Promising recruit D’Wan Mathis started 8-for-17 for 55 yards and an interception. Southern California transfer JT Daniels suffered an injury in camp and has not thrown a pass yet. By halftime of the season opener, Georgia had moved on to a former walk-on named Stetson Bennett (who, while not the answer the team had in mind entering the season, is third in the country in total QBR at 93.1 after three games).
Last offseason, Georgia made one more critical move, hiring offensive coordinator Todd Monken from the NFL. During his three years with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Monken headed up offenses that led the league in air yards per attempt by more than a full yard. In that sense, he was the perfect candidate to speed up Georgia’s plodding offense, and Smart seemed to know it. “People can say, well, ‘Coach Smart wants to play man ball,’” the coach said after last year’s loss in the SEC championship game, apparently aware of the perception of his offense.
Georgia ranked 102nd in the country in passing routes run and 113th in first-down pass rate (32.9 percent) during the first four seasons of Smart’s tenure, indicating Georgia wasn’t taking advantage of the arsenal it had assembled at the skill positions. Even their best team, the 2017 national runner-up, called pass plays on only 34.9 percent of snaps, the lowest rate of any of the 24 playoff teams to date. Has Georgia changed enough? Saturday may provide an answer.
Smart seemed to sum up football’s offensive transformation when he said last year, “I don’t know that the adage ‘defense wins championships’ stands as much as it used to. When you saw scores from the ’60s and the ’70s and the ’80s and you saw scores of games, it was indicative of defense, compared to now. Now, it’s like, I got to play pretty good defense and I got to score a lot of points.”
Smart’s first four teams played that old-school style of football and won a lot of games. Their next task is to win the biggest ones.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-14--Live Updates: We’re Tracking The Vote And Voting Problems

Search
No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-14--Anthony Davis Was Key For The Lakers’ Title Run. He’s Also The Key To Their Future.

The championship ambitions of the Los Angeles Lakers naturally centered on the historically great pedigree of LeBron James .
But Anthony Davis proved to be the Lakers ’ ultimate margin for error throughout its title run .
In the six seasons preceding Davis ’ s arrival , the Lakers missed the playoffs more times than they did in their first 65 years combined ( five ) .
The Lakers ’ star duo provided All-NBA production this year en route to snapping the franchise ’ s decadelong Finals drought — equivalent to several eternities for most Laker fans — and becoming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to clinch a Finals berth after missing the playoffs over at least five previous seasons .
But Davis joined the Lakers already on his own Hall-of-Fame pace , his combination of youth ( he turns 28 in March ) and stardom aligning perfectly with LeBron ’ s careerlong prime ( he turns 36 in December ) .
Though Davis has expressed an ambition to follow LeBron “ to hopefully nine more Finals , ” he has yet to sign a contract extension with the Lakers , who have only LeBron ’ s $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ books beyond next season , according to Spotrac .
What The Brow decides to do next could set the course for the foreseeable future for this franchise .
With his 7-foot-6 wingspan , Davis produced a Finals run illustrating that his broad shoulders are the perfect bridge between James ’ s win-now window and the Lakers ’ long-term future , provided he chooses to stay in L.A.
Here ’ s a closer look at just what he means to the team .
LeBron ’ s championship chases are brimful of the most pivotal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not just his own .
Shots from his teammates — namely those of Ray Allen ( 2013 ) and Kyrie Irving ( 2016 ) — will be remembered for years .
In Game 2 of the 2020 Western Conference finals , Davis added his own clutch memory by sending the Nuggets home with a loss via buzzer-beater , the first by any Laker while trailing in a playoff game since Kobe Bryant in 2006 , per BasketballReference.com .
The Brow scored 10 points in clutch time in that Game 2 , which provided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and marked half of his team-high 20 such points in the playoffs .
James was the only other Laker to score at least 10 clutch-time points all postseason .
“ I want to be aggressive , take some pressure off this guy [ LeBron James ] over here , ” Davis told the media after the shot — his second career buzzer-beater .
“ A lot of teams lock in on him late game .
… I ’ ve got his back and he ’ s got mine .
Especially in the fourth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s back and will be locked in .
That ’ s something we ’ ve been able to do , especially in this series.
” In the NBA Finals , Davis ’ s presence swung the Lakers ’ net rating by a team-best 26.5 points , more than 11 points higher than second-place LeBron , per NBA Advanced Stats .
The Brow proved at various points against Miami that he can both provide and stifle offense .
After Jimmy Butler ’ s 40-point triple-double for Miami in Game 3 , just the third @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assignment of guarding Butler in the next outing .
In Game 4 , Jimmy got buckets to the tune of a Heat-high 22 points , but he shot just 1-for-5 when guarded by Davis .
The Lakers ’ collective effort that night gave them a 3-1 series lead , a championship advantage conquered only once before — by the legend Davis found himself running the league with .
In seven seasons preceding his arrival in L.A. , Davis never advanced past the second round in the playoffs .
In the season preceding The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Lakers missed the playoffs entirely .
The Lakers ’ new star duo both wanted and needed each other at respectively critical stages of their careers .
At age 35 , LeBron finished second in MVP voting for the fourth time in his career , tied with Larry Bird and Jerry West for the most in league history .
Though LeBron disagreed with the final count , he and Davis were the only pair of teammates to tally a point in voting .
For some , Davis ’ s presence might dilute the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but their respective games actually go hand-in-hand , allowing LeBron to extend his prime .
For example : Including the playoffs , LeBron dimed Davis 238 times over the 2019-20 campaign , by far his highest single-season total among the 141 teammates to score off his passes .
For his part , Davis has consistently expanded his offensive repertoire , reaching new heights alongside LeBron .
This season , Davis scored 328 points in the paint off his new teammate ’ s passes , another high among LeBron teammates .
Including the playoffs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3-pointers , with 43 of them coming via the regular-season assist leader .
“ I didn ’ t think we were going to be able to connect this fast just because of the fact he had a lot of stuff going on this summer with ‘ Space Jam [ 2 ] , ’ so we didn ’ t get a lot of time to work out together , ” Davis explained in November , months before the coronavirus pandemic further stagnated his adjustment with the eventual champions .
“ Then we hit a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to China , and all that stuff , so I ’ m surprised that we ’ ve got a little connection right now.
” Throughout the Finals , their connection amounted to the Lakers ’ outscoring the Heat by more than 14 points per 100 possessions with LeBron and AD sharing the court .
Davis proved reliable over the 246 minutes LeBron sat in the postseason , marking James ’ s most minutes spent on the bench in any of his nine Finals appearances since 2011 .
According to NBA Advanced Stats , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5.0 over Davis ’ s 203 minutes without LeBron on the court in the playoffs .
Much of the team ’ s success centered on The Brow boasting increases in rebounding , assist and usage rate while sporting a true shooting percentage of 68.7 in that sample size .
Over an entire postseason , that mark would be higher than any of Stephen Curry ’ s seven playoff runs .
With his aforementioned 7-foot-6 wingspan , Davis is capable of connecting himself to any part of the court when anchoring defenses .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ throughout the playoffs , according to NBA Advanced Stats , trailing only Markieff Morris for the Lakers ’ best mark .
Once the Finals rolled around , Davis held Miami opponents to just 39.2 percent shooting as the Heat ’ s offensive efficiency declined by over 17 points with him on the court .
“ That ’ s why he ’ s the Defensive Player of the Year , ” LeBron told the media after Davis stifled Butler in Game 4 .
“ We said that all year .
His ability to play @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the floor , take the challenge , not only guard on the perimeter , and continue to protect the paint .
Guards drive on him .
It ’ s hard to score on him.
” Though Davis has not yet won Defensive Player of the Year honors , he boasts a case as arguably the league ’ s most versatile weapon on that side of the court .
His combination of length , strength , agility and acumen can pose problems against any action at any spot , as evidenced by him holding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ field-goal percentage on jumpers over the past five seasons , according to Second Spectrum .
During his first season as a Laker , when defending from the paint , Davis ranked seventh among 96 qualified players in field-goal percentage allowed ( 47.3 ) , the best mark by any Lakers defender in those same five seasons .
Throughout his career , Davis has frustrated opponents by stifling their offense just as well as he provides his own .
During the regular season , Davis had his own struggles with his jumper , shooting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , his lowest rate in Second Spectrum ’ s seven seasons of play-by-play tracking .
Fortunately for the Lakers , Davis found his footing by the playoffs , improving to 43.1 percent when shooting contested jumpers .
Not only was that the best mark on the team , but his clip ranked 12th among 48 qualified shooters in the 2020 playoffs , placing him between Danilo Gallinari and CJ McCollum .
As for Davis ’ s Hall-of-Fame pace , his Finals run with the Lakers only further cements his eventual case , on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Prior to Game 1 of the Finals , LeBron described why he believes Davis , despite all his accomplishments thus far , is only getting started at age 27 .
“ There ’ s a reason we wanted him here , ” LeBron said to Yahoo Sports ahead of his 10th career Finals appearance .
“ He ’ s a complete player , and now the world is seeing what he can do in games that matter .
All he ever wanted was a chance .
That ’ s all anybody ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , I think you ’ re going to see him flourish and he has .
We haven ’ t seen the best of AD yet .
He ’ s just scratching the surface.
” Even before joining the Lakers , Davis was already the only player to record at least 10,000 points and 1,000 blocks since 2012-13 , his rookie season .
In fact , he ’ s among just eight players since the 1973-74 season to record those numbers with 500 career games , with six of them already being inducted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Among those on this short list , only Shaquille O ’ Neal and David Robinson reached those marks quicker than Davis , per the Elias Sports Bureau .
As LeBron ’ s career nears its end , Davis ’ s prime should give the Lakers the cushion they need to maintain their now-restored championship window .
The Lakers hope to rest their long-term ambitions on Davis ’ s broad shoulders as he continues walking the path of past legends while simultaneously breaking his own mold .
The idea already has a nice @ @ @ @

The championship ambitions of the Los Angeles Lakers naturally centered on the historically great pedigree of LeBron James. But Anthony Davis proved to be the Lakers’ ultimate margin for error throughout its title run.
In the six seasons preceding Davis’s arrival, the Lakers missed the playoffs more times than they did in their first 65 years combined (five). The Lakers’ star duo provided All-NBA production this year en route to snapping the franchise’s decadelong Finals drought — equivalent to several eternities for most Laker fans — and becoming just the third team in league history to clinch a Finals berth after missing the playoffs over at least five previous seasons. But Davis joined the Lakers already on his own Hall-of-Fame pace, his combination of youth (he turns 28 in March) and stardom aligning perfectly with LeBron’s careerlong prime (he turns 36 in December).
Though Davis has expressed an ambition to follow LeBron “to hopefully nine more Finals,” he has yet to sign a contract extension with the Lakers, who have only LeBron’s $41 million player-option for 2021-22 on its books beyond next season, according to Spotrac. What The Brow decides to do next could set the course for the foreseeable future for this franchise.
With his 7-foot-6 wingspan, Davis produced a Finals run illustrating that his broad shoulders are the perfect bridge between James’s win-now window and the Lakers’ long-term future, provided he chooses to stay in L.A. Here’s a closer look at just what he means to the team.
Clutch-time impact
LeBron’s championship chases are brimful of the most pivotal buckets in NBA postseason history, and not just his own. Shots from his teammates — namely those of Ray Allen (2013) and Kyrie Irving (2016) — will be remembered for years.
In Game 2 of the 2020 Western Conference finals, Davis added his own clutch memory by sending the Nuggets home with a loss via buzzer-beater, the first by any Laker while trailing in a playoff game since Kobe Bryant in 2006, per BasketballReference.com. The Brow scored 10 points in clutch time in that Game 2, which provided the Lakers with a 2-0 series lead and marked half of his team-high 20 such points in the playoffs. James was the only other Laker to score at least 10 clutch-time points all postseason.
“I want to be aggressive, take some pressure off this guy [LeBron James] over here,” Davis told the media after the shot — his second career buzzer-beater. “A lot of teams lock in on him late game. … I’ve got his back and he’s got mine. Especially in the fourth quarter, we have each other’s back and will be locked in. That’s something we’ve been able to do, especially in this series.”
In the NBA Finals, Davis’s presence swung the Lakers’ net rating by a team-best 26.5 points, more than 11 points higher than second-place LeBron, per NBA Advanced Stats. The Brow proved at various points against Miami that he can both provide and stifle offense.
After Jimmy Butler’s 40-point triple-double for Miami in Game 3, just the third in Finals history, Davis requested the assignment of guarding Butler in the next outing. In Game 4, Jimmy got buckets to the tune of a Heat-high 22 points, but he shot just 1-for-5 when guarded by Davis. The Lakers’ collective effort that night gave them a 3-1 series lead, a championship advantage conquered only once before — by the legend Davis found himself running the league with.
Extending LeBron
In seven seasons preceding his arrival in L.A., Davis never advanced past the second round in the playoffs. In the season preceding The Brow’s arrival, LeBron and the Lakers missed the playoffs entirely. The Lakers’ new star duo both wanted and needed each other at respectively critical stages of their careers.
At age 35, LeBron finished second in MVP voting for the fourth time in his career, tied with Larry Bird and Jerry West for the most in league history. Though LeBron disagreed with the final count, he and Davis were the only pair of teammates to tally a point in voting. For some, Davis’s presence might dilute the rest of LeBron’s career, but their respective games actually go hand-in-hand, allowing LeBron to extend his prime.
For example: Including the playoffs, LeBron dimed Davis 238 times over the 2019-20 campaign, by far his highest single-season total among the 141 teammates to score off his passes.
For his part, Davis has consistently expanded his offensive repertoire, reaching new heights alongside LeBron. This season, Davis scored 328 points in the paint off his new teammate’s passes, another high among LeBron teammates. Including the playoffs, The Brow made a career-high 95 3-pointers, with 43 of them coming via the regular-season assist leader.
Anthony Davis has feasted on LeBron’s dimes Teammates of LeBron James with at least 200 points in the paint off James passes in a single season, including playoffs, plus 3-pointers made From LeBron’s passes Player Season Points in the paint 3-pointers Anthony Davis 2019-20 328 43 – Dwyane Wade 2012-13 268 1 – Dwyane Wade 2010-11 234 12 – Anderson Varejao 2008-09 214 0 Source: NBA Advanced Stats
“I didn’t think we were going to be able to connect this fast just because of the fact he had a lot of stuff going on this summer with ‘Space Jam [2],’ so we didn’t get a lot of time to work out together,” Davis explained in November, months before the coronavirus pandemic further stagnated his adjustment with the eventual champions. “Then we hit a short training camp and had to go to China, and all that stuff, so I’m surprised that we’ve got a little connection right now.”
Throughout the Finals, their connection amounted to the Lakers’ outscoring the Heat by more than 14 points per 100 possessions with LeBron and AD sharing the court. Davis proved reliable over the 246 minutes LeBron sat in the postseason, marking James’s most minutes spent on the bench in any of his nine Finals appearances since 2011.
According to NBA Advanced Stats, the Lakers maintained a net rating of 5.0 over Davis’s 203 minutes without LeBron on the court in the playoffs. Much of the team’s success centered on The Brow boasting increases in rebounding, assist and usage rate while sporting a true shooting percentage of 68.7 in that sample size.
Over an entire postseason, that mark would be higher than any of Stephen Curry’s seven playoff runs.
Perimeter versatility
With his aforementioned 7-foot-6 wingspan, Davis is capable of connecting himself to any part of the court when anchoring defenses.
He held opponents to just 41.9 percent shooting throughout the playoffs, according to NBA Advanced Stats, trailing only Markieff Morris for the Lakers’ best mark. Once the Finals rolled around, Davis held Miami opponents to just 39.2 percent shooting as the Heat’s offensive efficiency declined by over 17 points with him on the court.
“That’s why he’s the Defensive Player of the Year,” LeBron told the media after Davis stifled Butler in Game 4. “We said that all year. His ability to play one through five, guard anybody on the floor, take the challenge, not only guard on the perimeter, and continue to protect the paint. Guards drive on him. It’s hard to score on him.”
Though Davis has not yet won Defensive Player of the Year honors, he boasts a case as arguably the league’s most versatile weapon on that side of the court. His combination of length, strength, agility and acumen can pose problems against any action at any spot, as evidenced by him holding opponents to the league’s lowest field-goal percentage on jumpers over the past five seasons, according to Second Spectrum.
AD shuts down jump shots Top 5 defenders on jumpers over the past five seasons, including playoffs Player Opp. Field Goal % Anthony Davis 32.7% Kevin Durant 33.1 Andre Roberson 33.1 Jayson Tatum 33.6 Eric Gordon 33.8 Among 239 players with a minimum of 1,000 jump shots defended. Source: Second Spectrum
During his first season as a Laker, when defending from the paint, Davis ranked seventh among 96 qualified players in field-goal percentage allowed (47.3), the best mark by any Lakers defender in those same five seasons. Throughout his career, Davis has frustrated opponents by stifling their offense just as well as he provides his own.
During the regular season, Davis had his own struggles with his jumper, shooting just 34.9 percent on contested jump shots, his lowest rate in Second Spectrum’s seven seasons of play-by-play tracking. Fortunately for the Lakers, Davis found his footing by the playoffs, improving to 43.1 percent when shooting contested jumpers. Not only was that the best mark on the team, but his clip ranked 12th among 48 qualified shooters in the 2020 playoffs, placing him between Danilo Gallinari and CJ McCollum.
Interior dominance
As for Davis’s Hall-of-Fame pace, his Finals run with the Lakers only further cements his eventual case, on which Basketball-Reference gives a 96 percent probability.
Prior to Game 1 of the Finals, LeBron described why he believes Davis, despite all his accomplishments thus far, is only getting started at age 27.
“There’s a reason we wanted him here,” LeBron said to Yahoo Sports ahead of his 10th career Finals appearance. “He’s a complete player, and now the world is seeing what he can do in games that matter. All he ever wanted was a chance. That’s all anybody ever wants. And now that he has it, I think you’re going to see him flourish and he has. We haven’t seen the best of AD yet. He’s just scratching the surface.”
Even before joining the Lakers, Davis was already the only player to record at least 10,000 points and 1,000 blocks since 2012-13, his rookie season. In fact, he’s among just eight players since the 1973-74 season to record those numbers with 500 career games, with six of them already being inducted into the Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame. Among those on this short list, only Shaquille O’Neal and David Robinson reached those marks quicker than Davis, per the Elias Sports Bureau.
Anthony Davis is in elite, big-man company NBA players with at least 10,000 points and 1,000 blocks in their first 500 career games BY the time of their 500th game Player Team Season Points Blocks Anthony Davis Lakers 2019-20 12,002 1,209 Elton Brand Clippers 2005-06 10,080 1,031 Tim Duncan Spurs 2003-04 11,454 1,261 Alonzo Mourning Heat 1999-2000 10,577 1,560 Shaquille O’Neal Lakers 1999-2000 13,589 1,353 David Robinson Spurs 1995-96 12,873 1,823 Patrick Ewing Knicks 1991-92 11,789 1,547 Hakeem Olajuwon Rockets 1990-91 11,634 1,693 Source: Basketball-Reference.com
As LeBron’s career nears its end, Davis’s prime should give the Lakers the cushion they need to maintain their now-restored championship window. The Lakers hope to rest their long-term ambitions on Davis’s broad shoulders as he continues walking the path of past legends while simultaneously breaking his own mold.
The idea already has a nice ring to it.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-15--Voting In The 2020 Primaries Didn’t Worsen The COVID-19 Pandemic

We ’ re less than three weeks away from Election Day , and although we ’ ve already seen an enormous uptick in the number of absentee ballots requested — more than a third of Americans plan to vote by mail because of the coronavirus — many people will still cast their votes in person .
This means that people will assemble at polling places , as they did in the primaries held earlier this year and as they ’ re doing in states that have started early voting .
This , of course , raises a difficult question : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a public health disaster ?
We have spent seven months now living under the threat of the novel coronavirus .
And unfortunately , given the increasingly politicized way in which COVID-19 has been handled , voting during the pandemic has itself become a partisan issue .
Distrust in science is high , even though now is when such trust is most needed , and we find ourselves in a situation where the discussion around potential effects of the election on the pandemic is transpiring in the absence of a comprehensive assessment of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undertook an analysis of in-person voting in the primaries to better understand the risks of voting in the general election .
Of course , a comparison between primaries and the general election is imperfect , but our analysis does offer us a window into the impact voting could have on the spread of COVID-19 .
And what we found should offer some comfort to those who plan to vote in person : We saw no increase in overall COVID-19 mortality due to in-person voting in the primaries .
Modeling the spread of COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ underlying data is of uneven quality .
The U.S. has struggled to test enough people since the very beginning of the outbreak ; particularly in the early days , there were simply not enough tests to track the number of cases .
That ’ s why our analysis used mortality data collected by The New York Times , instead of the number of reported positive test results , since mortality data remains the most reliable measure for assessing the status of the epidemic .
Second , to better capture the dynamics of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from statistical and epidemiological modeling .
( The current preprint of our paper , along with data and code , is available here . )
We should note that our analysis is what statisticians call “ ecological.
” We examined whether primary elections affected the course of the pandemic in a county , not whether , at the individual level , going to the polls affects an individual ’ s risk of contracting the infection .
Our first approach relies on a technique called “ matching.
” In an ideal world ( at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of view ) , we would be able to explore a counterfactual — “ What if this state had not held its primary during a pandemic ?
” — and then compare the number of COVID-19 deaths under each scenario .
Of course , we only have access to the world as it actually unfolds .
So , we approximate this alternate world by using “ matches , ” defined for our purposes as counties that did not hold a primary but otherwise have similar characteristics relevant to the incidence of COVID-19 ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the population over 65 , median income , the share of the vote President Trump won in the 2016 election ) and that , most importantly , share a similar cumulative COVID-19 death rate in the 20-day period surrounding the primary .
Accordingly , matched counties are similar to one other when it comes to the course of the COVID-19 epidemic and risk factors — but one county held its primary and the other has not .
Let ’ s look at Chippewa County , Wisconsin as an example .
Wisconsin ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first major election with in-person voting since states began issuing stay-at-home orders .
We matched Chippewa with five of the most demographically similar counties that had similar cumulative COVID-19 death rates but had not held their primary , including Sumner County , Kansas ; Madison County , Kentucky ; and Rensselaer County , New York .
These counties each had cumulative death rates similar to Chippewa in the period around the Wisconsin primary , and scored relatively closely on our demographic measures .
Once we had this set of counties , we compared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Chippewa to the average of its five matches over the same ( post-primary ) period .
Performing this procedure across all of the counties that held primaries in our data , we found that there was no overall average increase in the mortality rate in counties that held primary elections compared to their matches .
In our second approach to the data , we wanted to replicate our results using a method specifically tailored to study the transmission of a virus but that relied on a wholly different set of assumptions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ effect of two key dates : the date a state ’ s governor issued a stay-at-home order and the date of the state ’ s primary election ( if applicable , in either case ) .
We then combined information from across the U.S. into a single model that estimated the overall effect of holding a primary election .
While statewide lockdowns appeared to have reduced the transmission of COVID-19 , the primary elections had no effect .
Below , you can see the rate at which the virus spreads in Florida and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primaries in the early phase of the virus , throughout the spring .
This is only two of the 34 states we looked at , but the effects on COVID-19 transmission in Florida and Illinois are representative of the overall average that we calculated across all of the states included in our analysis .
In other words , we found no evidence in our two separate analyses that the primaries had any effect on the spread of the coronavirus .
That said , we should interpret these findings cautiously .
There ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know about the coronavirus ; moreover , tracking the spread of COVID-19 in the U.S. has been challenging due to the aforementioned testing shortages and reporting delays .
Additionally , we faced difficulties in uncovering certain aspects of the primaries — for example , there is no reliable data on in-person turnout at the county level .
In short , we did not find a spike in the mortality rate associated with the primary elections .
This led us to conclude , based on our analysis , that in-person voting remains a viable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heard this November .
There are , though , several key differences between the primaries and the general election in November that should be kept in mind with respect to the safety of voting in person .
First , most of the primary elections were held under fair-weather conditions , enabling individuals to wait in long lines outside , at a lower risk of transmission .
That risk will be higher if voters are crammed indoors to avoid cold weather .
Second , turnout numbers are generally much higher in the general election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the particularly contentious nature of this presidential election , it could be that above-average turnout increases the risk of the virus spreading , perhaps because of large crowds at the polls .
Superspreader events do happen when people assemble .
A single wedding in Maine has been linked to at least 270 cases and eight deaths , representing over 5 percent of the total deaths in the state , and Trump ’ s recent bout with COVID-19 , linked to a White House event , has already been associated with more than two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
However , these superspreader events are intimate affairs associated with close contact and a lack of precautions .
Voting , on the other hand , is generally not a social activity .
People tend to stay apart , and are often in relatively large and well-ventilated spaces such as school gymnasiums .
What ’ s more , people tend to be quiet , or even silent , while voting ( loud talking and singing have been associated with viral transmission and outbreaks ) .
And as our research shows , there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the primaries and the spread of COVID-19 .
If anything , voting may be similar to shopping at a grocery store in terms of risk .
Provided that voting sites equip poll workers with personal protective gear and voters take the necessary precautions , such as wearing a mask and physically distancing while waiting in line , there ’ s no reason why people who do not fall into high-risk groups for COVID-19 should rule out voting in person .
This research was supported by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Foundation .

We’re less than three weeks away from Election Day, and although we’ve already seen an enormous uptick in the number of absentee ballots requested — more than a third of Americans plan to vote by mail because of the coronavirus — many people will still cast their votes in person. This means that people will assemble at polling places, as they did in the primaries held earlier this year and as they’re doing in states that have started early voting. This, of course, raises a difficult question: Could the simple act of voting worsen a public health disaster?
We have spent seven months now living under the threat of the novel coronavirus. And unfortunately, given the increasingly politicized way in which COVID-19 has been handled, voting during the pandemic has itself become a partisan issue. Distrust in science is high, even though now is when such trust is most needed, and we find ourselves in a situation where the discussion around potential effects of the election on the pandemic is transpiring in the absence of a comprehensive assessment of the risks.
Earlier this year, we undertook an analysis of in-person voting in the primaries to better understand the risks of voting in the general election. Of course, a comparison between primaries and the general election is imperfect, but our analysis does offer us a window into the impact voting could have on the spread of COVID-19. And what we found should offer some comfort to those who plan to vote in person: We saw no increase in overall COVID-19 mortality due to in-person voting in the primaries.
Modeling the spread of COVID-19 is very challenging. First, the underlying data is of uneven quality. The U.S. has struggled to test enough people since the very beginning of the outbreak; particularly in the early days, there were simply not enough tests to track the number of cases. That’s why our analysis used mortality data collected by The New York Times, instead of the number of reported positive test results, since mortality data remains the most reliable measure for assessing the status of the epidemic.
Second, to better capture the dynamics of the epidemic, we used two different techniques from statistical and epidemiological modeling. (The current preprint of our paper, along with data and code, is available here.)
We should note that our analysis is what statisticians call “ecological.” We examined whether primary elections affected the course of the pandemic in a county, not whether, at the individual level, going to the polls affects an individual’s risk of contracting the infection.
Our first approach relies on a technique called “matching.” In an ideal world (at least from a statistician’s point of view), we would be able to explore a counterfactual — “What if this state had not held its primary during a pandemic?” — and then compare the number of COVID-19 deaths under each scenario.
Of course, we only have access to the world as it actually unfolds. So, we approximate this alternate world by using “matches,” defined for our purposes as counties that did not hold a primary but otherwise have similar characteristics relevant to the incidence of COVID-19 (e.g., population density, the percentage of the population over 65, median income, the share of the vote President Trump won in the 2016 election) and that, most importantly, share a similar cumulative COVID-19 death rate in the 20-day period surrounding the primary. Accordingly, matched counties are similar to one other when it comes to the course of the COVID-19 epidemic and risk factors — but one county held its primary and the other has not.
Let’s look at Chippewa County, Wisconsin as an example. Wisconsin’s chaotic April 7 primary was the first major election with in-person voting since states began issuing stay-at-home orders. We matched Chippewa with five of the most demographically similar counties that had similar cumulative COVID-19 death rates but had not held their primary, including Sumner County, Kansas; Madison County, Kentucky; and Rensselaer County, New York. These counties each had cumulative death rates similar to Chippewa in the period around the Wisconsin primary, and scored relatively closely on our demographic measures.
Once we had this set of counties, we compared the observed mortality rate after the primary in Chippewa to the average of its five matches over the same (post-primary) period. Performing this procedure across all of the counties that held primaries in our data, we found that there was no overall average increase in the mortality rate in counties that held primary elections compared to their matches.
In our second approach to the data, we wanted to replicate our results using a method specifically tailored to study the transmission of a virus but that relied on a wholly different set of assumptions. In our analysis, we tested the effect of two key dates: the date a state’s governor issued a stay-at-home order and the date of the state’s primary election (if applicable, in either case). We then combined information from across the U.S. into a single model that estimated the overall effect of holding a primary election.
While statewide lockdowns appeared to have reduced the transmission of COVID-19, the primary elections had no effect. Below, you can see the rate at which the virus spreads in Florida and Illinois, two populous states that held primaries in the early phase of the virus, throughout the spring. This is only two of the 34 states we looked at, but the effects on COVID-19 transmission in Florida and Illinois are representative of the overall average that we calculated across all of the states included in our analysis.
In other words, we found no evidence in our two separate analyses that the primaries had any effect on the spread of the coronavirus. That said, we should interpret these findings cautiously. There’s a lot we still don’t know about the coronavirus; moreover, tracking the spread of COVID-19 in the U.S. has been challenging due to the aforementioned testing shortages and reporting delays. Additionally, we faced difficulties in uncovering certain aspects of the primaries — for example, there is no reliable data on in-person turnout at the county level.
In short, we did not find a spike in the mortality rate associated with the primary elections. This led us to conclude, based on our analysis, that in-person voting remains a viable way for Americans to have their voices heard this November.
There are, though, several key differences between the primaries and the general election in November that should be kept in mind with respect to the safety of voting in person. First, most of the primary elections were held under fair-weather conditions, enabling individuals to wait in long lines outside, at a lower risk of transmission. That risk will be higher if voters are crammed indoors to avoid cold weather. Second, turnout numbers are generally much higher in the general election than in the primaries. And given the particularly contentious nature of this presidential election, it could be that above-average turnout increases the risk of the virus spreading, perhaps because of large crowds at the polls.
Superspreader events do happen when people assemble. A single wedding in Maine has been linked to at least 270 cases and eight deaths, representing over 5 percent of the total deaths in the state, and Trump’s recent bout with COVID-19, linked to a White House event, has already been associated with more than two dozen positive test results in his circle. However, these superspreader events are intimate affairs associated with close contact and a lack of precautions. Voting, on the other hand, is generally not a social activity. People tend to stay apart, and are often in relatively large and well-ventilated spaces such as school gymnasiums. What’s more, people tend to be quiet, or even silent, while voting (loud talking and singing have been associated with viral transmission and outbreaks).
And as our research shows, there is no inherent relationship between voting in person in the primaries and the spread of COVID-19. If anything, voting may be similar to shopping at a grocery store in terms of risk. Provided that voting sites equip poll workers with personal protective gear and voters take the necessary precautions, such as wearing a mask and physically distancing while waiting in line, there’s no reason why people who do not fall into high-risk groups for COVID-19 should rule out voting in person.
This research was supported by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; the views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Foundation.