fivethirthyeight--2020-09-21--The Big Injuries And Epic Comebacks From Week 2 Of The NFL Season

sara.ziegler ( Sara Ziegler , sports editor ) : Week 2 of the NFL season saw a classic Sunday night matchup , a very familiar collapse and a list of brutal injuries .
Let ’ s start with the worst part of the day : Sunday brought major injuries to major stars across the league , with massive implications for the rest of the season .
Giants running back Saquon Barkley tore his ACL .
Chargers quarterback Tyrod Taylor was briefly hospitalized with trouble breathing .
Panthers running back Christian McCaffrey injured his ankle .
The Denver Broncos lost quarterback @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wide receiver Courtland Sutton to a torn ACL .
And the San Francisco 49ers lost a host of players : quarterback Jimmy Garoppolo to a high-ankle sprain , running back Raheem Mostert to a sprained MCL , and defensive end Nick Bosa and lineman Solomon Thomas to what the Niners believe are torn ACLs .
The injury list was long and brutal .
Guys , what was going on out there ?
joshua.hermsmeyer ( Josh Hermsmeyer , NFL analyst ) : The weirdest injury is Tyrod ’ s , for my money .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ injuries for our model each week , it ’ s not often you get the starter missing the game due to injury being announced after the game starts .
Salfino ( Michael Salfino , FiveThirtyEight contributor ) : The narrative is going to be that there are more injuries because there was no preseason , but I ’ ve never heard of greater injury risk for teams that basically ignore the preseason when it comes to playing starters .
I maybe could buy that with soft-tissue injuries like last week .
But sprains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really bad luck in a game that puts you at risk of this on every play .
joshua.hermsmeyer : Yeah , I do not buy the “ no preseason ” narrative .
Almost all quality-of-play metrics seem to show that the on-field product has not been affected by having more chances to injure yourself playing a contact sport .
I would be inclined to trust the players if they have strong feelings that the turf they are playing on is poor .
neil : And that was a big factor in the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawsuit against the U.S. Soccer Federation , too , right — that they were playing disproportionately on turf and being exposed to injuries ?
Athletes have long been suspicious of these surfaces .
Salfino : That sticky turf .
( I ’ d say it was sticky from the tears of Jets fans , but there were no fans . )
Remember , the Jets played at MetLife Stadium last week , and there were no issues .
But I agree that the players should know if something is off .
sara.ziegler : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : joshua.hermsmeyer : Mike , Pittsburgh ’ s Zach Banner tore his ACL on that turf when the Steelers played the Giants .
Salfino : Bosa got planted by Trevon Wesco on his injury , bent over backward .
I can ’ t see how that was the turf .
neil : For what it ’ s worth , the Jets were the most injured team in football last year .
( The Giants were kind of middle of the pack . )
sara.ziegler : The Niners play at MetLife Stadium again next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ players said they ’ re worried about playing on that surface .
Are they right to be concerned ?
Salfino : The NFL is looking at it .
But San Francisco ’ s Jordan Reed said the turf was fine .
sara.ziegler : It ’ s hard to know whether this is just the randomness of injuries or if there ’ s something else going on , though I guess I can ’ t blame guys for not wanting to play on the same field where they just lost four important teammates .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re here again next week .
neil : It used to be rare for a team to play at the Jets and Giants back-to-back .
But it happened to two teams last year , and the Browns will face them back-to-back later this year , too .
joshua.hermsmeyer : Are the Niners actually worse without Jimmy G ?
I ’ m … unsure .
sara.ziegler : That ’ s a great question !
What do these injuries really mean for them ?
Salfino : I agree they are not worse off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without Bosa , though .
Salfino : And Thomas .
Mostert would be a problem because Tevin Coleman is not good and Jerick McKinnon probably isn ’ t 100 percent or able after the layoff to withstand a large role .
joshua.hermsmeyer : Losing two highly drafted edge rushers is terrible for a team that relies on the pass rush for a lot of what they want to do on defense .
I recall an interview coach Kyle Shanahan did with Chris Simms this offseason where he mentioned that for the first time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called plays on offense knowing that his defense could carry the game .
Salfino : The Niners are unique because they have a big-play rushing offense out of conventional sets , with all different backs .
No tricks .
Salfino : This season , Mostert has the two fastest runs by miles per hour recorded since 2018 .
Barkley ’ s loss is also huge , though obviously not as much is expected of the Giants as the Niners .
What will losing him mean for New York ?
Salfino : N.Y. football @ @ @ @ @ @ @ count the Bills .
Career-threatening injury risk is another reason not to spend premium draft capital on running backs .
The Giants are in a tough spot now with extending him .
We know they should not , but he ’ s too big to fail in New York .
He ’ s the Giants ’ identity .
joshua.hermsmeyer : Honestly ?
This is just some cover for Joe Judge being another 0-2 Bill Belichick disciple .
Barkley ’ s loss , for as good as he is , doesn ’ t really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neil : It can ’ t be good for Daniel Jones , though , just because losing Barkley leaves you with one fewer target with any kind of explosiveness .
Salfino : “ Disciple ” is the key word .
Belichick literally has them .
The good coaching trees are more diverse in personality .
Belichick has wanna-be clones .
But those guys don ’ t have rings and therefore lack the credibility to get the buy-in .
sara.ziegler : All right , let ’ s move on to the more fun part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sunday did not disappoint , unless you ’ re a Vikings fan .
Or an Eagles fan .
Or a Jets fan .
But other than that , great games !
The Seattle-New England game felt like one of their playoff matchups .
joshua.hermsmeyer : Tremendous game to watch .
Cam looked great , the Seahawks are learning how to use Russell Wilson nine years into his tenure , and even after five TD passes , Sneaky Pete Carroll ran it back with a run-run-pass on the Hawks ’ last offensive series .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ completions this week .
What a change for the Patriots offense .
Julian Edelman with 179 yards on eight catches seems like a misprint .
He ’ s been a 13-catch , 79-yard guy .
neil : They hung around and were on the precipice of a casual multi-score comeback in the last five minutes .
It was almost like Tom Brady never left !
Salfino : The story in Seattle is that Wilson has been unleashed , clearly .
Why it took so long I have no idea .
sara.ziegler : Russ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cooking .
Salfino : The Patriots are in love with that shotgun rush , but should they have just sneaked it in with Newton under center ?
Went to the well once too often .
neil : Yeah , that exact same play call worked wonders on the previous drive .
Not so much on the final play .
Salfino : Ironically , would Brady have scored there just sneaking it in ?
joshua.hermsmeyer : I don ’ t know .
Hard to second-guess the call too much .
Put the ball in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do the right thing strategically by running it .
Even for me that ’ s too much Monday morning QB-ing .
neil : I ’ m with Josh .
Can ’ t argue with that too much tbh .
neil : As for Russ , no QB has completed passes relative to expectation at a higher rate than Wilson so far , according to Next Gen Stats .
Will this be the year we finally put that “ no MVP votes ” factoid to rest forever ?
Sure hope so .
Salfino : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting system .
It ’ s not like baseball where so many people get votes .
I ’ d say yes , but Josh Allen is probably the MVP right now .
Or Aaron Rodgers .
joshua.hermsmeyer : I hate MVP debates , especially early , but it ’ s Rodgers for me .
He ’ s been sensational , and he leads the NFL in QBR .
Salfino : The Packers have 1,000 yards of offense already .
Insane .
And they ’ re just the fourth team in 40 seasons to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ games of the season .
sara.ziegler : So let ’ s talk about those Packers !
They looked a little shaky early against the Lions … and then they went ahead and dominated .
Salfino : The Lions love blowing double-digit leads .
That ’ s their jam .
First team ever with four straight losses this way .
neil : My Matt Patricia over/under from last week has lowered .
LOL joshua.hermsmeyer : Who gets the hook first ?
Patricia or Adam Gase ?
Gase is so toxic that even if you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insanely bad injury luck , he has to go .
He ’ s a distraction now .
Salfino : I have never said Gase was a good coach .
Just super unlucky and not underachieving in terms of wins .
Still not even this year .
They would be 0-2 with average coaching .
sara.ziegler : Well , this is what ’ s always fun about the beginning of the season : The Packers have looked very good , but have they just played two of the worst teams in the league ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ worst teams in Week 1 , as we saw with that team ’ s Week 2 effort . )
Green Bay plays at New Orleans next week , and I think we ’ ll know more about them then .
Salfino : The Packers offensive line has been the bigger story , I ’ d say .
It ’ s probably the best in football right now .
Aaron Jones rushes for all those yards , and there ’ s no basically pressure on Rodgers .
joshua.hermsmeyer : The Bills face their first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sara.ziegler : Josh Allen was Salfino ’ s other MVP .
How much will the Rams test him ?
Salfino : Josh Allen is only the fourth quarterback ever with 700 yards passing and six touchdowns with no picks the first two weeks ( after Patrick Mahomes last year , Tom Brady in 2015 and Peyton Manning in 2013 ) .
joshua.hermsmeyer : It ’ s the Rams secondary that has looked pretty good and might be an issue .
Plus Jalen Ramsey called Allen trash , so it ’ s going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : The Rams have surprised me .
Given how much they fell off last year and how capped out they are , I didn ’ t expect them to come out 2-0 with Jared Goff playing pretty well .
Then again , the Eagles might be legit bad .
Salfino : Did you hear how the Eagles piped in boos and unleashed them on their offense ?
Legend .
neil : And the Rams ’ Week 1 opponent , the Cowboys , needed an absolute MIRACLE to avoid going 0-2 .
( And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ onside kick rules . )
sara.ziegler : I ’ m pretty tired of the 28-3 narrative , but man… Salfino : That onside-kick play was designed , and it was rather brilliant .
From Sports Illustrated : “ The idea was to tee the ball up at a 45-degree angle and boot the front tip , so it would spin back-to-front to cover the 10 yards it needed to go before the kicking team could legally recover it , but cover that 10 yards as slowly as possible .
The logic went that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether to charge the ball ( and risk touching it but not covering it , making it a live ball ) or let it go 10 yards , with the kicking team around it ( making it a 50/50 ball ) .
” And on topic , Cowboys special teams coach John Fassel came up with it when he was with the Rams .
neil : That ’ s all well and good .
But if you are allowed to touch the ball before 10 yards and they aren ’ t … JUST @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said it was like watching my kids when they played soccer .
The Falcons needed their dads to yell , “ Get the ball !
” From Elias : Teams had been 440-0 when scoring 39 points and committing no turnovers since 1933 .
Salfino : And 1933 is when they started tracking turnovers , so it ’ s not arbitrary .
This has probably NEVER happened .
After such a great game for Atlanta , too .
neil : Shaping up to be another classic Matt Ryan season .
Great stats , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sara is deftly avoiding talking about Kirk Cousins ’ s Blutarksy , with a 0.0 passer rating entering the fourth quarter .
Sara , you slacked me asking how the QB Elo rating he produced ( -215.3 ) was even possible .
Salfino : I thought you got 38 points of passer rating for just putting on your helmet .
neil : I found that it was one of the worst single-game performances ever , in terms of lowering a QB ’ s Elo rating in our system : Cousins went from a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Salfino : Maybe WR is not fungible .
Look at the Bills with Stefon Diggs and the Vikings without him .
Josh ?
sara.ziegler : ( They would also be terrible with Diggs . )
joshua.hermsmeyer : I ’ m just pouring one out for the Elo priors that Cousins murdered .
Salfino : Mike Zimmer may never pass again .
joshua.hermsmeyer : Before we go , I have a kicker chart , which I know we all love .
I noticed that the Chargers tried to ice Kansas City kicker Harrison Butker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that stuff doesn ’ t work , I was curious about how often teams still do that .
The rate is way up so far this season .
So weird !
neil : I got ta say , props to Harrison Butker for making three straight game-winning FGs — one of which actually counted !
Salfino : Butker ’ s display at the end of that game was the greatest exhibition of kicking I ’ ve seen : 3-for-3 from 53 , 58 and 58 yards .
neil : Unfazed by the penalty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yards for the win .
Kicking badassery if I ’ ve ever seen it .
sara.ziegler : And the Chiefs come back yet again !
Salfino : Crazy that Mahomes has an all-time comeback record this early in his career .
The game also gave us an excuse to bring up an old-timey player : Justin Herbert of the Chargers is the first QB to throw and run for a TD in the first half of his first game since Bobby Clatterbuck did it for the 1954 Giants .
joshua.hermsmeyer : Look at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What a way to end this .

The Big Injuries And Epic Comebacks From Week 2 Of The NFL Season
sara.ziegler (Sara Ziegler, sports editor): Week 2 of the NFL season saw a classic Sunday night matchup, a very familiar collapse and a list of brutal injuries.
Let’s start with the worst part of the day: Sunday brought major injuries to major stars across the league, with massive implications for the rest of the season. Giants running back Saquon Barkley tore his ACL. Chargers quarterback Tyrod Taylor was briefly hospitalized with trouble breathing. Panthers running back Christian McCaffrey injured his ankle. The Denver Broncos lost quarterback Drew Lock to an injured shoulder and wide receiver Courtland Sutton to a torn ACL. And the San Francisco 49ers lost a host of players: quarterback Jimmy Garoppolo to a high-ankle sprain, running back Raheem Mostert to a sprained MCL, and defensive end Nick Bosa and lineman Solomon Thomas to what the Niners believe are torn ACLs.
The injury list was long and brutal. Guys, what was going on out there?
neil (Neil Paine, senior sportswriter):
^ every coach on Sunday.
joshua.hermsmeyer (Josh Hermsmeyer, NFL analyst): The weirdest injury is Tyrod’s, for my money.
neil: As someone who updates QB injuries for our model each week, it’s not often you get the starter missing the game due to injury being announced after the game starts.
Salfino (Michael Salfino, FiveThirtyEight contributor): The narrative is going to be that there are more injuries because there was no preseason, but I’ve never heard of greater injury risk for teams that basically ignore the preseason when it comes to playing starters. I maybe could buy that with soft-tissue injuries like last week. But sprains and torn ligaments? Seems like just really bad luck in a game that puts you at risk of this on every play.
joshua.hermsmeyer: Yeah, I do not buy the “no preseason” narrative. Almost all quality-of-play metrics seem to show that the on-field product has not been affected by having more chances to injure yourself playing a contact sport. I would be inclined to trust the players if they have strong feelings that the turf they are playing on is poor.
neil: And that was a big factor in the U.S. women’s national team’s lawsuit against the U.S. Soccer Federation, too, right — that they were playing disproportionately on turf and being exposed to injuries? Athletes have long been suspicious of these surfaces.
Salfino: That sticky turf. (I’d say it was sticky from the tears of Jets fans, but there were no fans.) Remember, the Jets played at MetLife Stadium last week, and there were no issues. But I agree that the players should know if something is off.
sara.ziegler: And they certainly thought something was off:
@nfl fix this trash met life turf . 2020 is so wack — Arik Armstead (@arikarmstead) September 20, 2020
joshua.hermsmeyer: Mike, Pittsburgh’s Zach Banner tore his ACL on that turf when the Steelers played the Giants.
Salfino: Bosa got planted by Trevon Wesco on his injury, bent over backward. I can’t see how that was the turf.
neil: For what it’s worth, the Jets were the most injured team in football last year. (The Giants were kind of middle of the pack.)
sara.ziegler: The Niners play at MetLife Stadium again next week against the Giants, and some players said they’re worried about playing on that surface. Are they right to be concerned?
Salfino: The NFL is looking at it. But San Francisco’s Jordan Reed said the turf was fine.
sara.ziegler: It’s hard to know whether this is just the randomness of injuries or if there’s something else going on, though I guess I can’t blame guys for not wanting to play on the same field where they just lost four important teammates.
Salfino: It’s so weird they’re here again next week.
neil: It used to be rare for a team to play at the Jets and Giants back-to-back. But it happened to two teams last year, and the Browns will face them back-to-back later this year, too.
joshua.hermsmeyer: Are the Niners actually worse without Jimmy G? I’m … unsure.
sara.ziegler: That’s a great question! What do these injuries really mean for them?
Salfino: I agree they are not worse off.
neil: They are worse off without Bosa, though.
Salfino: And Thomas. Mostert would be a problem because Tevin Coleman is not good and Jerick McKinnon probably isn’t 100 percent or able after the layoff to withstand a large role.
joshua.hermsmeyer: Losing two highly drafted edge rushers is terrible for a team that relies on the pass rush for a lot of what they want to do on defense. I recall an interview coach Kyle Shanahan did with Chris Simms this offseason where he mentioned that for the first time in his career last year, he called plays on offense knowing that his defense could carry the game.
Salfino: The Niners are unique because they have a big-play rushing offense out of conventional sets, with all different backs. No tricks.
joshua.hermsmeyer: Mostert’s touchdown runs look like deep passing plays.
Pretty unreal for a running back… Raheem Mostert career length of TD tracker: 52
39
41
15
40
35
10
2
16
2
13
36
9
18
22
1
76
80 — Rich Hribar (@LordReebs) September 21, 2020
Salfino: This season, Mostert has the two fastest runs by miles per hour recorded since 2018.
sara.ziegler: That’s wild.
Barkley’s loss is also huge, though obviously not as much is expected of the Giants as the Niners. What will losing him mean for New York?
Salfino: N.Y. football is in full shutdown mode unless you count the Bills.
Career-threatening injury risk is another reason not to spend premium draft capital on running backs. The Giants are in a tough spot now with extending him. We know they should not, but he’s too big to fail in New York. He’s the Giants’ identity.
joshua.hermsmeyer: Honestly? This is just some cover for Joe Judge being another 0-2 Bill Belichick disciple. Barkley’s loss, for as good as he is, doesn’t really move the needle for the Giants.
neil: It can’t be good for Daniel Jones, though, just because losing Barkley leaves you with one fewer target with any kind of explosiveness.
(Even if he is a running back.)
Salfino: “Disciple” is the key word. Belichick literally has them. The good coaching trees are more diverse in personality. Belichick has wanna-be clones. But those guys don’t have rings and therefore lack the credibility to get the buy-in.
sara.ziegler: Just @ Matt Patricia next time, Mike.
Salfino: Hey, Judge has the coaches running laps. True story!
neil:
sara.ziegler: All right, let’s move on to the more fun part of the chat — the games! Sunday did not disappoint, unless you’re a Vikings fan. Or an Eagles fan. Or a Jets fan. But other than that, great games!
The Seattle-New England game felt like one of their playoff matchups.
neil: Cam Newton looks GOOD.
joshua.hermsmeyer: Tremendous game to watch. Cam looked great, the Seahawks are learning how to use Russell Wilson nine years into his tenure, and even after five TD passes, Sneaky Pete Carroll ran it back with a run-run-pass on the Hawks’ last offensive series.
Salfino: Newton had the most downfield completions this week. What a change for the Patriots offense. Julian Edelman with 179 yards on eight catches seems like a misprint. He’s been a 13-catch, 79-yard guy.
neil: They hung around and were on the precipice of a casual multi-score comeback in the last five minutes. It was almost like Tom Brady never left!
Salfino: The story in Seattle is that Wilson has been unleashed, clearly. Why it took so long I have no idea.
sara.ziegler: Russ, as they say, is finally cooking.
Salfino: The Patriots are in love with that shotgun rush, but should they have just sneaked it in with Newton under center? Went to the well once too often.
neil: Yeah, that exact same play call worked wonders on the previous drive. Not so much on the final play.
Salfino: Ironically, would Brady have scored there just sneaking it in?
joshua.hermsmeyer: I don’t know. Hard to second-guess the call too much. Put the ball in the hands of your best player, do the right thing strategically by running it. Even for me that’s too much Monday morning QB-ing.
neil: I’m with Josh. Can’t argue with that too much tbh.
Salfino:
Seattle escapes New England with a 35-30 victory. In his career, Cam Newton was 16-20 (80%) scoring on rushes from the 1-yard line before getting stuffed on the final play. That included 2 Rush TD earlier in the game vs the Seahawks. pic.twitter.com/usFcqZoFX3 — ESPN Stats & Info (@ESPNStatsInfo) September 21, 2020
neil: As for Russ, no QB has completed passes relative to expectation at a higher rate than Wilson so far, according to Next Gen Stats.
Will this be the year we finally put that “no MVP votes” factoid to rest forever? Sure hope so.
Salfino: Well, the NFL has a weird voting system. It’s not like baseball where so many people get votes. I’d say yes, but Josh Allen is probably the MVP right now. Or Aaron Rodgers.
joshua.hermsmeyer: I hate MVP debates, especially early, but it’s Rodgers for me. He’s been sensational, and he leads the NFL in QBR.
Salfino: The Packers have 1,000 yards of offense already. Insane. And they’re just the fourth team in 40 seasons to score 40 points in the first two games of the season.
sara.ziegler: So let’s talk about those Packers! They looked a little shaky early against the Lions … and then they went ahead and dominated.
Salfino: The Lions love blowing double-digit leads. That’s their jam. First team ever with four straight losses this way.
neil: My Matt Patricia over/under from last week has lowered. LOL
sara.ziegler: Haha
joshua.hermsmeyer: Who gets the hook first? Patricia or Adam Gase?
neil: Oooooh. Great Q.
Salfino: Patricia since Gase basically hired the GM.
Gase is so toxic that even if you want to defend him for having such insanely bad injury luck, he has to go. He’s a distraction now.
joshua.hermsmeyer: This is a breakthrough!
Salfino: I have never said Gase was a good coach. Just super unlucky and not underachieving in terms of wins. Still not even this year. They would be 0-2 with average coaching.
sara.ziegler: LOL, walking back your breakthrough.
Love it.
neil: Therapy takes a lot of work.
sara.ziegler: 🤣
Salfino: Let’s talk Vikings, Sara!
neil: Yes, let’s.
joshua.hermsmeyer: Oh, no.
sara.ziegler: Well, this is what’s always fun about the beginning of the season: The Packers have looked very good, but have they just played two of the worst teams in the league? (They definitely played one of the worst teams in Week 1, as we saw with that team’s Week 2 effort.)
Green Bay plays at New Orleans next week, and I think we’ll know more about them then.
Salfino: The Packers offensive line has been the bigger story, I’d say. It’s probably the best in football right now. Aaron Jones rushes for all those yards, and there’s no basically pressure on Rodgers.
joshua.hermsmeyer: The Bills face their first real test this week as well.
sara.ziegler: Josh Allen was Salfino’s other MVP. How much will the Rams test him?
Salfino: Josh Allen is only the fourth quarterback ever with 700 yards passing and six touchdowns with no picks the first two weeks (after Patrick Mahomes last year, Tom Brady in 2015 and Peyton Manning in 2013).
joshua.hermsmeyer: It’s the Rams secondary that has looked pretty good and might be an issue.
Plus Jalen Ramsey called Allen trash, so it’s going to be tremendous content this week.
neil: The Rams have surprised me. Given how much they fell off last year and how capped out they are, I didn’t expect them to come out 2-0 with Jared Goff playing pretty well.
Then again, the Eagles might be legit bad.
Salfino: Did you hear how the Eagles piped in boos and unleashed them on their offense? Legend.
neil: And the Rams’ Week 1 opponent, the Cowboys, needed an absolute MIRACLE to avoid going 0-2. (And for the Falcons to completely forget the onside kick rules.)
sara.ziegler: I’m pretty tired of the 28-3 narrative, but man…
Salfino: That onside-kick play was designed, and it was rather brilliant. From Sports Illustrated: “The idea was to tee the ball up at a 45-degree angle and boot the front tip, so it would spin back-to-front to cover the 10 yards it needed to go before the kicking team could legally recover it, but cover that 10 yards as slowly as possible. The logic went that the hands team would have to decide whether to charge the ball (and risk touching it but not covering it, making it a live ball) or let it go 10 yards, with the kicking team around it (making it a 50/50 ball).”
And on topic, Cowboys special teams coach John Fassel came up with it when he was with the Rams.
joshua.hermsmeyer: That’s a tremendous pull, Mike.
neil: That’s all well and good. But if you are allowed to touch the ball before 10 yards and they aren’t … JUST FUCKING GRAB IT.
joshua.hermsmeyer: 😂
Salfino: I said it was like watching my kids when they played soccer. The Falcons needed their dads to yell, “Get the ball!”
From Elias: Teams had been 440-0 when scoring 39 points and committing no turnovers since 1933.
neil: Unreal.
Salfino: And 1933 is when they started tracking turnovers, so it’s not arbitrary. This has probably NEVER happened.
sara.ziegler: What a disaster.
After such a great game for Atlanta, too.
neil: Shaping up to be another classic Matt Ryan season. Great stats, can’t win.
Salfino: Sara is deftly avoiding talking about Kirk Cousins’s Blutarksy, with a 0.0 passer rating entering the fourth quarter.
neil: Yes, Cousins was AWFUL.
Sara, you slacked me asking how the QB Elo rating he produced (-215.3) was even possible.
sara.ziegler: LOL
It was a fair question.
Salfino: I thought you got 38 points of passer rating for just putting on your helmet.
neil: I found that it was one of the worst single-game performances ever, in terms of lowering a QB’s Elo rating in our system:
The games that made us think less of the QBs Largest negative change in QB Elo ratings (relative to an average NFL starter) based on performance in a single game, 1950-2020 QB Elo Rating vs. Avg. Date Quarterback Team Opponent Pregame Postgame Change 9/15/1991 T. Aikman DAL PHI +4 -43 -47 9/30/2007 D. McNabb PHI NYG +66 +19 -47 11/15/2015 P. Manning DEN KC +10 -35 -44 10/9/2005 A. Smith SF IND +6 -38 -44 9/15/2002 D. Carr HOU LAC -7 -50 -43 9/13/2012 J. Cutler CHI GB -12 -55 -43 1/14/2001 D. Culpepper MIN NYG +122 +80 -42 11/10/1974 J. Ferguson BUF TEN +13 -29 -42 12/6/1998 D. Hollas OAK MIA -48 -90 -42 1/2/2011 M. Cassel KC OAK +34 -7 -42 9/20/1987 M. Malone PIT CLE -2 -44 -41 9/20/2020 K. Cousins MIN IND +3 -37 -41 11/9/2008 J. Delhomme CAR OAK +21 -19 -41 12/16/2007 T. Romo DAL PHI +108 +68 -41 9/29/1985 W. Moon TEN DAL -17 -57 -40 Source: Pro-Football-Reference.com
Cousins went from a little above average to well below average
Salfino: Maybe WR is not fungible. Look at the Bills with Stefon Diggs and the Vikings without him. Josh?
sara.ziegler: (They would also be terrible with Diggs.)
joshua.hermsmeyer: I’m just pouring one out for the Elo priors that Cousins murdered.
sara.ziegler: LOLOL
neil: Jake Delhomme thanks you, Kirk.
Salfino: Mike Zimmer may never pass again.
joshua.hermsmeyer: Before we go, I have a kicker chart, which I know we all love. I noticed that the Chargers tried to ice Kansas City kicker Harrison Butker on Sunday, and since we know that stuff doesn’t work, I was curious about how often teams still do that. The rate is way up so far this season. So weird!
neil: I gotta say, props to Harrison Butker for making three straight game-winning FGs — one of which actually counted!
(I am biased: He’s from my hometown and went to my alma mater.)
Salfino: Butker’s display at the end of that game was the greatest exhibition of kicking I’ve seen: 3-for-3 from 53, 58 and 58 yards.
Harrison Butker's game-winning 58-yard FG was the 2nd-longest made in OT since the NFL went to a regular-season OT period in 1974. The only one that was longer? A 59-yard FG from Chandler Catanzaro for the Buccaneers in Week 7 of 2018. pic.twitter.com/PraFQlHAd2 — ESPN Stats & Info (@ESPNStatsInfo) September 20, 2020
neil: Unfazed by the penalty. Unfazed by the icing. Fifty-eight yards for the win. Kicking badassery if I’ve ever seen it.
sara.ziegler: And the Chiefs come back yet again!
joshua.hermsmeyer: He did a Steph Curry walk-off.
Harrison Butker knew his game-winning kick was money before it even passed through the uprights. Baller move. (via @NFLGameDay)pic.twitter.com/IDrmfRpBQy — NFL on CBS 🏈 (@NFLonCBS) September 21, 2020
Salfino: Crazy that Mahomes has an all-time comeback record this early in his career.
The game also gave us an excuse to bring up an old-timey player: Justin Herbert of the Chargers is the first QB to throw and run for a TD in the first half of his first game since Bobby Clatterbuck did it for the 1954 Giants.
neil: “Bobby Clatterbuck”
joshua.hermsmeyer: Look at that hair.
neil: OMG
sara.ziegler: Wow. What a way to end this.
Check out our latest NFL predictions.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-21--The Dallas Stars Are Putting Their Regular-Season Shortcomings Behind Them

The Stanley Cup isn ’ t often won by the team that played the best hockey during the regular season .
Since the introduction of the Presidents ’ Trophy in 1986 , only eight teams that finished the season with the most points have gone on to lift the Cup at the end of the playoffs .
That said , the Stanley Cup also isn ’ t often won by a team that ranks in the middle of the pack according to HockeyReference.com ’ s Simple Rating System ( SRS ) .
The current iteration of the Dallas Stars doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , though .
The Stars finished the slightly truncated 2019-20 regular season with an SRS of 0.09 , a mark that ranked 16th out of the league ’ s 31 teams .
Since the lockout of 2004-05 , no team has won the Stanley Cup after ranking lower than 13th in SRS .
And yet , the Stars find themselves just three wins away from winning the second Stanley Cup in franchise history .
The Stars have their 1-0 series lead over the Tampa Bay Lightning thanks in large part to the Game @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who played about as well as he possibly could have .
The Russian — affectionately referred to as “ Dobby , ” whose mask features the likeness of Dobby the House Elf from Harry Potter — saved 35 of the 36 shots he faced , several of which seemed impossible to stop until he stopped them .
( This save was particularly exquisite .
This sequence wasn ’ t bad either . )
Eighteen of the 36 shots Khudobin faced came from below the top of the circle , and many of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t just making stops on low-quality shots from the perimeter — he was stopping everything .
It was an astonishing performance and a necessary one , given that the Stars were outshot 36 to 20 on the night .
Dallas needed its goalie to come up big , and he seized the moment .
We recently pointed out that Khudobin ’ s overall playoff performance leading into to the Stanley Cup Final didn ’ t stack up to his career numbers in terms of quality start percentage because there is a direct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ success in the final .
Since the 2007-08 season , only one team has won the Stanley Cup with a combined quality start percentage below 50 percent .
For what it ’ s worth , the Stars ’ combined quality start percentage in these playoffs still remains below 50 , at 45.5 percent .
Before the conference finals , Khudobin ’ s quality start percentage was just 38.5 percent .
But “ Dobby ” flipped a switch against the Vegas Golden Knights — he stopped 95 percent of the shots he faced and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the five starts he made — and he ’ s been excellent so far against the Bolts , too .
If Khudobin continues to play the way he ’ s played in his last six starts , no one will remember his first 13 .
Khudobin — who was something of a folk hero in Boston , where he served two stints as a backup for the Bruins — has become a bona fide legend in Dallas .
A Cup triumph would only serve to bolster the Russian ’ s status in North @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Bolts are in danger of coughing away yet another golden opportunity to add to their trophy case .
They had one of the best teams in league history a season ago , earning 128 points by winning 62 games , placing them in a tie with the 1995-96 Detroit Red Wings for the most regular-season wins in league history , but they were summarily swept aside in the first round of the Eastern Conference playoffs by a far less accomplished Columbus Blue Jackets team .
In terms of epic collapses , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than that .
The Bolts weren ’ t as good this season as they were last — their points percentage was far lower , as was their SRS — but they were still among the best teams in the league .
Much of their core remained intact , and they entered the playoffs with the best odds of lifting Lord Stanley ’ s Cup .
This time around , the Bolts made quick work of the Jackets in the first round , vanquishing their old foe in five games .
Tampa followed one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Bruins in five games , including a 7-1 drubbing that seemed to break Boston ’ s spirit .
The New York Islanders made things a bit trickier for Tampa in the Eastern Conference finals — the series lasted six games , and the Isles nearly forced a decisive seventh — but the Bolts have had an air of inevitability about them since the bubble began back in early August .
To be sure , Tampa didn ’ t do much wrong against Dallas in the offensive zone in Game 1 .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Khudobin , many of which were from dangerous areas .
But an 0 for 4 performance on the power play highlighted a rare weakness in Tampa ’ s game , one that used to be a strength : In the playoffs , the Bolts are scoring on just 17 percent of their power plays , down significantly from their regular-season mark of 23.1 .
Sorting out their woes with the man advantage could be the key to the Lightning ’ s cup chances .
There ’ s word that Tampa could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some point during the finals .
Stamkos has been out for six months with a core muscle injury , and there ’ s no guarantee that he ’ ll be at his best after such a long layoff , but it can ’ t hurt to return a player who ranks third among active players in all-time power play goals — especially against a goalie who looked as impenetrable as Khudobin did in Game 1 .

The Stanley Cup isn’t often won by the team that played the best hockey during the regular season. Since the introduction of the Presidents’ Trophy in 1986, only eight teams that finished the season with the most points have gone on to lift the Cup at the end of the playoffs. That said, the Stanley Cup also isn’t often won by a team that ranks in the middle of the pack according to HockeyReference.com’s Simple Rating System (SRS).
The current iteration of the Dallas Stars doesn’t care much about historical precedent, though. The Stars finished the slightly truncated 2019-20 regular season with an SRS of 0.09, a mark that ranked 16th out of the league’s 31 teams. Since the lockout of 2004-05, no team has won the Stanley Cup after ranking lower than 13th in SRS. And yet, the Stars find themselves just three wins away from winning the second Stanley Cup in franchise history.
The Stars have their 1-0 series lead over the Tampa Bay Lightning thanks in large part to the Game 1 exploits of goaltender Anton Khudobin, who played about as well as he possibly could have. The Russian — affectionately referred to as “Dobby,” whose mask features the likeness of Dobby the House Elf from Harry Potter — saved 35 of the 36 shots he faced, several of which seemed impossible to stop until he stopped them. (This save was particularly exquisite. This sequence wasn’t bad either.) Eighteen of the 36 shots Khudobin faced came from below the top of the circle, and many of those came from the slot. Khudobin wasn’t just making stops on low-quality shots from the perimeter — he was stopping everything. It was an astonishing performance and a necessary one, given that the Stars were outshot 36 to 20 on the night. Dallas needed its goalie to come up big, and he seized the moment.
We recently pointed out that Khudobin’s overall playoff performance leading into to the Stanley Cup Final didn’t stack up to his career numbers in terms of quality start percentage because there is a direct link between quality start percentage and team success in the final. Since the 2007-08 season, only one team has won the Stanley Cup with a combined quality start percentage below 50 percent. For what it’s worth, the Stars’ combined quality start percentage in these playoffs still remains below 50, at 45.5 percent.
Before the conference finals, Khudobin’s quality start percentage was just 38.5 percent. But “Dobby” flipped a switch against the Vegas Golden Knights — he stopped 95 percent of the shots he faced and posted a quality start in four of the five starts he made — and he’s been excellent so far against the Bolts, too. If Khudobin continues to play the way he’s played in his last six starts, no one will remember his first 13. Khudobin — who was something of a folk hero in Boston, where he served two stints as a backup for the Bruins — has become a bona fide legend in Dallas. A Cup triumph would only serve to bolster the Russian’s status in North Texas.
As for Tampa Bay, the Bolts are in danger of coughing away yet another golden opportunity to add to their trophy case. They had one of the best teams in league history a season ago, earning 128 points by winning 62 games, placing them in a tie with the 1995-96 Detroit Red Wings for the most regular-season wins in league history, but they were summarily swept aside in the first round of the Eastern Conference playoffs by a far less accomplished Columbus Blue Jackets team. In terms of epic collapses, they don’t get much more epic than that.
The Bolts weren’t as good this season as they were last — their points percentage was far lower, as was their SRS — but they were still among the best teams in the league. Much of their core remained intact, and they entered the playoffs with the best odds of lifting Lord Stanley’s Cup. This time around, the Bolts made quick work of the Jackets in the first round, vanquishing their old foe in five games. Tampa followed one dominant playoff performance with another, beating the Bruins in five games, including a 7-1 drubbing that seemed to break Boston’s spirit. The New York Islanders made things a bit trickier for Tampa in the Eastern Conference finals — the series lasted six games, and the Isles nearly forced a decisive seventh — but the Bolts have had an air of inevitability about them since the bubble began back in early August.
To be sure, Tampa didn’t do much wrong against Dallas in the offensive zone in Game 1. As noted above, they fired 36 shots at Khudobin, many of which were from dangerous areas. But an 0 for 4 performance on the power play highlighted a rare weakness in Tampa’s game, one that used to be a strength: In the playoffs, the Bolts are scoring on just 17 percent of their power plays, down significantly from their regular-season mark of 23.1. Sorting out their woes with the man advantage could be the key to the Lightning’s cup chances.
There’s word that Tampa could be getting team captain Steven Stamkos back at some point during the finals. Stamkos has been out for six months with a core muscle injury, and there’s no guarantee that he’ll be at his best after such a long layoff, but it can’t hurt to return a player who ranks third among active players in all-time power play goals — especially against a goalie who looked as impenetrable as Khudobin did in Game 1.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-21--Will Senate Republicans Back Trump’s Push To Fill Ginsburg’s Seat — Even If He Loses Reelection?

Two of the biggest questions in the aftermath of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s death are , “ Will whomever President Trump chooses to replace Ginsburg be confirmed ?
” and “ How will the nomination and confirmation process affect the 2020 elections ?
” Those two questions are , of course , connected .
And the place where they really intersect is the U.S. Senate .
The Senate will play a pivotal role in deciding the answer to the first question , but its members will also be on the receiving end of whatever political fallout the fight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up .
So let ’ s look at both the confirmation process and the electoral process from the perspective of senators .
Electoral concerns will play a big role in the confirmation process Republican Sens .
Cory Gardner of Colorado , Martha McSally of Arizona and Thom Tillis of North Carolina are the three GOP incumbents most in danger of losing reelection , according to FiveThirtyEight ’ s Senate forecast .
In fact , they ’ re all underdogs at the moment .
Two other GOP senators , Susan Collins of Maine and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toss-up races .
On the other side of the aisle , Democratic Sen. Doug Jones of Alabama is also facing an uphill battle for reelection .
Given that it ’ s the final stretch of the campaign and all these senators are at risk of losing their seats , you can bet that electoral factors will be weighing heavily in however they decide to vote on Trump ’ s nominee and the process to confirm her .
Even senators with safer seats , including Republicans Steve Daines of Montana , David Perdue of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , will be trying to figure out how the Supreme Court vacancy factors into their races .
And as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee , Graham would be leading the confirmation hearings for a Trump Supreme Court nominee .
( Ernst and Tillis are also on the committee . )
Before we can make any firm conclusions about how the politics of this will play out , we ’ ll need to wait for Trump to make his pick and for more polling to come out , but out of the gate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Jones have the most to lose in this process .
The confirmation fight is likely to be highly partisan and highly polarized — and it ’ s likely to be a major part of the discussion in the campaign ’ s final weeks .
Democratic voters almost universally oppose anything Trump does , while Republican voters almost universally support the president .
Trump and many prominent Republicans are demanding that any nominee be voted on — implying that they will support a confirmation vote before the November election or one after the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden .
Meanwhile , Democrats are largely united in their view that whichever candidate wins the presidential election should choose Ginsburg ’ s replacement .
So all 100 senators are going to be pressed on the question , “ Should whoever wins the presidential election choose Ginsburg ’ s replacement ?
” The senators themselves ( and probably voters too ) will know that the position of the Democratic Party is yes and the position of the Republican Party is no .
Having a highly partisan issue dominate the political debate is problematic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particular because all three senators are running for reelection in states where the majority of voters are aligned with the other party .
At the same time , breaking with their party on a high-profile issue like this could annoy their base , which would also make it harder for them to win reelection .
Take Trump ’ s approval rating in each of these states .
The president is significantly more popular in Alabama ( 57 percent approval , 40 percent disapproval , per Civiqs ) than he is nationally ( 42 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Civiqs ; 43-53 per FiveThirtyEight ’ s average of a number of polls ) .
Trump ’ s net ratings in Maine ( -23 points ) and Colorado ( -19 points ) are significantly worse than his national standing .
And in Arizona ( -11 for Trump ) and North Carolina ( -8 ) , the president ’ s standing is fairly similar to where he is nationally .
These general electoral dynamics have perfectly predicted the reactions of these senators in the days since Ginsburg ’ s death .
McSally and Tillis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Senate should vote on a Trump nominee , whether the president wins the election or not .
That makes sense for them — on a highly partisan issue like this in a closely divided state , the safe bet is to just stick with your party .
( Perdue , in Georgia , has also said he supports Trump ’ s nominee moving forward , regardless of the November election results . )
In contrast , Collins ( in blue-leaning Maine ) has adopted the Democratic position — that the winner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s replacement .
Gardner and Jones have been noncommittal so far .
That makes sense too — their choices are basically to either annoy their party ’ s base or annoy the clear majority of the electorate in their states .
Neither stance is ideal , so it ’ s not surprising that they are hesitant to say anything .
In the end , the vast majority of senators will stick with their party No matter what their electoral considerations are , however , expect most senators to align with their party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on high-profile issues .
For example , the confirmation vote for Brett Kavanaugh ’ s Supreme Court nomination was also on the eve of an election ( Oct. 6 , 2018 ) .
West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin , up for reelection that November in a very pro-Trump state , broke with his party to vote in favor of Kavanaugh ’ s nomination .
But the other nine Democrats who were up for reelection in 2018 in states that Trump won in 2016 voted against Kavanaugh .
The one GOP senator up for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clinton won in 2016 , Dean Heller of Nevada , also voted the party line , supporting Kavanagh .
Overall , Manchin was the only Senate Democrat to back Kavanaugh ; Alaska ’ s Lisa Murkowski was the only Republican who didn ’ t support him .
( More on Murkowski in a bit . )
Similarly , on the Trump impeachment votes in February , senators up for reelection this year aligned with their parties instead of their states ’ politics when the two conflicted .
( Collins and Gardner opposed both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Gary Peters and Jones voted in favor of both articles . )
Utah ’ s Mitt Romney was the only Republican to vote for Trump ’ s removal , which all Senate Democrats supported .
( More on Romney in a bit . )
What explains this ?
First of all , senators may put their personal ideological views ahead of their electoral considerations , particularly on judicial nominations .
After all , it ’ s likely that a Republican senator would be fairly aligned with someone like Kavanaugh on most issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Second , the electoral effects of these kinds of votes are not totally clear .
For example , Montana is more Republican-leaning than Florida , but Montana Democratic incumbent Jon Tester won reelection in 2018 while longtime Florida Democrat Bill Nelson lost .
( Both voted against Kavanaugh . )
Manchin voted for Kavanaugh and won , but it ’ s not clear he won because he voted for Kavanaugh .
Third , members of Congress , particularly those in states where they are not electorally safe , must consider their futures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the career incentives for politicians usually point toward sticking with your party on key votes .
Jones was a prominent U.S. attorney , so it ’ s easy to imagine him serving in some legal post in a Biden administration if he should lose reelection in Alabama in November and Biden should win .
But Democrats would probably be less eager to put Jones in a high-profile role in a Biden administration if Jones had voted for Kavanaugh , opposed impeachment and spent the weeks before the 2020 election urging the Senate to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nominee to replace Ginsburg .
Senators like Gardner and McSally who have been down in the polls for months are probably aware that they are unlikely to be in Congress next year .
So they might be positioning themselves for lobbying jobs ( which usually involves maintaining strong relationships with the people in your party who are still in Congress ) or future runs for other offices .
So to keep doors open to them in GOP circles , Gardner and McSally may align with their party ’ s general posture in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slightly reduces their chances of winning reelection .
Murkowski and Romney will really matter Murkowski has broken with her party in two major ways in the Trump years : opposing the push to repeal Obamacare and opposing Kavanaugh ’ s confirmation .
Romney ’ s impeachment vote was arguably one of the biggest rebukes of a sitting president from a member of his own party in recent history .
So it would not be surprising if they didn ’ t align with Trump on this issue .
Murkowski said over the weekend that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seat before the election .
That is similar to the stance being taken by Senate Democrats and Collins , but not exactly the same .
Murkowski has not ruled out supporting the confirmation of a Trump nominee postelection — even if Trump loses in November .
Speaking of that possibility … The disagreement between the parties is really over who gets to pick the nominee ( Trump or whoever wins the election ) , not over the timing .
I doubt Democrats will strongly object to Republicans confirming a new justice in late @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clearly won the presidential election .
That said , the considerations for individual senators are much different .
Collins , in the context of her reelection campaign , is suggesting that she would not support Trump picking a nominee if he loses the election .
But if Collins herself loses reelection and a vote on the nominee comes up in December , her pledge to Maine voters isn ’ t binding .
She might feel comfortable reneging on it .
It ’ s not just Collins — there is no guarantee that preelection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Also , the postelection period might have another wrinkle .
Since McSally was appointed to her Senate seat , Arizona law suggests that her Democratic opponent , Mark Kelly , could be seated as soon as late November if he wins that race .
The math for Republicans is harder if they must confirm a judge with a 52-48 majority instead of a 53-47 one , so I would assume that they would push for a vote while McSally is still there .
Based on what we know right now , here ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dominoes will fall : Trump chooses a nominee this week .
The Senate holds hearings in October , but there is not a vote on the nominee before the election .
Biden beats Trump .
In the postelection , lame-duck Senate session , 50 Republican senators and Vice President Mike Pence combine for 51 votes to confirm Trump ’ s nominee , with the 47 Democrats , Collins , Murkowski and Romney in opposition .
I ’ m not predicting all this will happen — there ’ s plenty of time for things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the picture we have right now .
We can expect a lot of drama over the next few weeks , but in reality , only one question really matters : How many sitting Republican senators will prevent a sitting Republican president from adding a sixth Republican-appointed justice to the Supreme Court , giving the party a dominant majority on the court for perhaps a generation ?
The answer is , of course , not very many .
But there might be four .

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

Two of the biggest questions in the aftermath of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death are, “Will whomever President Trump chooses to replace Ginsburg be confirmed?” and “How will the nomination and confirmation process affect the 2020 elections?” Those two questions are, of course, connected. And the place where they really intersect is the U.S. Senate.
The Senate will play a pivotal role in deciding the answer to the first question, but its members will also be on the receiving end of whatever political fallout the fight to fill Ginsburg’s seat kicks up. So let’s look at both the confirmation process and the electoral process from the perspective of senators.
Electoral concerns will play a big role in the confirmation process
Republican Sens. Cory Gardner of Colorado, Martha McSally of Arizona and Thom Tillis of North Carolina are the three GOP incumbents most in danger of losing reelection, according to FiveThirtyEight’s Senate forecast. In fact, they’re all underdogs at the moment. Two other GOP senators, Susan Collins of Maine and Joni Ernst of Iowa, are in toss-up races. On the other side of the aisle, Democratic Sen. Doug Jones of Alabama is also facing an uphill battle for reelection.
The outlook for incumbent senators up for reelection Chances of winning reelection according to FiveThirtyEight’s “deluxe” forecast, as of Sept. 20, 2020, at 9 p.m. ET State Incumbent Party DEM CHANCES GOP CHANCES Rhode Island Reed D 100% <1% Massachusetts Markey D 100 <1 Delaware Coons D 100 <1 Oregon Merkley D 100 <1 New Jersey Booker D 99 1 Illinois Durbin D 99 1 Virginia Warner D 99 1 New Hampshire Shaheen D 99 1 Minnesota Smith D 93 7 Michigan Peters D 81 19 Arizona McSally R 78 22 Colorado Gardner R 69 31 North Carolina Tillis R 62 38 Maine Collins R 53 47 Iowa Ernst R 44 56 Montana Daines R 35 65 Alabama Jones D 28 72 Georgia Perdue R 27 73 South Carolina Graham R 16 84 Alaska Sullivan R 14 86 Texas Cornyn R 12 88 Louisiana* Cassidy R 3 92 Mississippi Hyde-Smith R 5 95 Kentucky McConnell R 4 96 South Dakota Rounds R 1 99 Idaho Risch R <1 100 Nebraska Sasse R <1 100 West Virginia Capito R <1 100 Oklahoma Inhofe R <1 100 Arkansas Cotton R <1 100 *In Louisiana’s Senate election, multiple candidates from each party will be on the ballot on Election Day. If one candidate gets at least 50 percent of the vote, that person wins the seat, but if no candidate clears that bar, the top two vote-getters advance to a runoff election. This table shows the chance that Bill Cassidy will win reelection rather than the chance that any Republican will win the seat.
Given that it’s the final stretch of the campaign and all these senators are at risk of losing their seats, you can bet that electoral factors will be weighing heavily in however they decide to vote on Trump’s nominee and the process to confirm her.
Even senators with safer seats, including Republicans Steve Daines of Montana, David Perdue of Georgia and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, will be trying to figure out how the Supreme Court vacancy factors into their races. And as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Graham would be leading the confirmation hearings for a Trump Supreme Court nominee. (Ernst and Tillis are also on the committee.)
Emergency Podcast: The SCOTUS vacancy | FiveThirtyEight
Before we can make any firm conclusions about how the politics of this will play out, we’ll need to wait for Trump to make his pick and for more polling to come out, but out of the gate it seems as though Collins, Gardner and Jones have the most to lose in this process.
The confirmation fight is likely to be highly partisan and highly polarized — and it’s likely to be a major part of the discussion in the campaign’s final weeks. Democratic voters almost universally oppose anything Trump does, while Republican voters almost universally support the president. Trump and many prominent Republicans are demanding that any nominee be voted on — implying that they will support a confirmation vote before the November election or one after the election even if Trump loses to Joe Biden. Meanwhile, Democrats are largely united in their view that whichever candidate wins the presidential election should choose Ginsburg’s replacement. So all 100 senators are going to be pressed on the question, “Should whoever wins the presidential election choose Ginsburg’s replacement?” The senators themselves (and probably voters too) will know that the position of the Democratic Party is yes and the position of the Republican Party is no.
Having a highly partisan issue dominate the political debate is problematic for Jones, Collins and Gardner in particular because all three senators are running for reelection in states where the majority of voters are aligned with the other party. At the same time, breaking with their party on a high-profile issue like this could annoy their base, which would also make it harder for them to win reelection.
Take Trump’s approval rating in each of these states. The president is significantly more popular in Alabama (57 percent approval, 40 percent disapproval, per Civiqs) than he is nationally (42 percent approval, 55 percent disapproval per Civiqs; 43-53 per FiveThirtyEight’s average of a number of polls). Trump’s net ratings in Maine (-23 points) and Colorado (-19 points) are significantly worse than his national standing. And in Arizona (-11 for Trump) and North Carolina (-8), the president’s standing is fairly similar to where he is nationally.
These general electoral dynamics have perfectly predicted the reactions of these senators in the days since Ginsburg’s death. McSally and Tillis are among the Republicans who already announced that the Senate should vote on a Trump nominee, whether the president wins the election or not. That makes sense for them — on a highly partisan issue like this in a closely divided state, the safe bet is to just stick with your party. (Perdue, in Georgia, has also said he supports Trump’s nominee moving forward, regardless of the November election results.)
In contrast, Collins (in blue-leaning Maine) has adopted the Democratic position — that the winner of the presidential election should choose Ginsburg’s replacement.
Gardner and Jones have been noncommittal so far. That makes sense too — their choices are basically to either annoy their party’s base or annoy the clear majority of the electorate in their states. Neither stance is ideal, so it’s not surprising that they are hesitant to say anything.
In the end, the vast majority of senators will stick with their party
No matter what their electoral considerations are, however, expect most senators to align with their party. That’s what usually happens on high-profile issues.
For example, the confirmation vote for Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination was also on the eve of an election (Oct. 6, 2018). West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin, up for reelection that November in a very pro-Trump state, broke with his party to vote in favor of Kavanaugh’s nomination. But the other nine Democrats who were up for reelection in 2018 in states that Trump won in 2016 voted against Kavanaugh. The one GOP senator up for reelection in 2018 in a state Hillary Clinton won in 2016, Dean Heller of Nevada, also voted the party line, supporting Kavanagh.
Overall, Manchin was the only Senate Democrat to back Kavanaugh; Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski was the only Republican who didn’t support him. (More on Murkowski in a bit.)
Similarly, on the Trump impeachment votes in February, senators up for reelection this year aligned with their parties instead of their states’ politics when the two conflicted. (Collins and Gardner opposed both articles of impeachment, whereas Michigan’s Gary Peters and Jones voted in favor of both articles.) Utah’s Mitt Romney was the only Republican to vote for Trump’s removal, which all Senate Democrats supported. (More on Romney in a bit.)
What explains this? First of all, senators may put their personal ideological views ahead of their electoral considerations, particularly on judicial nominations. After all, it’s likely that a Republican senator would be fairly aligned with someone like Kavanaugh on most issues while a Democratic senator would be opposed. Second, the electoral effects of these kinds of votes are not totally clear. For example, Montana is more Republican-leaning than Florida, but Montana Democratic incumbent Jon Tester won reelection in 2018 while longtime Florida Democrat Bill Nelson lost. (Both voted against Kavanaugh.) Manchin voted for Kavanaugh and won, but it’s not clear he won because he voted for Kavanaugh.
Third, members of Congress, particularly those in states where they are not electorally safe, must consider their futures if they lose those elections. And the career incentives for politicians usually point toward sticking with your party on key votes. Jones was a prominent U.S. attorney, so it’s easy to imagine him serving in some legal post in a Biden administration if he should lose reelection in Alabama in November and Biden should win. But Democrats would probably be less eager to put Jones in a high-profile role in a Biden administration if Jones had voted for Kavanaugh, opposed impeachment and spent the weeks before the 2020 election urging the Senate to hold a vote on Trump’s nominee to replace Ginsburg.
Senators like Gardner and McSally who have been down in the polls for months are probably aware that they are unlikely to be in Congress next year. So they might be positioning themselves for lobbying jobs (which usually involves maintaining strong relationships with the people in your party who are still in Congress) or future runs for other offices. So to keep doors open to them in GOP circles, Gardner and McSally may align with their party’s general posture in this nomination process, even if that approach slightly reduces their chances of winning reelection.
Murkowski and Romney will really matter
Murkowski has broken with her party in two major ways in the Trump years: opposing the push to repeal Obamacare and opposing Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Romney’s impeachment vote was arguably one of the biggest rebukes of a sitting president from a member of his own party in recent history. So it would not be surprising if they didn’t align with Trump on this issue.
Murkowski said over the weekend that Republicans should not fill Ginsburg’s seat before the election. That is similar to the stance being taken by Senate Democrats and Collins, but not exactly the same. Murkowski has not ruled out supporting the confirmation of a Trump nominee postelection — even if Trump loses in November. Speaking of that possibility …
Preelection commitments could change postelection
The disagreement between the parties is really over who gets to pick the nominee (Trump or whoever wins the election), not over the timing. I doubt Democrats will strongly object to Republicans confirming a new justice in late November or early December if Trump has clearly won the presidential election.
That said, the considerations for individual senators are much different. Collins, in the context of her reelection campaign, is suggesting that she would not support Trump picking a nominee if he loses the election. But if Collins herself loses reelection and a vote on the nominee comes up in December, her pledge to Maine voters isn’t binding. She might feel comfortable reneging on it. It’s not just Collins — there is no guarantee that preelection statements from senators mean much postelection.
Also, the postelection period might have another wrinkle. Since McSally was appointed to her Senate seat, Arizona law suggests that her Democratic opponent, Mark Kelly, could be seated as soon as late November if he wins that race. The math for Republicans is harder if they must confirm a judge with a 52-48 majority instead of a 53-47 one, so I would assume that they would push for a vote while McSally is still there.
Based on what we know right now, here’s the most likely way that the dominoes will fall: Trump chooses a nominee this week. The Senate holds hearings in October, but there is not a vote on the nominee before the election. Biden beats Trump. In the postelection, lame-duck Senate session, 50 Republican senators and Vice President Mike Pence combine for 51 votes to confirm Trump’s nominee, with the 47 Democrats, Collins, Murkowski and Romney in opposition.
I’m not predicting all this will happen — there’s plenty of time for things to change — but that’s the picture we have right now. We can expect a lot of drama over the next few weeks, but in reality, only one question really matters: How many sitting Republican senators will prevent a sitting Republican president from adding a sixth Republican-appointed justice to the Supreme Court, giving the party a dominant majority on the court for perhaps a generation? The answer is, of course, not very many. But there might be four.
Remembering Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-21--How The Post Office Became A Political Football

The post office can ’ t catch a break .
Over the summer , operational changes implemented by the U.S .
Postal Service ’ s new postmaster general raised concerns about mail delays .
This prompted congressional investigations , lawsuits , a lot of political rhetoric , and even more public worry about whether the disruptions pose a threat to what will likely be the most mail-reliant election in history .
But the Postal Service isn ’ t struggling merely because of one new postmaster general ’ s changes — decades of events out of its control have positioned the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ struck .
2020 has seen little but crisis .
COVID-19 changed a lot of things about everyday life , including how Americans use the post office .
Between March and July , the volume of first-class mail like letters , bills and legal documents dropped off a cliff as businesses sought to cut expenses .
At the same time , people isolating at home started ordering necessities ( and non-necessities ) online at a staggering rate .
While overall mail volume was lower during the spring and summer compared to the same time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surged .
In June , 71 percent more packaging was sent than in the year prior .
“ We are at holiday levels of mail , ” said one mailcarrier , who asked not to be named because USPS employees have been advised not to speak to the media .
“ Everybody is stuck at home and they ’ re ordering online , either because they can ’ t leave the house or the local merchant isn ’ t open .
I personally deliver several hundred Amazon packages a day.
” That was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its new postmaster general started implementing sweeping changes .
But the Postal Service has been facing challenges for years , many of which stem from the idiosyncrasies of being one of the nation ’ s oldest institutions .
The Postal Service has existed in some form or another since 1775 , and it has always played a role in politics .
But it was not originally conceived as a business .
Instead , its founders wanted to make an organization that could facilitate democracy , allowing constituents to communicate with and keep tabs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pottroff , a literature professor at Boston College who researches the earliest days of the Postal Service .
That means much of the original scaffolding of the institution — parts of which are still in place today — doesn ’ t jibe with more modern expectations for the service to turn a profit .
“ If I wanted to send a letter to you in 1815 , it would be super expensive , ” Pottroff said “ But if I wanted to forward a newspaper to you , it would be super cheap @ @ @ @ @ @ @ established as a system of spreading the news to as many people as quickly as possible , and communication with elected officials in D.C .
It was , in the past , the only way that system of democracy could work.
” This mandate set up the expectation that the post office should serve every American , regardless of class or location .
That foundation permeates to this day , even as the institution has faced new financial challenges : An American living in rural Alaska doesn ’ t have to pay more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in downtown Manhattan .
This differs from a private business , which has no obligation to deliver packages to places that aren ’ t worth the cost of transportation .
But the modern era has complicated the post office ’ s lofty ideals .
In 1970 , following widespread wildcat strikes demanding better pay and safer working conditions , the post office was transformed .
In exchange for employees ’ right to collectively bargain , Congress passed an act that changed the post office from a publicly funded cabinet department to a self-funded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ post office had to function less like a public service and more like a private business , but still uphold its public service obligations — like being beholden to requirements set by Congress and having to serve every American .
This worked all right for a few decades , but then the internet happened .
The USPS has a monopoly on sending or carrying flat envelope mail , also known as first-class mail , and on delivering items to physical mailboxes .
( It ’ s actually illegal to slide something through a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ piece of paid USPS mail . )
This was great for the Postal Service until the internet made handwritten letters , invitations , physical bills , checks , bank statements , etc.
, all but obsolete .
Since its peak in 2001 , first-class mail has declined precipitously .
That year , more than 103 billion pieces of first-class mail were delivered by the Postal Service .
In 2019 , that number had dropped to just under 55 billion .
This drop in first-class and advertising mail , historically the biggest revenue earners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ability to generate funds .
“ That market has gone into a kind of death spiral , and it ’ s not coming back , ” said Richard John , a professor of history at Columbia University and the author of “ Spreading the News : The American Postal System from Franklin to Morse.
” Right around the time the internet was eroding the post office ’ s historical cash cow , Congress enacted a new rule that has caused significant financial hardship for the agency .
Unlike any other single federal agency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been required to set aside billions of dollars every year to cover health benefits for future retired employees .
These payments amount to about $ 5 billion a year , but the USPS hasn ’ t been able to make any payments since 2011 , causing the burden to snowball — the agency is now behind on $ 119.3 billion in payments for the prefunding requirement .
But the internet did come with a silver lining : online shopping .
While first-class mail has dropped , the growth of online retailers like Amazon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Postal Service .
It doesn ’ t have a monopoly over package delivery like it does with letters , so it has to compete with private shippers like UPS and FedEx .
But it does have a centuries-old network that reaches every resident in the country .
This allows the USPS to negotiate contracts with shippers and retailers to provide last-mile service : delivering packages to addresses that wouldn ’ t be worth a FedEx trip , but that the post office has to visit anyway .
That last-mile service has helped prop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from a Trump task force found that from 2013 through 2018 , the USPS earned enough revenue to cover its costs … if you don ’ t include the prefunding requirement .
In 2017 , for example , the USPS generated $ 69.7 billion in total revenue , enough to cover its operating expenses of $ 68.2 billion , but not to cover the roughly $ 5 billion in retiree benefits contributions it should have made that year , or chip away at the debt created by not making those payments for most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at the end of the 2017 fiscal year , the USPS reported a net loss of $ 2.7 billion .
That ’ s why Trump ’ s claims that the Postal Service is losing money because of last-mile delivery don ’ t hold water .
But it does emphasize how crippling that prefunding requirement has been for the service .
And that has left it open to criticism that it needs to reform its operations in order to be steady going forward .
Enter Louis DeJoy .
More than a decade of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the perfect setting for a new postmaster general with a successful career in the private sector to start overhauling the system in the name of efficiency and innovation .
And when you mix DeJoy ’ s interest in overhauling the agency ’ s policies with a global pandemic and a looming election , you ’ ve got the perfect recipe for turning the country ’ s most popular government institution into a political lightning rod .
“ Right now , at this moment , there are really strange forces converging to screw everything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a communications professor at the University of Washington .
“ Losing first-class mail , where the postal service made most of its money , has been a problem for the last 25 years .
But that ’ s in the background and complicating it is this requirement to prepay retirement benefits , and then on top of that you add that Trump doesn ’ t like Amazon , and then layered on top of all of that is voting by mail.
” The Postal Service ’ s increasing dependence on package delivery to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Trump .
He already threatened to withhold federal pandemic aid unless the USPS quadrupled the rates it charges for last-mile delivery , a proposition that could make it impossible for the post office to compete .
If the USPS didn ’ t offer competitive rates for that delivery , it wouldn ’ t take long for other delivery companies — or Amazon itself , which already provides its own door-to-door delivery in many areas — to take over all but the most remote deliveries .
These very tensions came to light in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public last week .
In the short term , the worst-case scenario will be that the mail is slightly delayed , though not to the point that a vote-by-mail election is rendered impossible ( this is why experts recommend requesting and returning your ballot as early as possible ) .
A federal judge has blocked the changes DeJoy implemented that slowed the mail .
But even if that injunction gets thrown out by the Supreme Court , some delays shouldn ’ t prevent a mail-in election from otherwise running smoothly .
In fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response to a lawsuit seeking a court order to guarantee sufficient funding for the general election , the Postal Service pointed out that “ … even if every registered voter in the United States used a mail-in ballot in the 2020 Election , those ballots would represent only a fraction of the total mailpieces that the USPS processes each day , on average , and would pale in comparison to spikes in mail volume that the USPS handles every winter holiday season.
” But long term , the weaknesses of the Postal Service @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the election .
Even if there ’ s a new president in the White House next year , the USPS will face the same shaky ground it did at the beginning of the year .
If you care about the post office now , you ’ ll likely need to keep caring about it for months — or years — to come .

The post office can’t catch a break. Over the summer, operational changes implemented by the U.S. Postal Service’s new postmaster general raised concerns about mail delays. This prompted congressional investigations, lawsuits, a lot of political rhetoric, and even more public worry about whether the disruptions pose a threat to what will likely be the most mail-reliant election in history.
But the Postal Service isn’t struggling merely because of one new postmaster general’s changes — decades of events out of its control have positioned the agency to be particularly vulnerable when crisis struck.
2020 has seen little but crisis. COVID-19 changed a lot of things about everyday life, including how Americans use the post office. Between March and July, the volume of first-class mail like letters, bills and legal documents dropped off a cliff as businesses sought to cut expenses. At the same time, people isolating at home started ordering necessities (and non-necessities) online at a staggering rate. While overall mail volume was lower during the spring and summer compared to the same time last year, the volume of packages surged. In June, 71 percent more packaging was sent than in the year prior.
“We are at holiday levels of mail,” said one mailcarrier, who asked not to be named because USPS employees have been advised not to speak to the media. “Everybody is stuck at home and they’re ordering online, either because they can’t leave the house or the local merchant isn’t open. I personally deliver several hundred Amazon packages a day.”
That was the state of the USPS right as its new postmaster general started implementing sweeping changes. But the Postal Service has been facing challenges for years, many of which stem from the idiosyncrasies of being one of the nation’s oldest institutions.
The Postal Service has existed in some form or another since 1775, and it has always played a role in politics. But it was not originally conceived as a business. Instead, its founders wanted to make an organization that could facilitate democracy, allowing constituents to communicate with and keep tabs on elected officials, according to Christy Pottroff, a literature professor at Boston College who researches the earliest days of the Postal Service. That means much of the original scaffolding of the institution — parts of which are still in place today — doesn’t jibe with more modern expectations for the service to turn a profit.
“If I wanted to send a letter to you in 1815, it would be super expensive,” Pottroff said “But if I wanted to forward a newspaper to you, it would be super cheap. [The Postal Service] was established as a system of spreading the news to as many people as quickly as possible, and communication with elected officials in D.C. It was, in the past, the only way that system of democracy could work.”
This mandate set up the expectation that the post office should serve every American, regardless of class or location. That foundation permeates to this day, even as the institution has faced new financial challenges: An American living in rural Alaska doesn’t have to pay more to send a postcard than someone living in downtown Manhattan. This differs from a private business, which has no obligation to deliver packages to places that aren’t worth the cost of transportation.
But the modern era has complicated the post office’s lofty ideals. In 1970, following widespread wildcat strikes demanding better pay and safer working conditions, the post office was transformed. In exchange for employees’ right to collectively bargain, Congress passed an act that changed the post office from a publicly funded cabinet department to a self-funded, independent agency. Basically, the post office had to function less like a public service and more like a private business, but still uphold its public service obligations — like being beholden to requirements set by Congress and having to serve every American. This worked all right for a few decades, but then the internet happened.
The USPS has a monopoly on sending or carrying flat envelope mail, also known as first-class mail, and on delivering items to physical mailboxes. (It’s actually illegal to slide something through a mailslot if it’s not a piece of paid USPS mail.) This was great for the Postal Service until the internet made handwritten letters, invitations, physical bills, checks, bank statements, etc., all but obsolete. Since its peak in 2001, first-class mail has declined precipitously. That year, more than 103 billion pieces of first-class mail were delivered by the Postal Service. In 2019, that number had dropped to just under 55 billion. This drop in first-class and advertising mail, historically the biggest revenue earners, has hurt the agency’s ability to generate funds.
“That market has gone into a kind of death spiral, and it’s not coming back,” said Richard John, a professor of history at Columbia University and the author of “Spreading the News: The American Postal System from Franklin to Morse.”
Right around the time the internet was eroding the post office’s historical cash cow, Congress enacted a new rule that has caused significant financial hardship for the agency. Unlike any other single federal agency, the post office has since 2006 been required to set aside billions of dollars every year to cover health benefits for future retired employees. These payments amount to about $5 billion a year, but the USPS hasn’t been able to make any payments since 2011, causing the burden to snowball — the agency is now behind on $119.3 billion in payments for the prefunding requirement.
But the internet did come with a silver lining: online shopping. While first-class mail has dropped, the growth of online retailers like Amazon has provided a new opportunity for the Postal Service. It doesn’t have a monopoly over package delivery like it does with letters, so it has to compete with private shippers like UPS and FedEx. But it does have a centuries-old network that reaches every resident in the country. This allows the USPS to negotiate contracts with shippers and retailers to provide last-mile service: delivering packages to addresses that wouldn’t be worth a FedEx trip, but that the post office has to visit anyway.
That last-mile service has helped prop up the agency. A 2018 report from a Trump task force found that from 2013 through 2018, the USPS earned enough revenue to cover its costs … if you don’t include the prefunding requirement.
In 2017, for example, the USPS generated $69.7 billion in total revenue, enough to cover its operating expenses of $68.2 billion, but not to cover the roughly $5 billion in retiree benefits contributions it should have made that year, or chip away at the debt created by not making those payments for most of the decade. As a result, at the end of the 2017 fiscal year, the USPS reported a net loss of $2.7 billion.
That’s why Trump’s claims that the Postal Service is losing money because of last-mile delivery don’t hold water. But it does emphasize how crippling that prefunding requirement has been for the service. And that has left it open to criticism that it needs to reform its operations in order to be steady going forward.
Enter Louis DeJoy. More than a decade of financial losses and a shifting marketplace provided the perfect setting for a new postmaster general with a successful career in the private sector to start overhauling the system in the name of efficiency and innovation. And when you mix DeJoy’s interest in overhauling the agency’s policies with a global pandemic and a looming election, you’ve got the perfect recipe for turning the country’s most popular government institution into a political lightning rod.
“Right now, at this moment, there are really strange forces converging to screw everything up,” said Richard Kielbowicz, a communications professor at the University of Washington. “Losing first-class mail, where the postal service made most of its money, has been a problem for the last 25 years. But that’s in the background and complicating it is this requirement to prepay retirement benefits, and then on top of that you add that Trump doesn’t like Amazon, and then layered on top of all of that is voting by mail.”
The Postal Service’s increasing dependence on package delivery to earn revenue makes it a prime target for Trump. He already threatened to withhold federal pandemic aid unless the USPS quadrupled the rates it charges for last-mile delivery, a proposition that could make it impossible for the post office to compete. If the USPS didn’t offer competitive rates for that delivery, it wouldn’t take long for other delivery companies — or Amazon itself, which already provides its own door-to-door delivery in many areas — to take over all but the most remote deliveries. These very tensions came to light in a trove of internal USPS documents made public last week.
In the short term, the worst-case scenario will be that the mail is slightly delayed, though not to the point that a vote-by-mail election is rendered impossible (this is why experts recommend requesting and returning your ballot as early as possible). A federal judge has blocked the changes DeJoy implemented that slowed the mail. But even if that injunction gets thrown out by the Supreme Court, some delays shouldn’t prevent a mail-in election from otherwise running smoothly. In fact, in a legal brief filed in response to a lawsuit seeking a court order to guarantee sufficient funding for the general election, the Postal Service pointed out that “… even if every registered voter in the United States used a mail-in ballot in the 2020 Election, those ballots would represent only a fraction of the total mailpieces that the USPS processes each day, on average, and would pale in comparison to spikes in mail volume that the USPS handles every winter holiday season.”
But long term, the weaknesses of the Postal Service will remain, regardless of who wins the election. Even if there’s a new president in the White House next year, the USPS will face the same shaky ground it did at the beginning of the year. If you care about the post office now, you’ll likely need to keep caring about it for months — or years — to come.