fivethirthyeight--2020-09-23--Trump Supporters Aren’t ‘Shy,’ But Polls Could Still Be Missing Some Of Them

There ’ s this theory that won ’ t die .
It goes something like this : Some unknown segment of President Trump ’ s support is too “ shy ” to admit they back him .
Usually offered as an explanation for why Trump ’ s poll numbers weren ’ t better in 2016 or why they ’ re not better now , the idea hinges on Trump being such a controversial candidate that it ’ s not socially desirable to say you support him , and as such , there is a lot of hidden Trump support not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s scant evidence of this .
In fact , there ’ s some evidence against the “ shy ” Trump theory .
If “ shy ” Trump voters were a thing , for example , you might expect a difference in how respondents reply to surveys conducted via telephone versus those anonymously submitted online — the idea being that social desirability bias is less likely to kick in when a respondent is dealing with a faceless computer instead of a real person .
However , as Morning Consult ’ s new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same against Joe Biden , regardless of whether the pollster interviewed respondents by phone or online .
As Kyle Dropp , Morning Consult ’ s chief research officer , summed it up for me , “ We ran a large sample study that does not find any shy Trump voters exist at the national level for the 2020 matchup.
” The firm also checked the results among respondents in battleground states , but there too found little sign of shy Trump voters .
This finding is broadly in line with what other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2017 report by the American Association for Public Opinion Research that “ yielded no evidence to support ” the “ shy ” Trump theory .
But that hasn ’ t stopped the ” shy ” Trump theory from resurfacing in 2020 .
In fact , polls suggest that as many as 55 percent of voters are convinced that hidden Trump support could help him win reelection in some way .
This obsession with finding hidden pockets of support for Trump is part of a larger phenomenon we ’ ve observed for a while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polls , and has been for months , but if you ask Americans if they think he will win , many still say yes .
And to be clear , Trump can win .
We think he has a nearly 1 in 4 shot of doing so in our forecast , but that doesn ’ t mean he ’ s not an underdog .
This is similar to what we said in the lead-up to the election in 2016 .
Then , Trump was an ordinary , average polling error away from winning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beat his polls by just a few points in just a couple of states he could win — and in fact , that ’ s exactly what happened .
Yet even though the polls in 2016 performed reasonably well , part of the reason we ’ re still talking about shy Trump voters is because the state polls had higher levels of error , especially in some key battleground states in 2016 that decided the election .
Moreover , polls showed a large percentage of undecided and third-party voters in the lead-up to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sizable number of late deciders who ended up disproportionately backing Trump .
And in all likelihood , surveys missed some Trump supporters due to sampling difficulties and weighting choices that pollsters made .
In other words , the likely reason we ’ re still talking about shy Trump voters is because the polls could still be missing some Trump voters — it ’ s just not because they ’ re shy .
One of the main takeaways from 2016 was that many state-level polls underrepresented the number of white voters without a four-year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group that overwhelmingly backed Trump in 2016 .
As a result , some pollsters have since weighted their surveys by education , but not all have .
It remains a critical cleavage that pollsters still need to address .
Weighting for education is complicated , though ; namely , highly educated Americans are more likely to answer a poll than less educated Americans , and in an era of increasingly lower response rates , this could be a problem as underlying samples may be more educated than the actual population .
The upshot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weighting its respondents to match the educational breakdown of a state ’ s population , it still may not be reaching enough voters with lower education levels .
This could in turn affect the poll ’ s findings for the presidential race because the educational divide is now one of the most important predictors of party support besides race .
This means that pollsters could once again find themselves underestimating Republican support in 2020 because of weighting and sampling issues .
After all , separate analyses by Sean Trende at RealClearPolitics and Nate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Upshot both found that after the polls undershot Trump ’ s support in 2016 in key battleground states like Florida , Iowa , Michigan and Ohio , the same thing happened in 2018 with those states underestimating Republican Senate and gubernatorial candidates .
Overall , though , the polls were pretty good in 2018 .
The larger lesson , really , is that it ’ s impossible to predict which way polling errors will run in an election .
There are reasons polls might be missing some Trump supporters , but there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ underestimating Biden ’ s support .
Indeed , there have been plenty of cycles in which polls overall have been biased ( in a statistical sense ) in favor of Republican candidates .
All in all , the good news for pollsters is that few , if any , voters are misleading them about their support for Trump .
Yes , Morning Consult found small differences in support for Trump via household income and education , with wealthier and college-educated voters less likely to say they support Trump in a live-phone poll , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meaningful .
So while there might be a handful of reluctant Trump voters , it ’ s not on the level of the systemic polling challenges we ’ ve discussed that could still undersell how much support the president has .
We should , as always , be prepared for some degree of polling error , but it ’ s probably not going to happen because of shy Trump voters .
Think The Electoral College Is Unfair to Democrats ?
Try The Senate .
| FiveThirtyEight

There’s this theory that won’t die. It goes something like this: Some unknown segment of President Trump’s support is too “shy” to admit they back him. Usually offered as an explanation for why Trump’s poll numbers weren’t better in 2016 or why they’re not better now, the idea hinges on Trump being such a controversial candidate that it’s not socially desirable to say you support him, and as such, there is a lot of hidden Trump support not captured by the polls.
Only, there’s scant evidence of this. In fact, there’s some evidence against the “shy” Trump theory.
There just isn’t good evidence that ‘shy’ Trump voters exist
If “shy” Trump voters were a thing, for example, you might expect a difference in how respondents reply to surveys conducted via telephone versus those anonymously submitted online — the idea being that social desirability bias is less likely to kick in when a respondent is dealing with a faceless computer instead of a real person. However, as Morning Consult’s new 2,400-respondent study shows, Trump performed about the same against Joe Biden, regardless of whether the pollster interviewed respondents by phone or online.
Online or by phone: It didn’t change support for Trump Presidential support among likely voters, grouped by whether respondents were polled via live-phone interviews or online Voter support Candidate Live phone Online Difference Margin of error Biden 56% 55% -1 ±3 Trump 44 45 +1 ±3 Respondents who said they did not know who they supported were asked which candidate they leaned toward supporting. Their support is included here. Source: Morning Consult
As Kyle Dropp, Morning Consult’s chief research officer, summed it up for me, “We ran a large sample study that does not find any shy Trump voters exist at the national level for the 2020 matchup.” The firm also checked the results among respondents in battleground states, but there too found little sign of shy Trump voters.
[Live Updates: We’re Tracking The Vote And Voting Problems]
This finding is broadly in line with what other groups have found, such as a 2017 report by the American Association for Public Opinion Research that “yielded no evidence to support” the “shy” Trump theory. But that hasn’t stopped the ”shy” Trump theory from resurfacing in 2020. In fact, polls suggest that as many as 55 percent of voters are convinced that hidden Trump support could help him win reelection in some way.
This obsession with finding hidden pockets of support for Trump is part of a larger phenomenon we’ve observed for a while now: Trump is down in the polls, and has been for months, but if you ask Americans if they think he will win, many still say yes. And to be clear, Trump can win. We think he has a nearly 1 in 4 shot of doing so in our forecast, but that doesn’t mean he’s not an underdog.
This is similar to what we said in the lead-up to the election in 2016. Then, Trump was an ordinary, average polling error away from winning the election, in which if he beat his polls by just a few points in just a couple of states he could win — and in fact, that’s exactly what happened.
Yet even though the polls in 2016 performed reasonably well, part of the reason we’re still talking about shy Trump voters is because the state polls had higher levels of error, especially in some key battleground states in 2016 that decided the election. Moreover, polls showed a large percentage of undecided and third-party voters in the lead-up to the 2016 contest, which produced a sizable number of late deciders who ended up disproportionately backing Trump. And in all likelihood, surveys missed some Trump supporters due to sampling difficulties and weighting choices that pollsters made.
In other words, the likely reason we’re still talking about shy Trump voters is because the polls could still be missing some Trump voters — it’s just not because they’re shy.
One of the main takeaways from 2016 was that many state-level polls underrepresented the number of white voters without a four-year college degree in the electorate, a group that overwhelmingly backed Trump in 2016. As a result, some pollsters have since weighted their surveys by education, but not all have. It remains a critical cleavage that pollsters still need to address.
Weighting for education is complicated, though; namely, highly educated Americans are more likely to answer a poll than less educated Americans, and in an era of increasingly lower response rates, this could be a problem as underlying samples may be more educated than the actual population. The upshot is that even if a pollster is weighting its respondents to match the educational breakdown of a state’s population, it still may not be reaching enough voters with lower education levels. This could in turn affect the poll’s findings for the presidential race because the educational divide is now one of the most important predictors of party support besides race.
This means that pollsters could once again find themselves underestimating Republican support in 2020 because of weighting and sampling issues. After all, separate analyses by Sean Trende at RealClearPolitics and Nate Cohn at the New York Times’ The Upshot both found that after the polls undershot Trump’s support in 2016 in key battleground states like Florida, Iowa, Michigan and Ohio, the same thing happened in 2018 with those states underestimating Republican Senate and gubernatorial candidates. Overall, though, the polls were pretty good in 2018.
The larger lesson, really, is that it’s impossible to predict which way polling errors will run in an election. There are reasons polls might be missing some Trump supporters, but there are also reasons the polls could be underestimating Biden’s support. Indeed, there have been plenty of cycles in which polls overall have been biased (in a statistical sense) in favor of Republican candidates.
Polling bias is small and unpredictable Weighted average statistical bias of polls in the final 21 days before general elections, among polls in FiveThirtyEight’s pollster ratings database Cycle Governor U.S. Senate U.S. House President Combined 1998 R+5.6 R+4.5 R+0.8 R+3.8 1999-2000 R+0.4 R+2.7 D+1.2 R+2.4 R+1.9 2001-02 D+3.0 D+1.3 D+1.5 D+2.2 2003-04 D+1.7 D+1.1 D+2.7 D+1.1 D+1.5 2005-06 D+0.2 R+1.3 D+0.7 D+0.0 2007-08 R+0.1 D+0.4 D+1.1 D+1.0 D+0.8 2009-10 R+0.1 R+0.7 D+1.7 D+0.6 2011-12 R+1.6 R+3.1 R+2.9 R+2.5 R+2.8 2013-14 D+2.3 D+2.6 D+3.8 D+2.7 2015-16 D+3.3 D+2.7 D+4.1 D+3.3 D+3.0 2017-18 R+0.9 D+0.1 R+0.6 R+0.5 2019-20* D+2.9 TBD D+6.0 TBD TBD All years D+0.5 D+0.1 D+0.8 D+0.3 D+0.3 Bias is calculated only for elections where the top two finishers were a Republican and a Democrat. Therefore, it is not calculated for presidential primaries. Averages are weighted by the square root of the number of polls that a particular pollster conducted for that particular type of election in that particular cycle. Polls that are banned by FiveThirtyEight because we know or suspect they faked data are excluded from the analysis. *The gubernatorial and U.S. House figures are preliminary and based on small sample sizes. Because there are no polls of Senate or presidential races to incorporate, no combined score is given.
All in all, the good news for pollsters is that few, if any, voters are misleading them about their support for Trump. Yes, Morning Consult found small differences in support for Trump via household income and education, with wealthier and college-educated voters less likely to say they support Trump in a live-phone poll, but the shifts weren’t statistically meaningful. So while there might be a handful of reluctant Trump voters, it’s not on the level of the systemic polling challenges we’ve discussed that could still undersell how much support the president has. We should, as always, be prepared for some degree of polling error, but it’s probably not going to happen because of shy Trump voters.
Think The Electoral College Is Unfair to Democrats? Try The Senate. | FiveThirtyEight


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-23--Think The Electoral College Is Unfair To Democrats? Try The Senate.

FiveThirtyEight editor-in-chief Nate Silver explains how the Senate ’ s rural skew makes it hard for Democrats to win a @ @ @ @ @ into the race for the Senate , check out our 2020 Senate forecast .

Think The Electoral College Is Unfair To Democrats? Try The Senate.
FiveThirtyEight editor-in-chief Nate Silver explains how the Senate’s rural skew makes it hard for Democrats to win a majority.
For more insights into the race for the Senate, check out our 2020 Senate forecast.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-23--The Eastern Conference Finals Coaches Share The Same Strength

The Eastern Conference finals series between the Boston Celtics and Miami Heat is chock full of stars .
There are first-time All-Stars like Jayson Tatum and Bam Adebayo .
There are old standbys like Jimmy Butler and up-and-comers like Jaylen Brown .
And there are pick and roll maestros like Kemba Walker and Goran Dragić .
But these teams also have stars who spend most of their time on the bench : coaches Erik Spoelstra and Brad Stevens .
Spo is one of only 14 coaches in NBA history to win multiple titles and one of only eight to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 0.623 playoff winning percentage is 10th-best in league history and fourth-best among 23 coaches who have stalked the sideline for 100-plus postseason contests .
Stevens has not yet matched Spoelstra ’ s postseason accomplishments , but his teams have averaged 51.9 wins per 82 games over the past five years , and despite being in just his seventh season , this is already his third trip to the conference finals .
There are a lot of similarities between the two coaches as well .
There ’ s tenure , for one : Spoelstra @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 12 seasons ) and Stevens is sixth ( seven seasons ) .
There ’ s their relative youth : The 43-year-old Stevens is the sixth-youngest active coach while the 49-year-old Spoelstra is the 12th-youngest .
( They were hired at age 36 and 37 , respectively . )
And of course , there ’ s the modest origin stories : Spoelstra started out as the Heat ’ s video coordinator and — according to his father , former NBA executive Jon Spoelstra — only got to keep that job because then-incoming-coach Pat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his own video guy .
Stevens , meanwhile , started as a volunteer in the Butler University basketball department and was preparing to work at Applebee ’ s before being offered an assistant coaching position .
But perhaps the most meaningful similarity between the two is actually what drives the performance of their teams on the floor : stifling defense .
Spo and Stevens have each only coached one below-average defensive team in their career .
Spoelstra ’ s 2014-15 Heat squad ranked 21st in defensive efficiency after losing LeBron James in free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trade deadline and seeing Chris Bosh ’ s season ( and , ultimately , career ) cut short due to blood clots in his lung .
In eight of Spoelstra ’ s 11 other seasons , the Heat have sported a top-10 defense .
The 2013-14 Celtics finished 18th in defensive rating , but Stevens ’ s side has ranked inside the top seven in four of six seasons since .
The average Stevens defense has finished the regular season 2 points better per 100 possessions than the average defense in the NBA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defense has been 2.1 points better than average .
A quick look at the Celtics ’ performance in each of the Four Factors during the Stevens era reveals their defensive success has been based almost exclusively on shot defense and turnovers .
Boston has allowed its opponents a better-than-average shot conversion rate in only one of Stevens ’ s seven seasons , while it has ranked in the top 10 in opponent effective field-goal percentage in each of the last five years .
The Celtics have finished inside the top 10 in defensive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve never finished lower than 18th under Stevens .
Their performance in those two categories has kept them near the top of the league in point prevention despite consistently sending their opponents to the free-throw line and often getting beat up on the boards .
The Spo-era Heat , on the other hand , have alternated between counting on their ability to force turnovers and their ability to snag defensive rebounds .
While they have also sent opponents to the line with greater frequency than most coaches would like , they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that area as the Celtics ; and during the Big Three Era of James , Bosh and Dwyane Wade ( 2010-14 ) , they were actually quite good at avoiding fouls .
( That ’ s generally been a staple of LeBron teams . )
But those are just results .
There ’ s also the matter of the tactics that yielded those results .
To examine this , we can turn to the new metrics we created in advance of the playoffs : Aggression+ and Variance+ .
Aggression+ is an index statistic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aggressive than the league-average defense a particular team ’ s defense was in that season , both against every type of action and overall , while Variance+ measures how much more or less often than average that team changed its defensive strategy from night to night .
And it ’ s there where we can see a bit of divergence between the two coaches .
Spoelstra ’ s 2013-14 Heat team was not only the most aggressive defense in the league that season , it was the most aggressive of the entire Second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through 2019-20 seasons .
The most aggressive Stevens-coached Celtics team ( 2019-20 ) , meanwhile , ranked 39th in Aggression+ out of the 210 team-defense seasons we examined .
Spoelstra has also proved significantly more willing than Stevens to change up strategies from night to night .
Three of the past seven Heat teams ranked inside the top 15 ( out of 210 ) in Variance+ , while only one of Stevens ’ s seven Celtics teams even ranked inside the top 100 .
( The 2015-16 Celtics checked in at 99th .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ more passive ( 2014-15 through 2017-18 ) or aggressive , have tended to use the same strategies throughout the year .
Spoelstra-coached teams have been aggressive and variable ( 2013-14 and 2014-15 ) , passive and static ( 2015-16 and 2016-17 ) , and everything in between .
The fact that Spoelstra has coached so many different types of defenses while Stevens has largely used the same strategies with a greater degree of consistency hints at another difference between the two coaches : They have been tasked with leading wildly different rosters .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ exclusively of young players .
The average minutes-weighted age of his Celtics teams is just 25.3 years old , per Basketball-Reference.com , and the oldest team he ’ s coached was the 2016-17 squad that had a minutes-weighted age of 25.9 years old .
To put that in perspective , consider that 10 of Spoelstra ’ s 12 Heat teams have been older than the oldest Stevens-coached Celtics team .
The last two teams of the Big Three era had minutes-weighted ages nearly as old as the oldest player on this year ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The two most youthful rosters Spoelstra has led were his first team ( the 2008-09 team that had a minutes-weighted age of 25.6 years old ) , which featured such luminaries as a rookie Michael Beasley , and … this year ’ s Heat team , whose minutes-weighted age is 25.9 years old .
The team Spoelstra has put on the floor this postseason , though , is quite a bit older than the one he used during the regular season .
The starting point guard minutes that had been going to Kendrick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ season , are now mostly being soaked up by Dragić , in his age-33 season .
Minutes that previously belonged to Meyers Leonard ( age-27 ) are being distributed instead to Jae Crowder ( age-29 ) .
Jimmy Butler ( age-30 ) isn ’ t sitting out 20 percent of the games like he did during the regular season .
Even 20-year-old Tyler Herro ’ s increase in playing time is being offset by significant minutes for Kelly Olynyk ( age-28 ) and Andre Iguodala ( age-36 ) .
The Heat ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all the way up to 27.1 years old .
The Celtics , on the other hand , have gone even younger in the playoffs .
Wanamaker is playing a bit more , but so are Grant and Robert Williams ( 21 and 22 years old , respectively ) , plus Tatum ( in his age-21 season ) , Brown ( age-23 ) and Smart ( age-25 ) .
And , of course , Hayward ( age-29 ) missed 11 of the Celtics ’ 14 playoff games .
And yet , true to form @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defense .
The league-average team scored 110.6 points per 100 possessions this season , and the offensive environment was considerably better in the bubble .
The Celtics are sporting a tied-for-playoff-best 104.8 defensive rating , while the Heat check in at 108.6 .
There ’ s quite a bit of noise to those numbers because they ’ ve each only played specific teams , but each of their opponents scored at a higher rate during the regular season than they did against the Heat and Celtics in the playoffs .
The only opponents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been able to stop from scoring below their season averages so far during the postseason are the Celtics and Heat .
Boston is at 113.9 points per 100 possessions for the series compared with 113.3 during the regular season .
Miami is at 112.9 in the series compared with 112.5 during the year .
As the series moves to Game 4 tonight , it feels safe to say that whichever team ’ s defense can lock in first has a good chance to tip the balance in their favor .

The Eastern Conference finals series between the Boston Celtics and Miami Heat is chock full of stars. There are first-time All-Stars like Jayson Tatum and Bam Adebayo. There are old standbys like Jimmy Butler and up-and-comers like Jaylen Brown. And there are pick and roll maestros like Kemba Walker and Goran Dragić.
But these teams also have stars who spend most of their time on the bench: coaches Erik Spoelstra and Brad Stevens. Spo is one of only 14 coaches in NBA history to win multiple titles and one of only eight to do so since the ABA-NBA merger. His 0.623 playoff winning percentage is 10th-best in league history and fourth-best among 23 coaches who have stalked the sideline for 100-plus postseason contests. Stevens has not yet matched Spoelstra’s postseason accomplishments, but his teams have averaged 51.9 wins per 82 games over the past five years, and despite being in just his seventh season, this is already his third trip to the conference finals.
There are a lot of similarities between the two coaches as well. There’s tenure, for one: Spoelstra is the league’s second-longest-tenured coach (12 seasons) and Stevens is sixth (seven seasons). There’s their relative youth: The 43-year-old Stevens is the sixth-youngest active coach while the 49-year-old Spoelstra is the 12th-youngest. (They were hired at age 36 and 37, respectively.)
And of course, there’s the modest origin stories: Spoelstra started out as the Heat’s video coordinator and — according to his father, former NBA executive Jon Spoelstra — only got to keep that job because then-incoming-coach Pat Riley was not contractually allowed to hire his own video guy. Stevens, meanwhile, started as a volunteer in the Butler University basketball department and was preparing to work at Applebee’s before being offered an assistant coaching position.
But perhaps the most meaningful similarity between the two is actually what drives the performance of their teams on the floor: stifling defense. Spo and Stevens have each only coached one below-average defensive team in their career.
Spoelstra’s 2014-15 Heat squad ranked 21st in defensive efficiency after losing LeBron James in free agency, remaking the roster at the trade deadline and seeing Chris Bosh’s season (and, ultimately, career) cut short due to blood clots in his lung. In eight of Spoelstra’s 11 other seasons, the Heat have sported a top-10 defense. The 2013-14 Celtics finished 18th in defensive rating, but Stevens’s side has ranked inside the top seven in four of six seasons since. The average Stevens defense has finished the regular season 2 points better per 100 possessions than the average defense in the NBA that year, while the average Spoelstra defense has been 2.1 points better than average.
A quick look at the Celtics’ performance in each of the Four Factors during the Stevens era reveals their defensive success has been based almost exclusively on shot defense and turnovers.
League ranks by season in four defensive metrics for the Boston Celtics under coach Brad Stevens Opponent Season eFG% FT/FGA TOV% DREB% 2019-20 4 22 9 16 2018-19 8 17 7 17 2017-18 2 16 14 11 2016-17 5 24 17 28 2015-16 9 27 4 25 2014-15 15 16 11 14 2013-14 16 21 18 19 Average 8.4 20.4 11.4 18.6 Source: Basketball-Reference.com
Boston has allowed its opponents a better-than-average shot conversion rate in only one of Stevens’s seven seasons, while it has ranked in the top 10 in opponent effective field-goal percentage in each of the last five years. The Celtics have finished inside the top 10 in defensive turnover rate three times — and they’ve never finished lower than 18th under Stevens. Their performance in those two categories has kept them near the top of the league in point prevention despite consistently sending their opponents to the free-throw line and often getting beat up on the boards.
League ranks by season in four defensive metrics for the Miami Heat under coach Erik Spoelstra Opponent Season eFG% FT/FGA TOV% DREB% 2019-20 11 20 19 3 2018-19 5 19 13 11 2017-18 7 27 13 6 2016-17 4 22 16 15 2015-16 6 7 25 6 2014-15 23 20 8 23 2013-14 20 13 1 27 2012-13 9 14 4 23 2011-12 9 12 3 10 2010-11 3 11 28 4 2009-10 2 22 8 6 2008-09 16 22 4 19 Average 9.6 17.4 11.8 12.8 Source: Basketball-Reference.com
The Spo-era Heat, on the other hand, have alternated between counting on their ability to force turnovers and their ability to snag defensive rebounds. While they have also sent opponents to the line with greater frequency than most coaches would like, they’ve not been quite as friendly in that area as the Celtics; and during the Big Three Era of James, Bosh and Dwyane Wade (2010-14), they were actually quite good at avoiding fouls. (That’s generally been a staple of LeBron teams.)
But those are just results. There’s also the matter of the tactics that yielded those results. To examine this, we can turn to the new metrics we created in advance of the playoffs: Aggression+ and Variance+. Aggression+ is an index statistic that measures how much more or less aggressive than the league-average defense a particular team’s defense was in that season, both against every type of action and overall, while Variance+ measures how much more or less often than average that team changed its defensive strategy from night to night. And it’s there where we can see a bit of divergence between the two coaches.
Whose defenses are more aggressive and varied? League ranks by season in Aggression+ and Variance+ for teams coached by the Miami Heat’s Erik Spoelstra and the Boston Celtics’ Brad Stevens Aggression+ Variance+ Season Spoelstra Stevens Spoelstra Stevens 2019-20 14 6 8 29 2018-19 19 13 2 26 2017-18 26 19 11 23 2016-17 30 21 26 27 2015-16 30 20 28 30 2014-15 8 17 4 21 2013-14 1 15 1 26 Average 18.3 15.9 11.4 26 Aggression+ measures how much more or less aggressive a team was vs. the league-average defense. Variance+ measures how much more or less often than average a team changed its defensive strategy. Source: Second Spectrum
Spoelstra’s 2013-14 Heat team was not only the most aggressive defense in the league that season, it was the most aggressive of the entire Second Spectrum era, which covers the 2013-14 through 2019-20 seasons. The most aggressive Stevens-coached Celtics team (2019-20), meanwhile, ranked 39th in Aggression+ out of the 210 team-defense seasons we examined. Spoelstra has also proved significantly more willing than Stevens to change up strategies from night to night. Three of the past seven Heat teams ranked inside the top 15 (out of 210) in Variance+, while only one of Stevens’s seven Celtics teams even ranked inside the top 100. (The 2015-16 Celtics checked in at 99th.)
Stevens’s teams, whether more passive (2014-15 through 2017-18) or aggressive, have tended to use the same strategies throughout the year. Spoelstra-coached teams have been aggressive and variable (2013-14 and 2014-15), passive and static (2015-16 and 2016-17), and everything in between. The fact that Spoelstra has coached so many different types of defenses while Stevens has largely used the same strategies with a greater degree of consistency hints at another difference between the two coaches: They have been tasked with leading wildly different rosters.
The Stevens-era Celtics have been composed almost exclusively of young players. The average minutes-weighted age of his Celtics teams is just 25.3 years old, per Basketball-Reference.com, and the oldest team he’s coached was the 2016-17 squad that had a minutes-weighted age of 25.9 years old.
To put that in perspective, consider that 10 of Spoelstra’s 12 Heat teams have been older than the oldest Stevens-coached Celtics team. The last two teams of the Big Three era had minutes-weighted ages nearly as old as the oldest player on this year’s Celtics, 31-year-old Brad Wanamaker. The two most youthful rosters Spoelstra has led were his first team (the 2008-09 team that had a minutes-weighted age of 25.6 years old), which featured such luminaries as a rookie Michael Beasley, and … this year’s Heat team, whose minutes-weighted age is 25.9 years old.
The team Spoelstra has put on the floor this postseason, though, is quite a bit older than the one he used during the regular season. The starting point guard minutes that had been going to Kendrick Nunn, who is in his age-24 season, are now mostly being soaked up by Dragić, in his age-33 season. Minutes that previously belonged to Meyers Leonard (age-27) are being distributed instead to Jae Crowder (age-29). Jimmy Butler (age-30) isn’t sitting out 20 percent of the games like he did during the regular season. Even 20-year-old Tyler Herro’s increase in playing time is being offset by significant minutes for Kelly Olynyk (age-28) and Andre Iguodala (age-36).
The Heat’s minutes-weighted age in the postseason has shot all the way up to 27.1 years old. The Celtics, on the other hand, have gone even younger in the playoffs. Wanamaker is playing a bit more, but so are Grant and Robert Williams (21 and 22 years old, respectively), plus Tatum (in his age-21 season), Brown (age-23) and Smart (age-25). And, of course, Hayward (age-29) missed 11 of the Celtics’ 14 playoff games.
And yet, true to form, each team is still playing solid defense. The league-average team scored 110.6 points per 100 possessions this season, and the offensive environment was considerably better in the bubble. The Celtics are sporting a tied-for-playoff-best 104.8 defensive rating, while the Heat check in at 108.6. There’s quite a bit of noise to those numbers because they’ve each only played specific teams, but each of their opponents scored at a higher rate during the regular season than they did against the Heat and Celtics in the playoffs.
The only opponents the Heat and Celtics haven’t been able to stop from scoring below their season averages so far during the postseason are the Celtics and Heat. Boston is at 113.9 points per 100 possessions for the series compared with 113.3 during the regular season. Miami is at 112.9 in the series compared with 112.5 during the year. As the series moves to Game 4 tonight, it feels safe to say that whichever team’s defense can lock in first has a good chance to tip the balance in their favor.
Check out our latest NBA predictions.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-24--Arizona Is The Democrats’ Purple Splotch In The Sunbelt

Is Barry Goldwater spinning in his grave ?
Is Arizona turning blue in 2020 ?
By every polling indication , the answer is yes .
The latest ream of surveys coming out of the state show President Trump trailing Democratic nominee Joe Biden .
The FiveThirtyEight polling average of Arizona has shown Biden with a lead of anywhere from 4.5 to 5 percentage points during the month of September , and our forecast gives Biden a 65 percent chance of winning the state .
Arizona ’ s blue-ish tint has not been the norm .
The last time the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 1996 .
Before that , Arizona had a streak of voting for Republicans that dated back to 1952 .
But while Trump won the state with 48.1 percent of the vote in 2016 , his was the narrowest margin of Republican victory in recent memory .
Mitt Romney won Arizona with 54.2 percent of the vote in 2012 and John McCain won it ( his home state ) by around the same in 2008 .
George W. Bush got 55 percent of the vote in 2004 .
But now Arizona is probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might be difficult to conceive at first — Goldwater , “ maverick ” McCain , and the latter-day celebrity of Sheriff Joe Arpaio have solidified the state as the convervative cowboy of American pop culture .
But a combination of long-term demographic changes and the , uh , unusual nature of the 2020 election , have revealed the state for what it is : a purple splotch in the desert .
That ’ s in part because of Latino voters , who are a rapidly growing group in Arizona and promise to play @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than in previous years .
According to Pew Research Center projections , for the first time Latinos will be the largest minority group participating in the 2020 election , with 32 million Latinos eligible to vote .
Arizona has among the largest Latino populations in the country — 31.7 percent of the state ’ s population is Latino , according to 2019 American Community Survey estimates , up from 25.2 percent in the year 2000 — and the group ’ s participation in elections appears to be growing .
Exit polls from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 16 percent of Arizona ’ s electorate , and an independent analysis of the state ’ s electorate in 2016 showed that about 21 percent was Latino .
In 2018 , exit polls showed that 18 percent of Arizona voters were Latino in a year that gave Democrat Kyrsten Sinema the victory in a close Senate Race .
While the Latino vote isn ’ t a monolith , there are factors that tend to make Arizona ’ s Latinos more Democratic-leaning .
For one thing , the majority of Latinos in Arizona are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has leaned more Democratic than , say , Cuban Americans .
According to data from Equis Research , compared to more Republican-leaning Texas , there ’ s a higher rate of foreign-born Latinos in Arizona , and they tend to be more anti-Trump .
A higher share of Arizona ’ s Latinos live in more urban areas compared to Texas ’ s Latinos , another factor that skews their vote more Democratic .
In addition to the population growth of Latinos in Arizona , Democrats say that they ’ ve also worked to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We ’ ve created an electorate , ” Democratic strategist Rodd McLeod said of the party and community groups .
He pointed to Arizona ’ s Permanent Early Voting List — even before the pandemic , about 80 percent of the state voted by mail — as one key to building out the Democratic coalition in the state .
Identifying people who are “ on the edge of voting or not voting , ” McLeod said , helped push out reminders and door-knockers to voters who might not be in the habit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some Latino voters .
But ongoing demographic shifts are not the only reason that Arizona is competitive in the 2020 race .
White voters are also leaning towards Biden , marking a change from 2016 when Trump won 54 percent of Arizona ’ s white voters , according to exit polls .
Current polls show a much closer race between Biden and Trump with that group : a recent New York Times/Siena College survey , for example , showed Trump leading Biden by only a percentage point with white voters overall in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ college degree , Biden was beating Trump by 15 percentage points — Trump won that group in Arizona in 2016 , by a margin of 6 points , according to the exit polls .
Trump ’ s problem with suburban white voters is magnified in Arizona , where many of the state ’ s votes lie in the dense suburbia that is Maricopa County .
What ’ s more , those white , suburban independents in Arizona are more likely to be over 65 than elsewhere in the country , a group that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 12th-highest share of Americans over the age of 65 , according to a 2018 analysis by the Population Reference Bureau .
Mike Noble , chief pollster at Arizona-based OH Predictive Insights told me that Republicans ’ trouble in the suburbs could be traced back to 2018 in the Martha McSally-Kyrsten Sinema Senate race .
When he looked at precincts that flipped their party loyalty from 2016 to 2018 , Noble told me , McSally , the Republican candidate , was on the losing side of things : Over 80 districts in suburban @ @ @ @ @ @ @ switched over to vote for Sinema .
“ The composition of the folks there is white , college educated , independents , self-identified moderates , ” Noble said .
In the Trump era , he said , independents in the state who had once leaned to the right were now leaning left .
Voters are more preoccupied these days with health care , the economy and education , according to Noble ’ s data .
That ’ s a reversal from last year , he said , when Arizona voters saw immigration as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say actually , Arizona is a very much an independent state , ” he said .
“ If anyone has ever run to the far left or far right , they ’ ve gotten walloped.
” At least that ’ s the case in recent history .
Before that , Barry Goldwater had some things to say .

Is Barry Goldwater spinning in his grave? Is Arizona turning blue in 2020?
By every polling indication, the answer is yes. The latest ream of surveys coming out of the state show President Trump trailing Democratic nominee Joe Biden. The FiveThirtyEight polling average of Arizona has shown Biden with a lead of anywhere from 4.5 to 5 percentage points during the month of September, and our forecast gives Biden a 65 percent chance of winning the state.
Arizona’s blue-ish tint has not been the norm. The last time the state voted for a Democrat for president was in 1996. Before that, Arizona had a streak of voting for Republicans that dated back to 1952. But while Trump won the state with 48.1 percent of the vote in 2016, his was the narrowest margin of Republican victory in recent memory. Mitt Romney won Arizona with 54.2 percent of the vote in 2012 and John McCain won it (his home state) by around the same in 2008. George W. Bush got 55 percent of the vote in 2004.
But now Arizona is probably a bona fide swing state. That might be difficult to conceive at first — Goldwater, “maverick” McCain, and the latter-day celebrity of Sheriff Joe Arpaio have solidified the state as the conservative cowboy of American pop culture. But a combination of long-term demographic changes and the, uh, unusual nature of the 2020 election, have revealed the state for what it is: a purple splotch in the desert.
That’s in part because of Latino voters, who are a rapidly growing group in Arizona and promise to play a larger role in the 2020 election than in previous years. According to Pew Research Center projections, for the first time Latinos will be the largest minority group participating in the 2020 election, with 32 million Latinos eligible to vote. Arizona has among the largest Latino populations in the country — 31.7 percent of the state’s population is Latino, according to 2019 American Community Survey estimates, up from 25.2 percent in the year 2000 — and the group’s participation in elections appears to be growing. Exit polls from the 2008 presidential election showed Latino voters as 16 percent of Arizona’s electorate, and an independent analysis of the state’s electorate in 2016 showed that about 21 percent was Latino. In 2018, exit polls showed that 18 percent of Arizona voters were Latino in a year that gave Democrat Kyrsten Sinema the victory in a close Senate Race.
While the Latino vote isn’t a monolith, there are factors that tend to make Arizona’s Latinos more Democratic-leaning. For one thing, the majority of Latinos in Arizona are of Mexican descent, a group that has leaned more Democratic than, say, Cuban Americans. According to data from Equis Research, compared to more Republican-leaning Texas, there’s a higher rate of foreign-born Latinos in Arizona, and they tend to be more anti-Trump. A higher share of Arizona’s Latinos live in more urban areas compared to Texas’s Latinos, another factor that skews their vote more Democratic.
In addition to the population growth of Latinos in Arizona, Democrats say that they’ve also worked to leverage their advantage with the community. “We’ve created an electorate,” Democratic strategist Rodd McLeod said of the party and community groups. He pointed to Arizona’s Permanent Early Voting List — even before the pandemic, about 80 percent of the state voted by mail — as one key to building out the Democratic coalition in the state. Identifying people who are “on the edge of voting or not voting,” McLeod said, helped push out reminders and door-knockers to voters who might not be in the habit of regularly casting a ballot, like some Latino voters.
But ongoing demographic shifts are not the only reason that Arizona is competitive in the 2020 race. White voters are also leaning towards Biden, marking a change from 2016 when Trump won 54 percent of Arizona’s white voters, according to exit polls. Current polls show a much closer race between Biden and Trump with that group: a recent New York Times/Siena College survey, for example, showed Trump leading Biden by only a percentage point with white voters overall in the state. Among white voters with a college degree, Biden was beating Trump by 15 percentage points — Trump won that group in Arizona in 2016, by a margin of 6 points, according to the exit polls.
Trump’s problem with suburban white voters is magnified in Arizona, where many of the state’s votes lie in the dense suburbia that is Maricopa County. What’s more, those white, suburban independents in Arizona are more likely to be over 65 than elsewhere in the country, a group that Trump is struggling with. Arizona has the 12th-highest share of Americans over the age of 65, according to a 2018 analysis by the Population Reference Bureau.
Mike Noble, chief pollster at Arizona-based OH Predictive Insights told me that Republicans’ trouble in the suburbs could be traced back to 2018 in the Martha McSally-Kyrsten Sinema Senate race. When he looked at precincts that flipped their party loyalty from 2016 to 2018, Noble told me, McSally, the Republican candidate, was on the losing side of things: Over 80 districts in suburban Maricopa County that voted for Trump had switched over to vote for Sinema. “The composition of the folks there is white, college educated, independents, self-identified moderates,” Noble said. In the Trump era, he said, independents in the state who had once leaned to the right were now leaning left. Voters are more preoccupied these days with health care, the economy and education, according to Noble’s data. That’s a reversal from last year, he said, when Arizona voters saw immigration as a top issue.
“I would say actually, Arizona is a very much an independent state,” he said. “If anyone has ever run to the far left or far right, they’ve gotten walloped.”
At least that’s the case in recent history. Before that, Barry Goldwater had some things to say.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-24--How Far Could Trump Go To Undermine The Election Results?

In this emergency episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew reacts to the news that President Trump refused @ @ @ @ @ transfer of power should he lose the 2020 election .

How Far Could Trump Go To Undermine The Election Results?
In this emergency episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew reacts to the news that President Trump refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power should he lose the 2020 election.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-24--Politics Podcast: Trump Refuses To Commit To A Peaceful Transfer Of Power

When asked on Wednesday , President Trump refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power should he lose in @ @ @ @ @ installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew discusses ways that Trump could subvert @ @ @ @ @ and how his rhetoric affects American democracy .
You can listen to the episode by @ @ @ @ @ button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes , the ESPN @ @ @ @ @ platform .
If you are new to podcasts , learn how to listen .
The @ @ @ @ @ Mondays and Thursdays .
Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating @ @ @ @ @ Have a comment , question or suggestion for “ good polling vs. bad polling ” @ @ @ @ @ email , on Twitter or in the comments .

When asked on Wednesday, President Trump refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power should he lose in November. In this emergency installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew discusses ways that Trump could subvert the results of the election and how his rhetoric affects American democracy.
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast is recorded Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-24--The Miami Heat Built This Lead With A Zone And More Experience (And Tyler Herro)

chris.herring ( Chris Herring , senior sportswriter ) : Game 4 of the Celtics-Heat Eastern Conference finals went pretty much as we expected it to : With Boston ’ s Jayson Tatum going scoreless for an entire half , Miami rookie Tyler Herro dropping 37 points , and the Heat — a team that wasn ’ t even on a 50-win pace during the regular season — winning again to take a commanding lead and put themselves on the doorstep of the NBA Finals .
We watched the Heat take out a dominant Milwaukee club pretty convincingly last round .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ d end up here , with Miami up 3-1 on the Celtics , who seemed to match up better ?
sara.ziegler ( Sara Ziegler , sports editor ) : I think we all saw Tyler Herro ’ s Herroics coming .
( I ’ m so sorry . )
dubin ( Jared Dubin , FiveThirtyEight contributor ) : I did not foresee this at all , but I also think I should have listened to my own advice .
I ’ ve been having a conversation with a friend about the Heat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pointing out that you have to remember this is not the same Heat team we saw during the regular season .
chris.herring : Very , very different .
Erik Spoelstra is deploying his lineups so differently — a lot like Pat Riley used to do , where he shortens his bench and leans on guys .
That was the case in Game 4 , for sure .
dubin : Specifically , it ’ s a more experienced team .
( Aside from Herro . )
Their minutes-weighted age was 27.1 heading into Game @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regular season .
There ’ s more Jimmy Butler , more Jae Crowder , etc .
That helps .
dre.waters ( Andres Waters , FiveThirtyEight contributor ) : I really thought the Heat would have needed Kendrick Nunn to come back strong at some point to be able to get to this point .
He was arguably the team ’ s fourth-best player during the regular season .
dubin : Oh , right !
I glossed over Goran Dragić , who has been amazing .
chris.herring : Yeah , Dragić found an Ocean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
sara.ziegler : I love that they ’ re scoring more ( with an offensive rating of 113.0 in the playoffs vs. 111.9 in the regular season ) and defending better ( 107.8 vs. 109.3 ) now .
Against better , more consistent competition !
chris.herring : Where has Boston gone wrong ?
And what ’ s the remedy for what ’ s played out so far ?
dubin : One thing that ’ s really interesting is that the Heat seem to have taken a defensive cue from the Raptors in deciding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is stop Kemba Walker from getting into the paint .
That has meant a ton of zone defense , and that ’ s thrown off not only Kemba but the entire Celtics team for long stretches of multiple games .
( Even though they did figure some stuff out in Game 3 and then toward the end of Game 4 . )
chris.herring : I would ask if it ’ s too late to mount a comeback , but Denver is whispering in my ear , telling me that would be a stupid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it felt like Boston had found the solution to beating the zone in Game 3 , so I was really surprised to see them struggle so much with it Wednesday night .
chris.herring : One thing I will say that I ’ m not understanding , in watching Boston : They opted to trap Jimmy Butler — a guy that ’ s usually not gon na hurt you with his shooting — so far from the basket at times .
Similar to what Milwaukee did in going over the top of screens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s strange , given how many other guys Miami has to hurt you .
You have to be thrilled , or at worst content , if you ’ re Miami right now .
Though I do want to see what ’ s going on with Bam Adebayo health-wise .
I ’ d be a bit surprised if the Heat take the series in 5 .
But at this point , I think the likelihood of that is a lot better than the Celtics coming back and winning the next three to reach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ d be pretty thrilled if I were a team leading 3-1 in a series where the overall score is tied through four games , for sure .
dre.waters : Chris , Bam ’ s injury looked kind of awkward .
Was I the only one who had trouble seeing exactly how he got hurt even when it was in slow motion ?
It looked like he hurt his upper arm , but then it looked like he started holding his wrist .
chris.herring : Not as if anyone has a choice as to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had been coming off a , what , four-day break between Games 3 and 4 ?
Now that the calendar is back to normal , pretty much , there ’ s far less time for recovery .
sara.ziegler : He apparently got hurt in Game 3 , and this was a reaggravation .
He says he ’ ll be good to go for Game 5 … so we ’ ll see .
chris.herring : I guess we should talk at least briefly about Herro , too : 37 American points in a playoff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t even in the conversation for Rookie of the Year ?
Insane .
dubin : He wasn ’ t even the rookie on his own team that made the All-Rookie First Team !
dre.waters : In honor of Tony Chow , this should officially be called the Jimmy Butler AND Tyler Herro Stan Club .
chris.herring : There ’ s a tendency to label guys who shoot as well as Herro does “ shooters.
” But Wednesday was so fun in part because it was the full buffet of everything he does .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a playoff game — a conference finals game — being a shooter only .
He ’ s got a smooth handle .
He navigates screens well and can play off the ball .
He ’ s a good pull-up shooter .
He ’ s crafty around the basket .
sara.ziegler : Seems like his game has matured substantially in the postseason .
Herro was the eighth-ranked rookie in our regular-season RAPTOR wins above replacement , with 0.7 WAR for the season .
He ’ s had more WAR than that ( 1.0 ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I know this is a stats site so I should probably know the answer , but that seems good .
Is it good ?
Can we confirm it ’ s good ?
sara.ziegler : Seems pretty good to me !
dubin : The first thing I noticed about Herro early in the season was the way he moved without the ball .
He shakes free of defenders so easily , and he slides in and out of passing lanes remarkably well for such a young player .
So pretty immediately , I liked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could do more than that with some time .
But doing this much on the ball , this quickly , is far beyond what I expected .
chris.herring : Yeah .
He looks like a veteran already based on those things .
It ’ s one thing to do them at the college level ( and I watched someone like Nik Stauskas do it a ton at Michigan ) .
It ’ s insanely difficult and unusual to then replicate it at the pro level , particularly as a rookie in a meaningful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is really what he was asked to do at Kentucky before entering the league .
So either there was a lot to his game that we hadn ’ t seen while he was in college or Miami has done a hell of a job developing him throughout the course of the year .
chris.herring : Some people make the comparison to Devin Booker , who also played at Kentucky and who also flourished when given the opportunity to do a bit more at the next level .
dubin : John Calipari loves asking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he knows will get them to the NBA , and highly drafted at that .
But they can often do much more .
Booker never had the ball in his hands at Kentucky .
Karl-Anthony Towns never took threes .
chris.herring : Let ’ s talk about the West , which later on tonight will either move to 3-1 , like the Miami-Boston series , or be knotted at two games apiece .
The Nuggets have very much been that inflatable punching bag : You punch them with all your might , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the face .
It would have been so easy for the Nuggets to fold after Anthony Davis ’ s game-winner in Game 2 — it was a back-breaking sort of loss .
But then they come back and take Game 3 .
And that ’ s after they ’ d played themselves back into Game 2 , with a chance to win until Davis ’ s jumper .
Where does Denver stand now ?
Have the Nuggets figured something out that gives them an advantage ?
dubin : If Jamal Murray makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pretty distinct advantage .
sara.ziegler : You can ’ t argue with that .
dre.waters : I think it really comes down to what we talked about during the last Slack chat — Denver ’ s role players .
They played great in Game 3 , and got 51 points out of Michael Porter Jr. , Jerami Grant and Torrey Craig .
sara.ziegler : And don ’ t forget Monte Morris !
Twelve points in the second quarter alone in Game 3. dre.waters : Oh , yeah , I counted his points @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LOL .
dubin : Agree with Dre .
They need to get at least two A-level performances from Porter , Grant , Craig , Morris and Paul Millsap .
chris.herring : I ’ m curious to see whether the Nuggets continue to make more use of Grant as their 5 man , and less of Mason Plumlee .
( I ’ m sure the Nuggets wouldn ’ t mind us leaving Plumlee out of most conversations after what happened to end Game 2 . )
dubin : And that wasn ’ t even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mistake this season .
Or this season against the Lakers .
Or this season against the Lakers in the bubble .
chris.herring : Speaking of players used at center : The Lakers finally leaned into playing AD as the lone big , something I pointed out in the last chat that might be a factor in this series .
Los Angeles used those lineups for 15 minutes in Game 3 and came out a +10 in that span .
dre.waters : But doing that had to have been a major factor in being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ My jaw hit the floor when I saw AD ’ s rebounding numbers in Game 3 .
Sheesh .
dre.waters : Never would have thought Nikola Jokić could have single-handedly outrebounded the combo of AD , Dwight Howard and JaVale McGee .
dubin : Missing 10 more shots than the opponent probably makes the baseline expectation that you get outrebounded by seven or eight , but they got outrebounded by NINETEEN .
Yikes .
dre.waters : I saw a crazy stat from ESPN ’ s Stats & Information Group : The Lakers were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3. dubin : Sounds a lot like Game 1 against the Blazers .
dre.waters : And their first few games in the bubble , they couldn ’ t buy a three .
sara.ziegler : I think that kind of stuff is why the FiveThirtyEight model continues to hate the Lakers .
chris.herring : So maybe this all suggests a bounceback performance in Game 4 ?
dre.waters : I think they have to have one , Chris — they don ’ t want the Nuggets to get rolling again .
chris.herring : I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with LeBron James the next few games .
We saw rumblings of the Lakers being upset , to the point of complaining , that he hasn ’ t gotten to the line much .
He ’ s averaging a little under 9 points and shooting just under 41 percent in second halves — down from averaging 15 points and shooting 70 percent in first halves .
sara.ziegler : Even with all the fouls called against Denver in the first two games , LeBron only shot eight free throws .
dubin : So he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tonight , right ?
chris.herring : The magical Rajon Rondo performances were so helpful to start , I think , just because it placed a little less pressure on LeBron to make certain things happen within their offense .
It ’ s also crazy to look at 41 percent shooting and think “ bad.
” But it ’ s a pretty steep dropoff from one half to the next .
And he ’ s worn down in the late stages of the playoffs before .
I thought Zach Lowe made an interesting point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prompted him to pop far more than he ’ s rolled in this series .
He obviously can hit those shots , as Game 2 ’ s dagger showed .
But it puts less pressure on a poor rim defender like Jokić and the Nuggets in general to have someone with Davis ’ s talent and free-throw shooting ability 25 feet away .
dubin : If you ’ re the Lakers , AD going to the line is probably preferable to LeBron going to the line in terms of the actual chances of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ repeatedly getting fouled certainly warps the defense in a different way than AD getting fouled repeatedly does .
So I can see why L.A. might want to tip that balance a bit by … nudging the officials about it .
sara.ziegler : Are you insinuating that this is not just a pure response to incorrect officiating ?
?

The Miami Heat Built This Lead With A Zone And More Experience (And Tyler Herro)
chris.herring (Chris Herring, senior sportswriter): Game 4 of the Celtics-Heat Eastern Conference finals went pretty much as we expected it to: With Boston’s Jayson Tatum going scoreless for an entire half, Miami rookie Tyler Herro dropping 37 points, and the Heat — a team that wasn’t even on a 50-win pace during the regular season — winning again to take a commanding lead and put themselves on the doorstep of the NBA Finals.
We watched the Heat take out a dominant Milwaukee club pretty convincingly last round. But did any of you think we’d end up here, with Miami up 3-1 on the Celtics, who seemed to match up better?
sara.ziegler (Sara Ziegler, sports editor): I think we all saw Tyler Herro’s Herroics coming. (I’m so sorry.)
dubin (Jared Dubin, FiveThirtyEight contributor): I did not foresee this at all, but I also think I should have listened to my own advice. I’ve been having a conversation with a friend about the Heat throughout the playoffs, and I keep pointing out that you have to remember this is not the same Heat team we saw during the regular season.
chris.herring: Very, very different.
Erik Spoelstra is deploying his lineups so differently — a lot like Pat Riley used to do, where he shortens his bench and leans on guys. That was the case in Game 4, for sure.
dubin: Specifically, it’s a more experienced team. (Aside from Herro.) Their minutes-weighted age was 27.1 heading into Game 4, compared with 25.9 during the regular season. There’s more Jimmy Butler, more Jae Crowder, etc. That helps.
dre.waters (Andres Waters, FiveThirtyEight contributor): I really thought the Heat would have needed Kendrick Nunn to come back strong at some point to be able to get to this point. He was arguably the team’s fourth-best player during the regular season.
dubin: Oh, right! I glossed over Goran Dragić, who has been amazing.
chris.herring: Yeah, Dragić found an Ocean of Youth, bro. My goodness.
sara.ziegler: I love that they’re scoring more (with an offensive rating of 113.0 in the playoffs vs. 111.9 in the regular season) and defending better (107.8 vs. 109.3) now. Against better, more consistent competition!
chris.herring: Where has Boston gone wrong? And what’s the remedy for what’s played out so far?
dubin: One thing that’s really interesting is that the Heat seem to have taken a defensive cue from the Raptors in deciding that the most important thing to do is stop Kemba Walker from getting into the paint. That has meant a ton of zone defense, and that’s thrown off not only Kemba but the entire Celtics team for long stretches of multiple games. (Even though they did figure some stuff out in Game 3 and then toward the end of Game 4.)
chris.herring: I would ask if it’s too late to mount a comeback, but Denver is whispering in my ear, telling me that would be a stupid question.
dre.waters: Like Jared said, it felt like Boston had found the solution to beating the zone in Game 3, so I was really surprised to see them struggle so much with it Wednesday night.
chris.herring: One thing I will say that I’m not understanding, in watching Boston: They opted to trap Jimmy Butler — a guy that’s usually not gonna hurt you with his shooting — so far from the basket at times. Similar to what Milwaukee did in going over the top of screens to defend him last series. It’s strange, given how many other guys Miami has to hurt you.
You have to be thrilled, or at worst content, if you’re Miami right now. Though I do want to see what’s going on with Bam Adebayo health-wise.
I’d be a bit surprised if the Heat take the series in 5. But at this point, I think the likelihood of that is a lot better than the Celtics coming back and winning the next three to reach the Finals.
dubin: I’d be pretty thrilled if I were a team leading 3-1 in a series where the overall score is tied through four games, for sure.
dre.waters: Chris, Bam’s injury looked kind of awkward. Was I the only one who had trouble seeing exactly how he got hurt even when it was in slow motion? It looked like he hurt his upper arm, but then it looked like he started holding his wrist.
chris.herring: Not as if anyone has a choice as to when they get hurt. But they had been coming off a, what, four-day break between Games 3 and 4? Now that the calendar is back to normal, pretty much, there’s far less time for recovery.
sara.ziegler: He apparently got hurt in Game 3, and this was a reaggravation. He says he’ll be good to go for Game 5 … so we’ll see.
chris.herring: I guess we should talk at least briefly about Herro, too: 37 American points in a playoff game for a rookie who wasn’t even in the conversation for Rookie of the Year? Insane.
dubin: He wasn’t even the rookie on his own team that made the All-Rookie First Team!
dre.waters: In honor of Tony Chow, this should officially be called the Jimmy Butler AND Tyler Herro Stan Club.
chris.herring: There’s a tendency to label guys who shoot as well as Herro does “shooters.” But Wednesday was so fun in part because it was the full buffet of everything he does.
You can’t score 37 in a playoff game — a conference finals game — being a shooter only. He’s got a smooth handle. He navigates screens well and can play off the ball. He’s a good pull-up shooter. He’s crafty around the basket.
sara.ziegler: Seems like his game has matured substantially in the postseason. Herro was the eighth-ranked rookie in our regular-season RAPTOR wins above replacement, with 0.7 WAR for the season. He’s had more WAR than that (1.0) in these playoffs alone.
dubin: I know this is a stats site so I should probably know the answer, but that seems good. Is it good? Can we confirm it’s good?
sara.ziegler: Seems pretty good to me!
dubin: The first thing I noticed about Herro early in the season was the way he moved without the ball. He shakes free of defenders so easily, and he slides in and out of passing lanes remarkably well for such a young player. So pretty immediately, I liked his game a lot and thought he could do more than that with some time. But doing this much on the ball, this quickly, is far beyond what I expected.
chris.herring: Yeah. He looks like a veteran already based on those things.
It’s one thing to do them at the college level (and I watched someone like Nik Stauskas do it a ton at Michigan). It’s insanely difficult and unusual to then replicate it at the pro level, particularly as a rookie in a meaningful playoff situation.
dre.waters: But shooting is really what he was asked to do at Kentucky before entering the league. So either there was a lot to his game that we hadn’t seen while he was in college or Miami has done a hell of a job developing him throughout the course of the year.
chris.herring: Some people make the comparison to Devin Booker, who also played at Kentucky and who also flourished when given the opportunity to do a bit more at the next level.
dubin: John Calipari loves asking his guys to do specific things that he knows will get them to the NBA, and highly drafted at that. But they can often do much more. Booker never had the ball in his hands at Kentucky. Karl-Anthony Towns never took threes.
chris.herring: Let’s talk about the West, which later on tonight will either move to 3-1, like the Miami-Boston series, or be knotted at two games apiece.
The Nuggets have very much been that inflatable punching bag: You punch them with all your might, but then they swing back and knock you in the face. It would have been so easy for the Nuggets to fold after Anthony Davis’s game-winner in Game 2 — it was a back-breaking sort of loss. But then they come back and take Game 3. And that’s after they’d played themselves back into Game 2, with a chance to win until Davis’s jumper.
Where does Denver stand now? Have the Nuggets figured something out that gives them an advantage?
dubin: If Jamal Murray makes all of his shots, they have a pretty distinct advantage.
dre.waters: LOL
chris.herring: LOL
sara.ziegler: You can’t argue with that.
dre.waters: I think it really comes down to what we talked about during the last Slack chat — Denver’s role players. They played great in Game 3, and got 51 points out of Michael Porter Jr., Jerami Grant and Torrey Craig.
sara.ziegler: And don’t forget Monte Morris! Twelve points in the second quarter alone in Game 3.
(Shoutout to my Iowa State fam.)
dre.waters: Oh, yeah, I counted his points and forgot to add his name, LOL.
sara.ziegler: Hahaha
dubin: Agree with Dre. They need to get at least two A-level performances from Porter, Grant, Craig, Morris and Paul Millsap.
chris.herring: I’m curious to see whether the Nuggets continue to make more use of Grant as their 5 man, and less of Mason Plumlee. (I’m sure the Nuggets wouldn’t mind us leaving Plumlee out of most conversations after what happened to end Game 2.)
dubin: And that wasn’t even the first time he made that exact mistake this season. Or this season against the Lakers. Or this season against the Lakers in the bubble.
chris.herring: Speaking of players used at center: The Lakers finally leaned into playing AD as the lone big, something I pointed out in the last chat that might be a factor in this series. Los Angeles used those lineups for 15 minutes in Game 3 and came out a +10 in that span.
dre.waters: But doing that had to have been a major factor in being outrebounded by so much.
sara.ziegler: My jaw hit the floor when I saw AD’s rebounding numbers in Game 3. Sheesh.
dre.waters: Never would have thought Nikola Jokić could have single-handedly outrebounded the combo of AD, Dwight Howard and JaVale McGee.
dubin: Missing 10 more shots than the opponent probably makes the baseline expectation that you get outrebounded by seven or eight, but they got outrebounded by NINETEEN. Yikes.
dre.waters: I saw a crazy stat from ESPN’s Stats & Information Group: The Lakers were actually 0-for-9 on wide-open 3-pointers in Game 3.
dubin: Sounds a lot like Game 1 against the Blazers.
dre.waters: And their first few games in the bubble, they couldn’t buy a three.
sara.ziegler: I think that kind of stuff is why the FiveThirtyEight model continues to hate the Lakers.
(Which it still really does — it gives L.A. only a 17 percent chance to win the Finals.)
chris.herring: So maybe this all suggests a bounceback performance in Game 4?
dre.waters: I think they have to have one, Chris — they don’t want the Nuggets to get rolling again.
chris.herring: I’m really interested to see what happens with LeBron James the next few games. We saw rumblings of the Lakers being upset, to the point of complaining, that he hasn’t gotten to the line much.
He’s averaging a little under 9 points and shooting just under 41 percent in second halves — down from averaging 15 points and shooting 70 percent in first halves.
sara.ziegler: Even with all the fouls called against Denver in the first two games, LeBron only shot eight free throws.
dubin: So he’ll be taking 20 free throws tonight, right?
dre.waters: 😂
sara.ziegler: LOL
chris.herring: The magical Rajon Rondo performances were so helpful to start, I think, just because it placed a little less pressure on LeBron to make certain things happen within their offense.
It’s also crazy to look at 41 percent shooting and think “bad.” But it’s a pretty steep dropoff from one half to the next. And he’s worn down in the late stages of the playoffs before.
I thought Zach Lowe made an interesting point: AD’s perimeter shooting has prompted him to pop far more than he’s rolled in this series. He obviously can hit those shots, as Game 2’s dagger showed. But it puts less pressure on a poor rim defender like Jokić and the Nuggets in general to have someone with Davis’s talent and free-throw shooting ability 25 feet away.
dubin: If you’re the Lakers, AD going to the line is probably preferable to LeBron going to the line in terms of the actual chances of making the free throws, but LeBron repeatedly getting fouled certainly warps the defense in a different way than AD getting fouled repeatedly does. So I can see why L.A. might want to tip that balance a bit by … nudging the officials about it.
sara.ziegler: Are you insinuating that this is not just a pure response to incorrect officiating??
dre.waters: LMAO
Check out our latest NBA predictions.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-24--Four Senate Races To Watch As The GOP Rushes To Fill RBG’s Seat

Elections analyst Nathaniel Rakich takes a look at four key Senate races in our Senate forecast that could feel the @ @ @ @ @ to fill the vacant Supreme Court seat .

Four Senate Races To Watch As The GOP Rushes To Fill RBG’s Seat
Elections analyst Nathaniel Rakich takes a look at four key Senate races in our Senate forecast that could feel the effects of the ongoing battle to fill the vacant Supreme Court seat.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-24--Nikola Jokić Is A Tortoise, And He’s Beating All Of The Hares

Earlier this month , before the Nuggets pulled off another improbable series comeback , I asked 7-footer Nikola Jokić about the patient , glacially paced style he uses on offense .
In a hyper-athletic NBA , in which the speed limit is 70 , the Denver star operates at … something much , much less .
“ I ’ m patient because I can not really run fast , and that ’ s my only option , ” he said , with a deadpan .
No one will mistake Jokić for Usain Bolt anytime soon , but the reality is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best , and brings opposing defenders to their knees most often , while playing at his slowest .
There ’ s no getting around the simple truth that the Joker is slow , to put it kindly .
Among NBA players who logged at least 1,500 minutes in the regular season , Jokić spent the least time running fast , per Second Spectrum data , triggering that distinction just 2.91 percent of the time .
It ’ s remarkable that Denver , a team that has historically thrived off its ability to play @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increased home-court advantage , has been such an ideal fit for a relative tortoise .
But the playoffs have only reinforced that notion .
Over Jokić ’ s playoff career the past two seasons , he ’ s logged a blistering effective field-goal percentage of 65.5 — shooting 33-of-55 , including 6-of-7 from deep — when possessing the ball for more than six seconds before a shot , per NBA Advanced Stats .
That ’ s a sizable step up from when Jokić has it for from two to six seconds ( 50.8 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for less than two seconds before letting a shot fly ( 58.9 ) .
Jokić has been a nightmare for the Lakers throughout the Western Conference finals , hitting so many outrageous shuffle jumpers that he might as well be playing H.O.R.S.E .
What often stands out most about Jokić , though , is how little wasted movement there is within his offensive plays .
While most of the NBA ’ s first and second options will usually dribble upon getting the ball , Jokić usually pauses to survey the floor first .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ dribble at all .
This season , Jokić threw more than 21 percent of his passes after having the ball for more than a second , without dribbling it first , according to an analysis run by Matt Scott of STATS SportVU .
To put that into greater context , the average player threw just 2.5 percent of his passes that way .
But Jokić , whose place among the all-time great passing big men has been discussed at length this postseason , isn ’ t the average NBA player .
He ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , flick a water-polo style pass the length of the floor and hit a teammate in stride .
He ’ s a bit like Tom Brady , in that he ’ s happy to stay in the pocket without feeling overly rushed or pressured .
And when defenses try to apply more pressure to Jokić by sending double-teams , he more often than not makes the correct read and finds the open teammate in the corner .
“ When I ’ m playing offense , I just look for defensive mistakes , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to make a mistake , or what are they going to do ?
Playing a bit slower , because the game is so fast , kind of gives my teammates a chance to go for a back cut , or a lob .
They ’ re going to be open .
So I ’ m playing in my comfort zone , if that makes any sense.
” The Clippers found this out the hard way , sending ill-advised doubles at him one period , while trapping Jamal Murray — and giving Jokić @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Green and the Warriors feasted on for years — the next quarter .
Neither strategy worked for Los Angeles , partly because Jokić is far too advanced a passer to give him a steady diet of power-play scenarios .
Nuggets coach Michael Malone credited his players for learning how to play off of Jokić better , by moving without the ball .
( They ranked No .
2 in efficiency on cuts to the basket this season and tied for No .
1 last season . )
But guard Monte Morris said Jokić @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is special , in that defenses know what he ’ s trying to do but have no real way of stopping him from doing it .
“ Once we pass the ball to him , we usually just try to cut .
And if you can get a step on my man , about 90 percent of the time , he ’ ll get the ball to you where you can finish , ” Morris said .
Jokić may often take a few ticks to get off a shot or set up a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve seen for a few years now , and as he ’ s shown all postseason , he usually makes it worth the wait .

Earlier this month, before the Nuggets pulled off another improbable series comeback, I asked 7-footer Nikola Jokić about the patient, glacially paced style he uses on offense. In a hyper-athletic NBA, in which the speed limit is 70, the Denver star operates at … something much, much less.
“I’m patient because I cannot really run fast, and that’s my only option,” he said, with a deadpan.
No one will mistake Jokić for Usain Bolt anytime soon, but the reality is that he’s often at his best, and brings opposing defenders to their knees most often, while playing at his slowest.
There’s no getting around the simple truth that the Joker is slow, to put it kindly. Among NBA players who logged at least 1,500 minutes in the regular season, Jokić spent the least time running fast, per Second Spectrum data, triggering that distinction just 2.91 percent of the time. It’s remarkable that Denver, a team that has historically thrived off its ability to play with pace and use altitude for an increased home-court advantage, has been such an ideal fit for a relative tortoise.
But the playoffs have only reinforced that notion. Over Jokić’s playoff career the past two seasons, he’s logged a blistering effective field-goal percentage of 65.5 — shooting 33-of-55, including 6-of-7 from deep — when possessing the ball for more than six seconds before a shot, per NBA Advanced Stats. That’s a sizable step up from when Jokić has it for from two to six seconds (50.8), or when he keeps it for less than two seconds before letting a shot fly (58.9).
Jokić has been a nightmare for the Lakers throughout the Western Conference finals, hitting so many outrageous shuffle jumpers that he might as well be playing H.O.R.S.E.
What often stands out most about Jokić, though, is how little wasted movement there is within his offensive plays. While most of the NBA’s first and second options will usually dribble upon getting the ball, Jokić usually pauses to survey the floor first. Many times, he won’t dribble at all.
This season, Jokić threw more than 21 percent of his passes after having the ball for more than a second, without dribbling it first, according to an analysis run by Matt Scott of STATS SportVU. To put that into greater context, the average player threw just 2.5 percent of his passes that way.
But Jokić, whose place among the all-time great passing big men has been discussed at length this postseason, isn’t the average NBA player. He’s someone who can grab a rebound, flick a water-polo style pass the length of the floor and hit a teammate in stride. He’s a bit like Tom Brady, in that he’s happy to stay in the pocket without feeling overly rushed or pressured. And when defenses try to apply more pressure to Jokić by sending double-teams, he more often than not makes the correct read and finds the open teammate in the corner.
“When I’m playing offense, I just look for defensive mistakes,” Jokić told me. “Are they going to make a mistake, or what are they going to do? Playing a bit slower, because the game is so fast, kind of gives my teammates a chance to go for a back cut, or a lob. They’re going to be open. So I’m playing in my comfort zone, if that makes any sense.”
The Clippers found this out the hard way, sending ill-advised doubles at him one period, while trapping Jamal Murray — and giving Jokić the sort of 4-on-3 looks that Draymond Green and the Warriors feasted on for years — the next quarter. Neither strategy worked for Los Angeles, partly because Jokić is far too advanced a passer to give him a steady diet of power-play scenarios.
Nuggets coach Michael Malone credited his players for learning how to play off of Jokić better, by moving without the ball. (They ranked No. 2 in efficiency on cuts to the basket this season and tied for No. 1 last season.) But guard Monte Morris said Jokić’s inverted feel for the game is special, in that defenses know what he’s trying to do but have no real way of stopping him from doing it.
“Once we pass the ball to him, we usually just try to cut. And if you can get a step on my man, about 90 percent of the time, he’ll get the ball to you where you can finish,” Morris said.
Jokić may often take a few ticks to get off a shot or set up a Nuggets teammate. But as we’ve seen for a few years now, and as he’s shown all postseason, he usually makes it worth the wait.
Check out our latest NBA predictions.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-24--What State Polls Can Tell Us About The National Race

Earlier this week , I was working on an article that claimed Joe Biden had better results in state polls than in national polls .
Then on Wednesday , the inevitable happened .
Biden had some excellent results in national polls , including 10-point leads in high-quality national polls from Quinnipiac University and Marquette Law School , bringing his margin in our national polling average up to 7.3 percentage points .
And he had some pretty bad state polls .
ABC News/Washington Post polls showed him narrowly trailing President Trump in Florida and Arizona , for example , two states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( All numbers in this article are as of late Wednesday afternoon . )
Still , it ’ s worth thinking about what state polls can tell us about the national race .
Suppose , for instance , that there were no national polls , and instead , we had to guess what the national popular vote would be from state polls .
Actually , this wouldn ’ t be that hard at all !
Since we know how the states vote relative to the nation , we can use state polls to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instance , is typically about 3 points more Republican than the average state .
So if Biden were ahead by 2 points in Florida , it would imply that he was ahead by 5 points nationally .
Why bother with this when we can just look at national polls directly ?
Well , one good reason is that if used properly , state polls can actually give you a better projection of the national popular vote than national polls themselves !
In 2012 , for instance , our model — which then , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to forecast the national popular vote — showed then-President Barack Obama winning the popular vote by approximately 3 points , even though his lead in national polls was only about 1 point .
Indeed , the state polls provided the better estimate of the national popular vote than the national polls did .
( Obama won the popular vote that year by around 4 points . )
Keep in mind that there is a lot of information contained in those state polls .
They may do a better job of estimating the preferences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their states — Cuban Americans in Florida , or Mormons in Utah , for example — than national polls ever could .
And at least this year , the pollsters conducting state polls tend to be more highly rated than those doing national polls , especially with pollsters like New York Times/Siena College and our colleagues at ABC News doing more state polling this year than in the past .
So let me run you through a simplified version of how our model uses those state polls .
It ’ s similar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In each state , our model calculates the national margin based on a state ’ s partisan lean , plus Biden ’ s current lead or deficit in our polling average .
Here is that calculation for a broad group of purple states ( or congressional district in the case of Nebraska ) — everything on the spectrum from purple-red ( maroon ? )
states like Texas to purple-blue ( indigo ? )
states like New Mexico .
I ’ ll show you the national margin based both on how a state voted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2012 — in some cases , there are significant differences .
As of late Wednesday afternoon , for example , Biden led by 6.8 percentage points in our polling average in Wisconsin .
It ’ s clearly good news for Biden that he ’ s leading in Wisconsin , but what it implies about the national race depends on what year you ’ re comparing it with .
In 2016 , for instance , Wisconsin was about 2.9 points more Republican than the nation , so having a 6.8-point lead there would imply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nationally .
But in 2012 , Wisconsin was 3.1 points more Democratic than the country overall , so a 6.8-point lead would imply only a 3.7-point national margin .
Indeed , you can see in the chart where Biden is running especially well or comparatively poorly relative to how the state usually votes .
The fact that Biden is nearly tied with Trump in Texas is extremely impressive for Biden , for example .
But it ’ s not a great sign for him that his lead in Florida is so narrow .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michigan and Maine — which swung strongly against Hillary Clinton in 2016 — Biden ’ s performance is very impressive relative to four years ago , but not so much as compared with 2012 .
However , averaging each state ’ s implied national margin and weighting it based on each state ’ s turnout puts Biden ahead by 8.1 points nationally if you ’ re using 2016 as a baseline , or 7.2 points if you ’ re using 2012 instead .
In this case , that ’ s pretty similar to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But what about polls in deeply red states and deeply blue states ?
Those states may not create much Electoral College suspense , but they do count toward the popular vote .
First , Biden ’ s national margin in red states that have a sufficient amount of polling : Biden ’ s actually polling comparatively well in many of these red states .
He ’ s not much of a threat to win them , but in a fair number of them , his deficit is in the single digits when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ digits .
Whether this is real or reflects dubious polling is harder to say , however .
In very blue and very red states , it ’ s not uncommon for polls to underestimate the winning candidate ’ s margin .
But maybe Biden , who isn ’ t as easily typecast as a liberal as Democrats like Clinton , Obama and John Kerry , has a bit more red-state appeal than other recent Democratic nominees have .
Overall , the red state polls imply that Biden has a 12-point national lead ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 as a baseline , or a 9.8 lead if you ’ re using 2012 instead .
How about polls in deeply blue states ?
Most of these states actually haven ’ t been polled very much , but of the ones that have , California stands out : Biden is leading by “ only ” 29.3 percentage points there , which , of course , is a very large lead , but he is actually slightly down from Clinton ’ s 30.1-point win there in 2016 .
It makes some sense , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Clinton is with older white voters , whereas California voters are majority-minority and young .
Then again , that 29.3-point margin would still be higher than Obama ’ s margins there in 2012 — or in 2008 .
In total , the blue states imply a 5.2-point national lead for Biden using 2016 as a baseline , or 8.5 points using 2012 .
Add it all up , and the state polls are a tiny bit better for Biden than his national polls show — but only a tiny bit .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states combined imply that Biden is ahead by 8.0 percentage points nationally ( you get the same results whether using 2012 or 2016 as a baseline ) as compared with his current 7.3-point lead in national polls .
Perhaps the broader lesson here is that we don ’ t really need national polls for all that much .
In fact , our model uses them fairly sparingly .
The election is contested at the state level .
Although it can be useful to know where the national popular vote stands for various reasons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national polls to forecast it — you can come up with pretty good ( indeed , often better ) estimates of the national popular vote by using state polls instead .

Earlier this week, I was working on an article that claimed Joe Biden had better results in state polls than in national polls.
Then on Wednesday, the inevitable happened. Biden had some excellent results in national polls, including 10-point leads in high-quality national polls from Quinnipiac University and Marquette Law School, bringing his margin in our national polling average up to 7.3 percentage points. And he had some pretty bad state polls. ABC News/Washington Post polls showed him narrowly trailing President Trump in Florida and Arizona, for example, two states where he has usually held leads. (All numbers in this article are as of late Wednesday afternoon.)
Still, it’s worth thinking about what state polls can tell us about the national race. Suppose, for instance, that there were no national polls, and instead, we had to guess what the national popular vote would be from state polls. Actually, this wouldn’t be that hard at all!
Since we know how the states vote relative to the nation, we can use state polls to estimate national results. Florida, for instance, is typically about 3 points more Republican than the average state. So if Biden were ahead by 2 points in Florida, it would imply that he was ahead by 5 points nationally.
Why bother with this when we can just look at national polls directly?
Well, one good reason is that if used properly, state polls can actually give you a better projection of the national popular vote than national polls themselves! In 2012, for instance, our model — which then, like now, mostly uses state polls to forecast the national popular vote — showed then-President Barack Obama winning the popular vote by approximately 3 points, even though his lead in national polls was only about 1 point. Indeed, the state polls provided the better estimate of the national popular vote than the national polls did. (Obama won the popular vote that year by around 4 points.)
Keep in mind that there is a lot of information contained in those state polls. They may do a better job of estimating the preferences of demographic groups that are more common in their states — Cuban Americans in Florida, or Mormons in Utah, for example — than national polls ever could. And at least this year, the pollsters conducting state polls tend to be more highly rated than those doing national polls, especially with pollsters like New York Times/Siena College and our colleagues at ABC News doing more state polling this year than in the past.
So let me run you through a simplified version of how our model uses those state polls. It’s similar to the example about Florida above. In each state, our model calculates the national margin based on a state’s partisan lean, plus Biden’s current lead or deficit in our polling average. Here is that calculation for a broad group of purple states (or congressional district in the case of Nebraska) — everything on the spectrum from purple-red (maroon?) states like Texas to purple-blue (indigo?) states like New Mexico. I’ll show you the national margin based both on how a state voted in 2016 and how it voted in 2012 — in some cases, there are significant differences.
What purple state polls say about the national race Biden’s polling lead or deficit in close states, and what that means for his national margin, based on 2016 and 2012 results Biden national margin State Biden’s current lead or deficit* Based on 2016 results Based on 2012 results Texas -0.7 +10.4 +18.9 Georgia -1.0 +6.2 +10.7 Iowa -1.0 +10.5 -3.0 Ohio -1.0 +9.2 -0.1 Arizona +3.8 +9.4 +16.7 Nebraska 2nd District +4.3 +8.6 +15.3 North Carolina +1.2 +6.9 +7.1 Florida +1.7 +5.0 +4.7 Pennsylvania +4.6 +7.4 +3.1 Wisconsin +6.8 +9.7 +3.7 New Hampshire +6.9 +8.6 +5.2 Michigan +7.5 +9.8 +1.9 Minnesota +9.2 +9.8 +5.4 Nevada +5.8 +5.5 +3.0 Virginia +11.3 +8.1 +11.3 Colorado +10.2 +7.4 +8.7 Maine +13.9 +13.0 +2.5 New Mexico +12.9 +6.8 +6.6 Average (weighted by turnout) +3.6 +8.1 +7.2 *Based on FiveThirtyEight polling averages as of 4:10 p.m. Eastern on Sept. 23. States (or district in the case of Nebraska) are included only if they have at least five total polls or polls from at least three pollsters. Sorted from reddest to bluest.
As of late Wednesday afternoon, for example, Biden led by 6.8 percentage points in our polling average in Wisconsin. It’s clearly good news for Biden that he’s leading in Wisconsin, but what it implies about the national race depends on what year you’re comparing it with. In 2016, for instance, Wisconsin was about 2.9 points more Republican than the nation, so having a 6.8-point lead there would imply that Biden had a huge 9.7-point lead nationally. But in 2012, Wisconsin was 3.1 points more Democratic than the country overall, so a 6.8-point lead would imply only a 3.7-point national margin.
Indeed, you can see in the chart where Biden is running especially well or comparatively poorly relative to how the state usually votes. The fact that Biden is nearly tied with Trump in Texas is extremely impressive for Biden, for example. But it’s not a great sign for him that his lead in Florida is so narrow. In states like Iowa, Ohio, Michigan and Maine — which swung strongly against Hillary Clinton in 2016 — Biden’s performance is very impressive relative to four years ago, but not so much as compared with 2012.
However, averaging each state’s implied national margin and weighting it based on each state’s turnout puts Biden ahead by 8.1 points nationally if you’re using 2016 as a baseline, or 7.2 points if you’re using 2012 instead. In this case, that’s pretty similar to his current 7.3-point lead in national polls.
But what about polls in deeply red states and deeply blue states? Those states may not create much Electoral College suspense, but they do count toward the popular vote. First, Biden’s national margin in red states that have a sufficient amount of polling:
What red state polls say about the national race Biden’s polling lead or deficit in traditionally Republican states, and what that means for his national margin, based on 2016 and 2012 results Biden national margin State Biden’s current lead or deficit* Based on 2016 results Based on 2012 results Oklahoma -23.6 +14.9 +13.8 Kentucky -18.6 +13.3 +7.9 Alabama -14.9 +14.9 +11.1 Utah -12.4 +7.6 +39.3 Tennessee -12.3 +15.8 +11.9 Kansas -9.3 +13.2 +16.1 Louisiana -10.7 +11.0 +10.4 Montana -8.0 +14.3 +9.5 Indiana -14.4 +6.7 -0.3 Mississippi -11.7 +8.2 +3.7 Missouri -6.7 +13.9 +6.5 South Carolina -6.8 +9.6 +7.5 Average (weighted by turnout) -12.4 +12.0 +9.8 *Based on FiveThirtyEight polling averages as of 4:10 p.m. Eastern on Sept. 23. States are included only if they have at least five total polls or polls from at least three pollsters. Sorted from reddest to bluest.
Biden’s actually polling comparatively well in many of these red states. He’s not much of a threat to win them, but in a fair number of them, his deficit is in the single digits when Democrats usually lose them by the double digits. Whether this is real or reflects dubious polling is harder to say, however.
In very blue and very red states, it’s not uncommon for polls to underestimate the winning candidate’s margin. But maybe Biden, who isn’t as easily typecast as a liberal as Democrats like Clinton, Obama and John Kerry, has a bit more red-state appeal than other recent Democratic nominees have. Overall, the red state polls imply that Biden has a 12-point national lead (!) if you’re using 2016 as a baseline, or a 9.8 lead if you’re using 2012 instead.
How about polls in deeply blue states? Most of these states actually haven’t been polled very much, but of the ones that have, California stands out:
What blue state polls say about the national race Biden’s polling lead or deficit in traditionally Democratic states, and what that means for his national margin, based on 2016 and 2012 results Biden national margin State Biden’s current lead or deficit* Based on 2016 results Based on 2012 results Connecticut +20.7 +9.2 +7.2 New Jersey +19.1 +7.2 +5.2 Washington +24.4 +10.8 +13.5 New York +26.8 +6.4 +2.5 Massachusetts +34.1 +9.0 +14.8 California +29.3 +1.4 +10.1 Average (weighted by turnout) +27.1 +5.2 +8.5 *Based on FiveThirtyEight polling averages as of 4:10 p.m. Eastern on Sept. 23. States are included only if they have at least five total polls or polls from at least three pollsters. Sorted from reddest to bluest.
Biden is leading by “only” 29.3 percentage points there, which, of course, is a very large lead, but he is actually slightly down from Clinton’s 30.1-point win there in 2016. It makes some sense, though. Biden’s strength relative to Clinton is with older white voters, whereas California voters are majority-minority and young. Then again, that 29.3-point margin would still be higher than Obama’s margins there in 2012 — or in 2008. In total, the blue states imply a 5.2-point national lead for Biden using 2016 as a baseline, or 8.5 points using 2012.
Add it all up, and the state polls are a tiny bit better for Biden than his national polls show — but only a tiny bit.
The results from red, purple and blue states combined imply that Biden is ahead by 8.0 percentage points nationally (you get the same results whether using 2012 or 2016 as a baseline) as compared with his current 7.3-point lead in national polls.
Perhaps the broader lesson here is that we don’t really need national polls for all that much.
In fact, our model uses them fairly sparingly. The election is contested at the state level. Although it can be useful to know where the national popular vote stands for various reasons, you don’t actually need national polls to forecast it — you can come up with pretty good (indeed, often better) estimates of the national popular vote by using state polls instead.