This article represents my personal opinion, and will have no effect on our polling average for this race or our upcoming 2026 midterm forecasts, which will remain entirely data-based.

If you stopped paying attention to Wisconsin’s Democratic primary for governor sometime last weekend, I honestly cannot blame you. More likely, you were never paying attention at all. And that makes sense, as this campaign, although it is a primary, has flown under the radar compared to the inundation of advertisements we’ve seen for recent state Supreme Court races or Senate elections. But it just got a lot more interesting.

Within the span of nine days, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley dropped out and endorsed Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez1, who was the first to enter the race a year ago and was widely considered a frontrunner. Rodriguez then discovered that her campaign had hundreds of thousands of dollars less than she thought in cash on hand, after contributions were apparently counted twice, expenses were underreported and a planned $1 million television campaign failed to air because invoices had not been paid. She fired her campaign manager and insisted the campaign would continue, before changing course and dropping out just four days later2. That was just yesterday. Are you overwhelmed yet?

Within 24 hours of Rodriguez dropping out, Crowley got right back into the race. Except this time, incumbent Gov. Tony Evers came with him3. After saying he wanted to remain neutral and not play “kingmaker” in the primary last year4, Evers changed his position as soon as who I presume was his preferred candidate (she is his lieutenant, after all) was no longer in the race. It also seems like there are other “establishment Democrats” who are becoming increasingly concerned about the possibility of either Francesca Hong or Mandela Barnes becoming the nominee and/or losing a general election to Republican presumptive nominee Rep. Tom Tiffany.

Whether state party leaders will admit it publicly or not5, it is becoming hard not to see this as an attempt to stop Hong from becoming the Democratic nominee. Barnes is probably concerning to them too, and that’s more justified in my opinion, as he already lost a statewide race in 2022 to Ron freaking Johnson, the fourth-most unpopular Senator in the country6, the same year that Evers won re-election to a second term, and when Democrats as a whole performed quite well in the Senate in the “red wave” that never was. Still, the panic around Hong is clearly different.

Despite that, I still think Hong is the right choice, both personally on the policy side, and strategically in terms of who is best to run in the general election.

Can someone tell Wisconsinites there is an election???

Before getting into the candidates themselves, I have a broader complaint: How has a race this important, that is wide open with no incumbent running, received so little attention?

Wisconsin, one of the most politically competitive and dynamic states in the country, is electing a brand new governor who will likely govern during another extremely close presidential election in 2028, and this comes as Democrats have a realistic opportunity to win control of the state Legislature (both branches) for the first time in years.

Yet until this week, the primary had received surprisingly little media coverage or advertising from the candidates themselves.

This is coming from the guy who follows Wisconsin politics obsessively and runs an entire website that includes a polling average for this very race: I still have not seen much meaningful coverage of just about anything. Rodriguez was supposed to kickstart that with her $1 million TV campaign7, only for the ads to never air because the campaign forgot the somewhat important step of… paying for them.

Instead, the first unavoidable TV advertising voters will see is a $2.2 million buy from the Republican Governors Association attacking Hong as “too liberal”8. Democrats have argued that the ads are secretly intended to boost her chances with primary voters, which is probably true, and not very secretive. To those who would argue that is an indictment of Hong’s electability, I’d say this: don’t interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. Remember when Hillary Clinton and the DNC were hoping to have Trump as the GOP nominee? How’d that one go? Even if Hong is an easier opponent in the general election, the GOP meddling isn’t likely to be the cause of her primary win. An analysis for this cycle by The Downballot finds that “Republicans have sought to interfere in 14 races that could host competitive general elections, but their preferred Democrats have won their primaries just three times. (One other contest remains ongoing.)“9

Regardless, congratulations are in order to Wisconsin Democrats: Republicans may have done a better job introducing one of your leading candidates than any of the actual campaigns did for themselves.

This feels like a good point to mention that our 2026 midterm forecasts will launch in the very near future, and Wisconsin’s gubernatorial race will be one of the most important events it covers. But forecasts become significantly more useful when polling is more accurate, which won’t happen until voters know who the candidates are. Right now, far too many don’t.

The establishment strategy is not very subtle

If you look at each decision this week individually, everything can be explained.

Crowley dropped out because his campaign was struggling to gain any traction, and endorsed Rodriguez, who appeared to be the strongest establishment-aligned candidate. Rodriguez then dropped out because of her campaign finance issues, a potentially disqualifying distraction. Evers endorsed Crowley who re-entered the race as he believes Crowley is the strongest remaining general-election candidate.

Many Democrats are worried that Hong will win the primary and lose to Tiffany. She is a self-described democratic socialist, has taken several positions that Republicans will portray as extreme, and some independents may agree. And she represents a much clearer departure from the current party establishment than anyone else in the race, by far.

Those concerns are understandable. To be clear: Wisconsin is not New York City, and we don’t yet know that Hong is the next Mamdani. Republicans will spend enormous amounts of money portraying Hong as an “out-of-touch Madison socialist”. Her past comments supporting abolishing the police will be replayed about 40 billion times between August and November if she is the nominee. But this would happen no matter who the nominee is. Republicans tried portraying Tony Evers as a crazy liberal, and he was able to overcome it. Republicans already portrayed Mandela Barnes as “weak on crime” and used racist attack ads to target him10. You could maybe argue that worked, but Barnes barely lost to Johnson, and effectively didn’t run a campaign, which was his own fault. The GOP would label David Crowley as the guy in charge of “liberal Milwaukee”. Are you getting it yet? It’s not about what the Republicans can say about the eventual nominee, it’s about who can best respond and refute those claims. And that’s Hong. Crowley is a complete unknown with little time left, Barnes is low-energy and already failed to establish himself in an “easy” 2022 race, and Joel Brennan and Kelda Roys… sorry, who are they?11

Point is, “the candidate Republicans most want to run against” is one of the oldest and least useful arguments in politics. Republicans claimed Barack Obama was too liberal and inexperienced in 200812, and were more fearful of a Hillary candidacy. Democrats spent much of 2016 (as did everyone else on the planet) insisting Donald Trump wouldn’t stand a chance13. We all know how that went.

Political parties are very confident in their ability to identify “the safest candidate”, right up until that person loses.

A lesson from 2016

Let’s look back to the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries a bit deeper as the best example of this misconception.

Hillary Clinton was overwhelmingly presented as the experienced, responsible, and most electable option in the primary. Bernie Sanders had far more enthusiasm, arguably charisma, a more energized base and a message that connected with many working-class voters, (he won two out of the three rust-belt states in the primaries…14) yet Clinton was considered safer.

Then she lost Wisconsin. Michigan. Pennsylvania. And the election. To a guy whose successful campaign experience was limited to selling Big Macs15. Yes, that’s true.

To be clear, I am not saying Sanders definitely would have defeated Trump. No one will ever be able to answer that question, and there were many weaknesses in his candidacy too. But 2016 should have permanently ended the idea that moderation, experience, and establishment support automatically equal electability.

Sometimes the candidate who looks safest on paper is the one voters are least excited to support, and electability isn’t a position on an ideological chart, it’s about getting people to show up and care enough to vote for you. Only one person in this race has that.

Hong has something the other candidates lack

I’m not going to really get into the weeds on the Brennan and Roys campaigns as they simply have not taken off like Hong and Barnes have. So let’s talk about Barnes. I don’t think he’d be a terrible nominee, and again, he was only 27,000 votes short of beating RoJo in 2022, and has technically already won statewide as lieutenant governor.

But Barnes and his campaign do not have the same energy. He is experienced and familiar, but is not particularly moving or charismatic on the campaign trail. Trust me, I’ve seen him give two rally speeches. They were “meh” at best. His 2026 campaign has so far felt more like an attempt to complete unfinished business16 than a movement. I know Barnes’ resume, and I’m not sure what makes this campaign different from the one he ran four years ago yet.

Hong, on the other hand, has a very clear political identity. She is energetic, direct, and clearly very comfortable speaking to voters without sounding as though every sentence was approved by six consultants first. That distinction matters. The Democratic Socialists of America are also enjoying a lot of momentum nationally.17 DSA-backed candidates have recently won important primaries in New York (plus the general!), Pennsylvania, and Colorado, while the DSA’s membership and chapters have grown. That doesn’t prove one can win in Wisconsin, but it does mean voters, particularly younger voters that the Democrats have been losing lately, are more receptive to candidates who actually offer solutions to their problems, and not politics as normal. Normal isn’t very popular right now, and frankly, why would it be?

Hong is capable of winning over independents and working-class voters with her policies in a variety of areas18. On education, she supports fully funding Wisconsin’s universities, technical colleges, and K-12 schools, while moving public money away from private-school vouchers and towards public schools. She is advocating for universal childcare and free school meals, which may be “liberal”, but I’ve never heard of someone not wanting that. On labor, she supports guaranteed paid family and medical leave, stronger collective-bargaining rights, and wants to expand BadgerCare, our extension of Medicaid, while limiting pricing by large hospitals. She also is treating public transportation as an actual statewide priority, not just in Madison and Milwaukee, which is unique. And perhaps what sets her apart from her Democratic opponents most is that she is in strong support of a moratorium on AI data centers in the state, which no one else has stood behind. Data centers are not popular in rural areas.19 That could help her.

Return of The (Milwaukee) Executive may accomplish the opposite of its intent

The political logic behind reviving Crowley is straightforward: Rodriguez’s campaign collapsed, so Evers and other party leaders want her supporters to consolidate behind another moderate candidate before Hong can win a divided field.

One slight issue with that: Crowley was already in the race. He ran for months, had basically no support20, dropped out and told voters Rodriguez was the better choice. Now he is asking those same voters to forget he ever did that and support him weeks before the primary, as tens of thousands of votes have already been cast. Evers’ endorsement could help, as he is popular amongst Wisconsin Dems.

But who is Crowley actually taking votes from? I doubt there are many voters who were firmly behind Hong that would abandon her because Evers endorsed a more moderate candidate, as her supporters like her because she challenges the norm. If anything, this reinforces her argument.

Instead, Crowley is much more likely to take votes from Barnes, Roys, Brennan, and anyone who was in the Rodriguez camp, the more “conventional” candidates. Adding another conventional candidate doesn’t automatically consolidate the votes, it may divide them further. I’m no campaign strategist (maybe after college), but that seems like a slight flaw in this plan.

Elections are won with energy

Democrats absolutely need to consider electability in this race. Tom Tiffany can win, and that is a threat that should be taken seriously. But the party’s problem nationally is that it isn’t exciting anymore, and it isn’t for change. Too many voters see Democrats as cautious, scripted, or disconnected from the urgency of the moment, while populist candidates like Trump win by being erratic, bold and for change, even if that change isn’t well thought out to say the least.

Hong offers a clear message, an energized base and goals that directly address the issues voters care about. She has her weaknesses, and the general could be a tough one. But every candidate has their weaknesses, and every election in the most purple state in the nation can be a tough one.

The question is whether Democrats want to spend the next four months supporting a nominee voters reluctantly accept, or someone that excites the base. That should, and will be decided by the primary, not by Tony Evers, not by other establishment Dems or the state party, but by the voters. And I think the decision will be to go with Francesca Hong.

9

The Downballot

Morning Digest: Republicans are meddling in another Democratic primary. They haven't had much success.

Leading Off…

Read more

2 days ago · 66 likes · 209 comments · David Nir and Jeff Singer

With the group stages almost over, many teams are still fighting for their place in the knockout stage of this World Cup. For some, the path forward is simple: win the final match and guarantee qualification. For others, advancement depends on a combination of results, goal difference, and help from other teams.

Every point matters at this stage of the tournament. In past editions of the most watched sporting event in the world, many teams entering the last game of the group stage already knew their fate. With qualification secured or elimination confirmed, third- and fourth-place teams often had little left to play for. This year, however, the expanded format and tighter groups have created more meaningful games late into the stage. The most notable change this year is the addition of the best third-place team qualification. In previous World Cups, the top two teams from each group advanced, meaning teams finishing third were eliminated regardless of their record. This year, with the tournament expanding from 32 to 48 teams, the top two teams from each group and the eight best third-place teams will move on to the knockout stage.

This completely changes the group stage strategy. Instead of third-place teams just giving up, teams can stay alive by gaining points and trying to maintain as high of a goal differential (goals scored minus goals conceded) as possible. Even teams sitting in third or fourth place entering the final match have a realistic path to the knockouts, making every match and every goal significantly more important.

As the group stage reaches its conclusion, the pressure is at its highest. The remaining matches will determine which teams continue their runs and which teams fall just short.

At the time of writing this article, 3 of the 12 groups have already concluded their matches. These groups are:

Group A

Mexico - 9 points (advance)
South Africa - 4 points (advance)
South Korea - 3 points
Czechia - 1 point (eliminated)

Group B

Switzerland - 7 points (advance)
Canada - 4 points (advance)
Bosnia and Herzegovina - 4 points
Qatar - 1 point (eliminated)

Group C

Brazil - 7 points (advance)
Morocco - 7 points (advance)
Scotland - 3 points
Haiti - 1 point (eliminated)

From these groups, South Korea, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Scotland are situated in the third-place team table.

While Groups A through C have already concluded, the real drama begins as the remaining groups approach their final matches over this week. With teams fighting not only for the top two spots but also for one of the eight third-place qualification spots, the margin for error is extremely small. Here is what every team in Groups D through L needs to do to make it out of the group stage.

Group D

United States - 6 points:
As the first team to secure qualification to the knockouts, the United States is both guaranteed to make it to the knockout stage and finish at the top of its group. This is because of the restructuring of the tiebreakers. Traditionally, when teams end on the same number of points, the first tiebreaker is goal difference. This World Cup, however, that tiebreaker is head-to-head. That means that if two teams are tied on points, whoever won their match against each other takes the higher position. If there was a draw, the next tiebreaker returns to goal difference, and then fair play. The next two teams in Group D are Paraguay and Australia, both of which the United States has beaten. As a result, even if the United States loses its last match and Australia beats Paraguay, the United States will still top its group.

Australia - 3 points:
Australia would guarantee qualification with a draw or win against Paraguay, beating out third-place Paraguay on goal difference (0 vs. -2).

Paraguay - 3 points:
Paraguay would guarantee qualification with a win against Australia. The path to qualification would be a bit more difficult with a draw, but the general standard for qualification as a third-place team is 4 points. With a draw, the Paraguayans should be uneasily comfortable.

Turkey - 1 point:
The team with the most extravagant send-off is unfortunately eliminated.

Group E

Germany - 6 points:
In the same situation as the United States, Germany is guaranteed to finish at the top of its group as well.

Ivory Coast - 3 points:
Ivory Coast needs a point against Curaçao to guarantee qualification.

Ecuador - 1 point:
Ecuador needs to beat Germany to have at least a third-place route. To place second, Ecuador needs Curaçao to defeat Ivory Coast.

Curaçao - 1 point:
After a brutal, trauma-inducing 7-1 defeat to Germany in its opening match, Curaçao would be one of the lowest teams in the third-place bracket even with a win against Ivory Coast, with a -6 goal difference. Curaçao would finish second in its group with a victory over Ivory Coast and if Germany beats Ecuador.

Group F

Netherlands - 4 points:
The Netherlands would guarantee qualification with a win or a draw against Tunisia.

Japan - 4 points:
Japan would qualify with a draw or win against Sweden.

Sweden - 3 points:
Sweden needs to beat Japan to guarantee qualification, though a draw would give it a level goal difference and a good chance of third-place qualification.

Tunisia - 0 points:
After a devastating 5-1 loss to Sweden and a 4-0 loss to Japan, the Eagles of Carthage are eliminated.

Group G

Egypt - 4 points:
Egypt would guarantee qualification with a draw or win against Iran.

Iran - 2 points:
Iran would guarantee qualification with a win against Egypt. If Iran draws with Egypt, it must hope for a draw in the Belgium vs. New Zealand match. This is because it would move on after a long series of tiebreakers. If both Belgium and Iran draw, they would both end on 3 points. With Iran vs. Belgium ending 0-0, the head-to-head tiebreaker is broken. The next tiebreaker is goal difference, where both teams would end on a goal difference of 0. The advancing team would come down to the third tiebreaker, goals scored, where Iran edges out Belgium, having scored two goals this World Cup compared with Belgium’s one. Therefore, Iran just needs to score the same number of goals or more as Belgium in its last match to move on. A loss would almost guarantee elimination.

Belgium - 2 points:
Belgium would guarantee qualification with a win against New Zealand and would almost be guaranteed to be knocked out with a draw.

New Zealand - 1 point:
New Zealand and Tim Payne need to beat Belgium to have a third-place route and hope Iran loses to Egypt to finish second.

Group H

Spain - 4 points:
Spain would guarantee qualification with a draw or win against Uruguay.

Uruguay - 2 points:
Uruguay needs to beat Spain to guarantee qualification. A draw would give it a slim chance of a third-place route.

Cape Verde - 2 points:
Cape Verde will progress if it beats Saudi Arabia. A draw would be treacherous.

Saudi Arabia - 1 point:
Saudi Arabia needs to beat Cape Verde to have at least a third-place route and needs Spain to beat Uruguay to place second.

Group I (the most predictable group)

France - 6 points:
France has already qualified. A win or a draw will make it top the group.

Norway - 6 points:
Norway has qualified. A win over France would allow it to top the group.

Senegal - 0 points:
Senegal needs a win to have a chance through the third-place route, but it is very unlikely even if it finishes on 3 points.

Iraq - 0 points:
Iraq needs a win to have a chance through the third-place route, but it is very unlikely even if it finishes on 3 points with a goal difference of -6.

Group J

Argentina - 6 points:
Argentina is through as group winner.

Austria - 3 points:
Austria would progress with a win or a draw against Algeria.

Algeria - 3 points:
Algeria would finish second if it secures a win over Austria.

Jordan - 0 points:
Jordan is eliminated.

Group K

Colombia - 6 points:
Colombia has qualified and will top the group if it secures at least a draw against Portugal.

Portugal - 4 points:
Portugal qualifies if it avoids defeat against Colombia, and with four points and a strong goal difference, it would have to lose heavily to miss out on a third-place route.

Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) - 1 point:
The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) needs to beat Uzbekistan to keep its hopes alive, but as one of the last groups to kick off, it would probably know how many goals it needs to win by for a third-place route, or if any win would be sufficient at all.

Uzbekistan - 0 points:
Uzbekistan will need to beat the DRC by a big margin to stay alive and will be eliminated by kickoff if too many groups have third-place teams with four points.

Group L

England - 4 points:
England qualifies if it wins or draws against Panama.

Ghana - 4 points:
Ghana qualifies if it avoids defeat against Croatia.

Croatia - 3 points:
Croatia needs to beat Ghana to be sure of qualifying and may have a third-place route with a draw.

Panama - 0 points:
Panama has been eliminated.

As more games conclude, we will have a better outlook on what teams will need to make it out as a third-place team. As of now, it is safe to say that teams with 4 points or more and a decent goal difference are safe as third-place teams, while teams with anything less should be glued to every result.

The final matches of the group stage promise to bring some of the most exciting moments of the tournament. With qualification battles going down to the final whistle, this expanded World Cup has delivered exactly what fans hoped for: more teams, more meaningful games, and more to anticipate.

Following the Republican primary for U.S. Senate in Texas this Tuesday, our polling average for the general election shifted slightly toward Democratic nominee James Talarico, though not because voters themselves suddenly moved dramatically.

Instead, the change mostly comes from the fact that we now know who his opponent is.

Before the GOP primary, our polling average included surveys testing both Attorney General Ken Paxton and current U.S. Senator John Cornyn against Talarico. Now that Paxton is officially the Republican nominee, the outcome Democrats preferred given his scandal-ridden record, the average only includes Talarico vs. Paxton polls, removing any surveys that included Cornyn.

That matters because Cornyn generally performed slightly better against Talarico than Paxton did.

Before the adjustment, Talarico led the combined Republican average 43.3% to 39.8%. Now, in the Paxton-only average, Talarico leads 44.1% to 39.6%, a single-point increase. In the nowcast, which forecasts the election if it were held today using only polls, Talarico improved from a 78% chance to an 84% chance of victory. Prediction markets aren’t as high on Talarico, but still show a close race.

So yes, Democrats are in a slightly stronger position than before, but it is important not to overstate what changed. Talarico was already favored in the polling average before the primary. The race did not suddenly become competitive overnight — it already was.

For that reason though, Republicans should be at least somewhat concerned by these numbers.

At the same time, Texas has earned the benefit of the doubt politically until proven otherwise. We have seen hopeful “Blexas” conversations multiple times before, especially in 2018 and 2020. Beto O’Rourke came surprisingly close to defeating Ted Cruz in the 2018 Senate race, and Democrats (and the polls) believed Joe Biden had an outside shot at carrying the state two years later. Instead, Trump still won Texas comfortably in both 2020 and 2024.

Texas is still a Republican state. Democrats have not won a statewide race there since the 1990s, and late undecided voters in Texas historically tend to move toward Republicans rather than away from them. That trend alone makes it difficult to fully buy into any Democratic lead there, particularly months before Election Day.

But in theory, this cycle also presents Democrats with one of their best opportunities in years. The national environment currently favors Democrats fairly heavily (they lead our generic ballot average by exactly six percent), consumer confidence continues to fall (now to a 10-year low), and Republicans are defending a seat with one of the most polarizing politicians in the country. Paxton remains very popular with parts of the Republican base, but much weaker with independents and suburban voters than someone like Cornyn likely would have been.

That combination is what makes Texas especially important nationally. If Democrats want a realistic path back to a Senate majority in 2026, they likely need at least one major upset in a traditionally Republican state. Right now, Texas increasingly looks like one of their best opportunities to do that.

Whether Texas actually follows through on the hype this time, though, or “Blexas” remains an unfulfilled prophecy, is another question entirely.

UPDATE: Prior to publication, Gallup released their monthly survey data, bringing our CSI down a bit more to -12.3.

Consumers are not feeling particularly optimistic about the economy right now.

Following the latest University of Michigan consumer sentiment release, the HDR Analytics Consumer Sentiment Index (CSI) has now fallen to its lowest level in over a decade, registering at -12.1. The newest UMich survey showed headline consumer sentiment falling to 44.8, one of the weakest readings in the history of the survey.

Historical values for the HDR Analytics CSI:

And honestly, this feels pretty indicative of where Americans are mentally right now when it comes to the economy.

Over the last few years, we’ve seen wave after wave of inflation, and while the rate of inflation itself cooled somewhat from the 2022 peak, we never really got the “everything feels normal again” moment many were hoping for. Housing remains incredibly expensive, grocery prices are still elevated, and now gas prices are experiencing a massive surge again as the Iran war creates instability in global oil markets.

That last part especially matters for consumer confidence. People may not follow CPI reports or Federal Reserve meetings closely, but they notice when it suddenly costs $75 to fill up their tank.

National gas prices have climbed sharply over the last several weeks, with some forecasts now expecting further increases if tensions continue escalating in the Middle East. Car and Driver finds that national fuel prices are also at a four-year high.

The latest UMich survey also showed concerning numbers for inflation expectations. Once consumers start expecting inflation to stay elevated long-term, it becomes significantly harder for the Fed to fully stabilize prices without keeping interest rates higher for longer.

To be clear, none of this necessarily means the economy will collapse tomorrow. Unemployment is still relatively low, and broader economic growth has held up better than many expected with Trump’s tariffs (although those have largely been struck down by the courts). But consumers clearly feel anything but confident right now, and sentiment itself matters because it directly affects spending behavior, large purchases, and overall economic activity moving forward.

Between inflation, interest rates, housing costs, and now geopolitical uncertainty, consumers are still waiting for the sense that things are finally getting easier. And according to the CSI, they are not anywhere near that feeling yet.

Trying something different today, with the 2026 NFL Draft kicking off in under an hour: below you’ll find a full first-round mock draft (with trades too!) selected by Jamie, our HDR Analytics sports contributor and in-house NFL expert.

Via trade w/ the Saints for 1.12 and 3.92

Via trade w/ Dallas for 1.8

Via trade w/ Kansas City for 2.34 and 4.104

Live coverage has concluded for this severe weather event, as the sole Severe Thunderstorm Warning for our area expired hours ago.

Thursday, April 2nd - 4:58 PM

The National Weather Service has indeed declared a Tornado Watch (as we predicted last night) for Dane County through 8 PM tonight. The latest Storm Prediction Center models maintain a 10% hatched risk for tornadoes, an upgraded 30% hatched risk for damaging straight-line winds, and a 15% chance of hail. Storms in Iowa have already prompted tornado warnings and an observed tornado or two, and that line of cells should make its way here within around two hours.

Before I get into the details on tomorrow’s severe weather event, let me start by saying that no, this one is NOT an April Fool’s prank. I’m also writing this while watching the Artemis II launch to the moon, and there is perfect weather at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, so I have to get in the right mindset here…

What to expect

The National Weather Service’s Storm Prediction Center has upgraded our threat level to an enhanced risk, a level three out of five. Let’s get into what that means.

Tornadoes - far more likely than typical storms

We are under a 10% hatched risk for tornadoes of the lowest intensity level, but that is still nothing to scoff at. A deep surface low is going to lift toward La Crosse, and the entire setup is uniquely favorable for strong, long-track, fast-moving tornadoes, mainly between 4-9 PM along the I-39 corridor, including Madison/Dane County. I think a tornado watch is fairly likely.

Damaging winds - very likely

We are also under a 30% damaging wind risk, which is pretty much as high as we ever get here, but it is not a hatched (additional intensity) risk, so that’s good.

Hail - possible, but not the main concern

Finally, we have a 15% (not hatched) risk of hail, mainly under two inches in diameter, so not a huge concern. This will most likely be attached to any tornadoes that do spin up or in very isolated storm cells, and hail impacts won’t be widespread.

What to follow tomorrow

Definitely make sure you have weather alerts set up on your phone if possible, and keep an eye on the radar (I recommend WeatherWise) for more details on storm timing. I will probably post a few live updates here as things develop, as we are declaring a (new) Severe Weather Alert Day for tomorrow.

*Certain data points may have changed since this article was written.

As recently as late last week, I have had to repeatedly answer one question regarding the snowday forecast: why is it still up? Each time I answered, I just said “we live in Wisconsin”. And just like that, mother nature decided to create the perfect storm this weekend. Some of you may remember that we actually had a snowday/closure two years ago in April, which was either the only or one of the only two closures that school year. Like I said, it’s Wisconsin. We truly are not in the clear from snow until May. And, this volatile, back-and-forth pattern of 60s to blizzards and back around again is only going to get worse and worse due to the effects of climate change. Just this week, we had elevated risks of severe storms, hail, and tornadoes, and now, we are dealing with a snowstorm. So, I thought it’d be a good idea to talk about this storm in particular, while using it to answer some broader questions about the model itself.

A “flaw” in the model that’s key to understanding why the odds keep changing

It’s important to note that although it’s called a forecast, the snowday model is really more of a “nowcast”, which is a predictive model for an event happening now, or in the immediate future. Of course, we are days away from this storm, and with weather forecasts in particular, things can and do change dramatically. Forecasting general trends or conditions, like temperatures, is far easier than a more exact metric like snowfall. That challenge is uniquely difficult with this system due to the current climate, because certain areas will be either just below or just above freezing, meaning it’s hard to tell exactly how much snow will stick on the ground. The NWS graphic below demonstrates how the shape of this storm is also so crucial.

Essentially, depending on which narrow band Madison falls under, we could receive 3-7 inches, or closer to 15 inches, and if the storm shifts dramatically south, which is unlikely but possible, we could get 20+. But, what’s the flaw in the model that this affects? As a nowcast, the snowday model has no factor and places no weight on time until the school day. It does account for time in a different way, where it grows less confident in a closure as hours pass by the night before. But it isn’t “aware” that we are predicting Monday vs. next Friday, for example. Our other models, like our election forecasts, have a time mechanism, where they both rely more on polling vs. fundamentals and grow more confident overall the closer we get to Election Day, but this does not. Basically, think of a 99.9% chance today as a 80% chance overall, whereas a 99.9% chance Sunday night is far stronger. These aren’t exact conversions, but you get the point: the swings you may see today and tomorrow will in theory get smaller and smaller the closer we get to Monday, because the NWS data will become more consistent, something our forecast is not inherently aware of.

How much snow are we actually going to get?

The short answer is that it’s still too early to tell. The better answer is that different models are saying different things. The GFS model, which has been consistent for the last few days, places us at a whopping 26 inches of snow by 7 AM Monday. The NWS hourly forecast, which is what our model uses, has us getting 15.1 inches total, up from 8 this morning, but down from 19 or so yesterday. Meanwhile, the NWS “probabilistic snowfall experiment” model has us getting anywhere from 2 to 9 inches. All in all, we simply don’t know yet.

What’s driving the model’s high chance of a closure?

The biggest threats that are contributing to a abnormally high chance of an MMSD closure are ice accumulation, snow depth, and wind gust speeds. MMSD typically has a threshold of 0.1 inches of ice, but the wind conditions and snow could lead to a Blizzard Watch/Warning that could prompt a day off as well.

When will MMSD call Monday off, if they do?

I think if we are still seeing double digit snow forecasts and ice accumulation, we will hear by noon-ish Sunday. If things calm down, it may be late Sunday night or very early Monday morning, but my bet is on Sunday.

More to come

I will be updating the forecast as best I can tomorrow, but admittedly it may be less frequent than normal as I have a forensics tournament. Keep an eye on things and our odds heading into Sunday, and let’s hope for another long weekend!

About the forecast

• Created by Henry Riley

• A full write-up of our election forecast methodology is coming soon

• This forecast uses a weighted blend of polling data and fundamentals (think past elections, consumer confidence, state partisanship, fundraising, etc.) to forecast the vote shares of each candidate, and then simulates the races with calculated uncertainty to output odds

• We are not running forecasts for the following elections (also held tomorrow), but they are equally important: California’s Prop. 50 vote, the NYC mayoral race, and the three Pennsylvania Supreme Court retention elections

• We also will not have our own live coverage of election night, but encourage you to follow the results at Decision Desk HQ, will share other resources tomorrow.

• The forecast will freeze at 5:00 PM Central time, an hour before VA polls close.

🔃 November 4th, 5:00 PM: It’s Election Day! Our odds and forecasts below have been frozen as we approach the polls closing in Virginia at 6 PM CDT.

New Jersey - Sherrill is favored to win.

Forecast odds

Odds of an upset

A Ciattarelli win is about as likely as a goal in an NHL shootout. That may not seem likely, but it happens.

Forecasted vote shares

Virginia - Spanberger is favored to win.

Forecast odds

Odds of an upset

An Earle-Sears win is about as likely as flipping a coin and getting tails twice. That may not seem likely, but it happens.

Forecasted vote shares

Forecast map

Only states with gubernatorial races this year are shown.

State forecasts

About the forecasts

• 🔃 November 2nd, 10:00 PM: Our ratings have been frozen for this year as both Middleton and Verona lost in level two of the playoffs.

• Created by Henry Riley

• Game probabilities for the current week of the season will be publicly available for free, but probabilities for future weeks will remain paywalled. Rankings will always be free.

• Playoff games are treated as normal games in the model, so the further a team goes in the playoffs, the higher their rating can go. (The conventional wisdom here is that the further you make it in the bracket, the better you are anyways)

Madison Memorial Playoff Eligibility Tracker

Memorial (3-5) did not make the playoffs. To earn a spot in the WIAA D1 Playoffs, they needed…

1. To beat Madison La Follette (2-6, 54% chance of VPM win) - 49-7 ✅

2. Ashwaubenon (3-5) to win @ Green Bay Preble (4-4) - 24-14 ✅

3. Marshfield (4-4) to win vs. Stevens Point (5-3) - 32-30 ✅

4. Menominee (3-5) to win vs. Chippewa Falls (4-4) - 6-36 ❌

Forecasts for the entire season of conference games are available below for paid subscribers.

Read more

Thank you for taking the time to read this piece. It is the accumulation of several months of emails to district leaders and school board members, analysis of local news coverage, and personal concerns over how MMSD makes decisions and how, in my personal opinion, they made the wrong one here. This article was also published in the Memorial Sword & Shield today, where it can be found here.

I apologize for the lack of content lately, as my summer was incredibly busy with work and college visits/applications. I hope to post the Big Eight football ratings (although late) soon, and write more with my lighter schedule this year once applications are done. Again, thank you for reading, this topic is an important one for me, and I hope you learn something even if you disagree with my view.

This spring, MMSD launched an ‘extensive’ review of GPA calculation to decide whether to switch from unweighted to weighted grades.

In an unweighted system, all classes count the same. A student taking two APs and one honors class who earns Bs in APs and As elsewhere has a 3.71 GPA. A common strategy for weighting caps regular classes at 4.0, honors 4.5, AP/college-level 5.0, meaning that that same student would have a 3.71 unweighted GPA, but a 4.0 weighted GPA. This is because an A in an AP is a 5.0, a B is a 4.0, and a B in an honors course would be a 3.5, and so on.

I have two main issues to talk about. First, the decision was wrong, and second, MMSD’s “review” lacked honesty. The second matters more - even if I may disagree with the outcome, that would be easier to accept if there was a genuine review where public input was considered, but they did not.

The Decision Itself

The district chose not to adjust GPAs, a choice many students and families view as unfair. But I need to explain how this whole conversation started. In 2024, Wisconsin Act 95 was enacted, with the goal of boosting in-state admissions to the UW-Madison, UW-Eau Claire, and UW-La Crosse. It is not the same as the new Direct Admit system, which is much more broad, and has lower standards for automatic admission to all of the smaller Universities of Wisconsin schools. Act 95 created the Wisconsin Guarantee, wherein the top 5% and top 10% of each high school class from around the state gain automatic admission to Madison (5%), and La Crosse & Eau Claire (10%). The legislation has drawn criticism as critical implementation details were overlooked, but MMSD exacerbated that by failing to respond.

Defenders argue advanced students will ‘get in anyway,’ but inequity remains fundamentally wrong. What happens in an unweighted GPA system with Act 95 is that a student who takes zero honors or AP courses in their entire high school career and gets all As will have a 4.0 GPA, putting them in the top 5% and earning automatic admission. But a student who takes twelve APs (sometimes more) and gets a single B will not get that same recognition. Even students outside a weighted top 5–10%, likely myself included, notice the inequity. The point is that it should not be possible for students to simply coast, whether intentionally or not, through four years of high school and gain admission without any review process to a prestigious state university, while someone who goes above and beyond in rigor and gets one “imperfect” semester grade does not. Throughout all of the correspondence I have had with the district, and their public-facing statements, they have simply refused to acknowledge that fact.

Concerns remain that weighted GPAs may push students into unsuitable courses or reduce arts participation. Those both certainly could be true, and I won’t pretend otherwise. However, Act 95 allows for the school districts to determine a class ranking based solely on GPA, and there is nothing stopping MMSD from simply creating that ranking based on a weighted system, even if that is hidden on transcripts, and still using the unweighted system for everything else. The only thing that would be impacted is the Guarantee, as MMSD themselves concede, as UW and every other school weight grades themselves, and have their own systems for doing so.

A Lack of Transparency & Honesty

When it was first announced that this review was taking place, the district said it was working with college representatives to learn how they use weighted grades in admissions. We were told district leaders would make a recommendation by this summer. At the time, MMSD Spokesperson Ian Folger said that “those recommendations could include maintaining current practice”. Everything suggests that the outcome was predetermined.

On August 22nd, the district’s Executive Director of College, Career & Community Readiness, Mary Jankovich, signed an email sent out to families saying that the final decision was to stick with unweighted GPAs, without any specific details on what led to the decision. The district simply listed the following factors that “the review process included”:

• Analyzing the 2025 Weighted Grades Survey, which included feedback from students in grades 8-12, families, and staff.

• Reviewing policies and practices from over 50 surrounding districts.

• Exploring models that assessed the impact of various weighted GPA systems using current student data.

• Examining college admissions practices, especially of highly attended colleges, to understand how they evaluate student transcripts.

• Consulting with the MMSD Advanced Learning Department and representatives from each of our high schools to gather diverse perspectives and expertise.

The day before, Jankovich and Dr. Carlettra Stanford, Assistant Superintendent of Schools & Learning, sent a memo to the Madison Board of Education. The memo listed the same five basic points, with a clear recommendation nonetheless: “No Change to Current Policy”. The memo also said that “this decision aligns with MMSD’s commitment to promoting a culture of continuous learning, rather than a sole focus on point accumulation,...supports our existing core values of a well-rounded education and ensuring equitable access to challenging learning experiences for all students. Current district data indicate disproportionate access to college-level advanced courses, and implementing a weighted GPA could potentially exacerbate this issue, running counter to our non-negotiable equity principles.”

Board members left out of the loop

BOE members Nicki Vander Meulen and Martha Siravo told the State Journal shortly after the decision that the district had not been keeping them in the loop, “questions went unanswered for months”, and the first response was the memo sent one day before the decision, while the review process had been in progress for months. I sent an email to the district’s main contact address on August 22nd, and never received a response back through that channel. On August 29th, I contacted the school board, and was fortunate enough to hear back from Siravo, who has kept in touch since then, while the administration has not responded with any substance. She agreed that the “report” in the original explanation was insufficient, and some board members have been calling for a more public discussion for months to no avail. She wrote that “the memo is completely unhelpful, doesn’t give any specific data, and doesn’t lean into any existing data”. Siravo shared that she was still attempting to follow up with Cindy Green, the Assistant Superintendent of Teaching & Learning, from an email she sent months ago. I also reached out to Claire Li, the MMSD student representative on the board, on September 19th, but have not received a response.

Survey results suppressed

I’d like to briefly touch on each of the five points that MMSD referenced in their decision, starting with the 2025 Weighted Grades Survey. The original statement simply claimed that the district “analyzed” responses, but no survey results were shared. Generally, you’d think they’d want to share them if the results supported their decision. In my first message to the district, I inquired about whether topline, anonymous results could be shared, but got no response. I only got a half-answer from Dr. TJ McCray, the Deputy Superintendent, after Martha Siravo forwarded my message to Superintendent Gothard’s office. Dr. McCray said “we cannot share the specific topline response percentages publicly”. That was not true, as the State Journal published the results following a public records request. Unsurprisingly, the survey found that “70% of families and students polled say they want weighted grading”, so the first “reason” already contradicted the decision.

MMSD’s communication office responded to the release of the survey with three new supposed reasons for sticking with unweighted:

1. “Weighted GPAs would assign a higher value for some courses... prioritizing benefits to students in those courses.

2. “[We] are focused on improving proportionate student representation in advanced coursework, and weighted GPAs may work counter to that.

3. “Our… resources would be best directed to… advising students to pursue coursework aligned with their post-secondary goals and strengthening… systems of support.”

Let’s set aside the fact that the first “reason” is just defining how weighted GPAs work, which I’m glad the district understands. The second was also mentioned in the memo to the board, but without evidence explaining how weighted GPAs would harm representation. In a worst case scenario, proportionate or diverse representation in advanced coursework may not improve. In a best case scenario, it would improve because of weighted GPAs. If students are recognized for taking harder coursework, they are more likely to. There is no clear negative impact on participation, but there’d be a positive one. The third point simply doesn’t make sense. Weighting GPAs doesn’t require “efforts” beyond changing how Infinite Campus calculates GPAs. The district presents a false narrative of a “tradeoff” between advising and supporting students and switching to weighted with no evidence. Unless school counselors and support staff would be calculating GPAs by hand, this is another one-sentence “reason” with no explanation because there isn’t one.

A majority of districts DO have weighted GPAs

The district also cited a review of “policies and practices from over 50 surrounding districts”, but once again refused to provide specifics, and Dr. McCray gave me a misleading response. He wrote that “very few districts, with the exception of Middleton Cross Plains, have adopted weighted GPA systems in response to Act 95. Many districts, like MMSD, have chosen to keep unweighted GPAs to preserve a consistent and equitable approach across all schools.” McCray’s claim that few districts have adopted weighted systems recently may be true, but district officials later told Channel 3’s Arman Rahman that of 56 surrounding districts, a majority, 29, did weight grades, vs 26 that did not.

That article was released alongside a TV interview of Langston Evans, MMSD’s director of college and career readiness. Evans revealed that that the survey “had a small response rate” and “those who did respond were more in favor of moving to a weighted GPA system”, and he claimed that “[students] would be better prepared [by] selecting courses based on their interests,... abilities, and… rigor that they wanted, which is a better story and… trajectory for admissions advisors and counselors.” That statement doesn’t make sense as weighted GPAs don’t force any particular course selections.

Data requests ignored

The district claims it explored “models that assessed the impact of various weighted GPA systems using current student data”. Again, it did not provide any details in the original decision, and Dr. McCray said that “the analysis revealed that a shift to a weighted GPA system could introduce new disparities or complexities that unintentionally disadvantage some students, contradicting our commitment to providing equitable academic opportunities”. This is equally as vague as the other “explanations”, and dismisses the fact that, weighted or unweighted, there will be students who are disadvantaged with the Guarantee. In the status quo, students who take harder coursework are, because there is zero wiggle-room or recognition. Personally, I’d rather give the students who had a more rigorous high school career the advantage. There are indeed disparities, and the composition of advanced courses is not representative of the MMSD population, which I believe we should correct. But this doesn’t solve the problem, nor does weighting GPAs make it worse. Rather, this is an attempt by the district to conceal it instead of putting any attention into the root causes of the disparities, which often start with earlier childhood education, or attempting to promote advanced courses, rather than just offer them. The district has not provided any plan to address these disparities long-term.

I submitted a formal public records request for these models on September 11th. MMSD indicated that the request was received on the 12th. As of writing, they have not responded within the Wisconsin DOJ’s 10-working-day guideline, and have repeatedly stated that “due to the number of public records requests received, we are experiencing a delay in our responses”.

With the fourth point, the district said they examined “college admissions practices, especially of highly attended colleges, to understand how they evaluate student transcripts”. Colleges have their own individual systems for weighting grades or evaluating rigor, but MMSD ignores that no such process exists in the Wisconsin Guarantee. The only way that can be fixed is if MMSD makes that process themselves.

As far as the final point about consulting with various employees, the only real way of measuring support from staff is the survey, where it was about 50-50. There are no statements on how weighted would have negative effects on various student populations, or explanations from staff who had input.

Where We Go From Here

This issue won’t fade, nor should it. MMSD hopes to repeat its playbook from the Honors sunsetting debate - talk without action. But survey results, peer-district comparisons, and fairness under Act 95 all indicate that weighted GPAs are better aligned with MMSD’s own values.

MMSD has failed to meet the own transparency standards it claims to uphold. The school board should demand a public, data-driven review before reaffirming current policy. Until MMSD provides evidence or real explaining for its choice, “transparency” remains a phrase used to conceal its absence.

About the ratings

1. 🔃 June 28th, 8:12 PM: Our ratings are no longer updating, as all Big Eight teams are out of the playoffs.

2. After careful consideration, we’ve decided not to post game forecasts/odds for the following reasons: 1) The baseball schedule is wildly inconsistent and much harder to manually keep track of than football or hockey (thanks rain), and 2) for whatever reason, the WIAA fails to keep their site updated in a timely and accurate with game results, making it much more time-consuming just to update the ratings, much less forecasts. This is obviously half of what makes the model interesting, but the ratings are still somewhat helpful on their own, and except for rare cases where the home field advantage is enough to compensate, the team with the higher rating is favored to win.

3. Playoff games are treated as normal games in the model, so the further a team goes in the playoffs, the higher their rating can go. (The conventional wisdom here is that the further you make it in the bracket, the better you are anyways)

2024-25 Big Eight Baseball Ratings

About the ratings

1. 🔃 June 13th, 5:53 PM: Our ratings are no longer updating, as all Big Eight teams are out of the playoffs.

2. After careful consideration, we’ve decided not to post game forecasts/odds for the following reasons: 1) The softball schedule is wildly inconsistent and much harder to manually keep track of than football or hockey (thanks rain), and 2) for whatever reason, the WIAA fails to keep their site updated in a timely and accurate with game results, making it much more time-consuming just to update the ratings, much less forecasts. This is obviously half of what makes the model interesting, but the ratings are still somewhat helpful on their own, and except for rare cases where the home field advantage is enough to compensate, the team with the higher rating is favored to win.

3. Playoff games are treated as normal games in the model, so the further a team goes in the playoffs, the higher their rating can go. (The conventional wisdom here is that the further you make it in the bracket, the better you are anyways)

2024-25 Big Eight Softball Ratings

We’re in for another potential round of intense severe weather tomorrow! Although the convective outlook is less extreme than it was for the late-April event, the enhanced risk area is centered directly over Wisconsin. The main threats tomorrow are large hail and damaging winds, but tornadoes are possible too.

Hail

Hail is tied with damaging winds for the highest odds, with a 30% chance of any given area around Madison receiving hail. Madison is again under the hatched area, meaning there is a “10% or greater probability of two-inch diameter hail or larger within 25 miles of a point”.

To reiterate, two-inch hail is roughly the size of a golf ball or a tennis ball, so significant damage to roofs, vehicles, and other structures is possible.

Expect strong winds

Madison faces a 30% chance of damaging thunderstorm winds or gusts of 50 knots (about 57 mph) or higher. There is no hatched area, though, so it's not extremely concerning.

We can’t rule out tornadoes

Madison is right on the border of the 5-10% outlook for tornadoes, and is near (but not in) the hatched area, meaning there is not just a 10% chance of tornadoes, but a 10% or greater chance of EF2-EF5 tornadoes. Again though, Madison is not under that risk area, just near it.

Last time was a fluke, though… right?

Yes and no… there were several tornado-warned cells, including a touchdown near Eau Claire, but the lines of storms simply missed our area, and they indeed were not as bad as anticipated. I’d say we can rule out anything worse than that cycle, but we shall see whether it gets that bad.

Again, we’ll have an updated NWS model tomorrow morning on our Severe Weather Dashboard (linked below) as soon as possible. I’ll know later in the day if we’ll need to go live, so stay tuned.

Although most weather-related posts that you’ll find on HDR Analytics may be about snow, I simply can’t not write about what the Madison-area, and the western half of Wisconsin as a whole will potentially experience tomorrow. For several days now, the National Weather Service and its Storm Prediction Center have been more confident about severe weather in our area than I’ve ever seen before. The categorical outlook has had a 30% chance of severe weather just shy of Madison multiple days out. That is uncommon for Madison, sure, as we usually see odds like that in the South or near Tornado Alley, but it’s also just uncommon in general. To put it bluntly: a day three (as in Saturday’s forecast for Monday) moderate risk has only happened 21 other times since the day three outlook was first introduced in the early 2000s. Translation: This is going to be hugely impactful, and will likely hit us hard.

Hail, hail, and more hail

As for the specific threats we should be watching for, hail has the highest odds here, with a 30% chance of any given area around Madison receiving hail. The latest update from the SPC is even worse for hail, as Madison is now within what we call the hatched area, meaning there is a “10% or greater probability of two inch diameter hail or larger within 25 miles of a point”.

For context, two-inch hail is roughly between a golf ball and a tennis ball… If we do get hail near this size, expect significant damage to roofs, vehicles, and other structures. If you’re able, park your car inside tomorrow evening. If not, have Jake from State Farm on speed dial.

And tornadoes too!

However, while hail is the most likely threat, it’s probably not the one you think of when you think “oh no, severe weather!”. Don’t worry, there’s a large tornado risk too. Madison sits right on the border of the 10-15% outlook for tornadoes. We are also in the hatched area on the tornado forecast, meaning there is not just a 10% chance of tornadoes, but a 10% or greater chance of EF2-EF5 tornadoes.

Above is the NWS scale for tornado speeds for each EF rating. Personally, I’d say anything over 80 mph is bad… but given there is even a remote possibility of an EF4 or EF5, it is absolutely crucial that you stay on alert tomorrow night when the worst of the storms move in. I plan to run a live broadcast and will post info on that tomorrow, as I pay for a premium radar service and can provide a bit of insight as things evolve. (Of course, if there are tornado warnings here, I have to move three floors down and won’t be able to do much other than post on the Instagram).

And some non-tornadic winds too

The final threat we face is straight-line winds from storms themselves. We are clearly in the 15% range for damaging thunderstorm winds or gusts of 50 knots (about 57 mph) or higher. I’m not overly concerned about damaging winds, and there is no hatched area here, so I’d say wind itself is the least of our worries.

Will anything actually happen?!

I. don’t. know. I can’t promise much more than the fact that we will get strong storms. I can tell you, based on both the data and how often these forecasts are right, that we will almost certainly see a Severe Thunderstorm Warning, very likely see a Tornado Watch, and some areas in and around Madison will get hail. What I don’t know is just how bad that hail will be, whether or not any of those tornado watches become warnings, etc. etc. But the odds are very good (or bad, I suppose) that we do see destructive hail or a few tornadoes, so please stay inside if possible and have a shelter-in-place plan, and stay updated on the latest developments. Although I have a never-ending list of complaints about local TV news, severe weather coverage is an area they continue to excel in, so if you don’t tune in here, do so there.

We should get a new NWS model in tomorrow morning, and I’ll post that on our Severe Weather Dashboard (linked below) as soon as possible. I’ll announce more details on the livestream tomorrow morning, so check back here then. It’s going to be a potentially wild ride tomorrow. Stay safe.

If there’s one singular event that never fails to determine the future of the National Football League, it’s the draft. Each season, around 250 young men’s lives are changed when their names are called by one of 32 teams. The draft, previously exclusively located in New York City, has recently changed locations on a yearly basis. This year, I was fortunate enough to attend the draft in Green Bay. Typically, after a draft, writers draft (get it) articles highlighting which teams they believe had the most and least successful draft classes, and this article will mirror that structure. While it’s premature to rank draft classes before draftees have played a single down of professional football, these rankings are an amazing way to get to know the classes, and see which teams most likely put themselves in a position to succeed in the following season and beyond. So, without further ado, here are my top five and bottom five draft classes from the 2025 NFL draft. 

Biggest Winners:

#1 - Cleveland Browns

Entering the draft, it felt obvious as to what the Browns would do. With the second overall pick. After all, it made perfect sense to draft Wide Receiver and Defensive Back phenom Travis Hunter, right? In the second round, Cleveland could easily get a quarterback, potentially even Shedeur Sanders if he somehow managed to fall beyond the first round. Beyond that, they could still solidify other positions of need with their later selections. And yet, the Browns… did none of those things correctly. Their draft class is one that perfectly encapsulates just how unpredictable the NFL draft is, and while the textbook draft seemed like it would be successful, the absolutely insane draft that we saw in reality took it to a whole new level. Cleveland began the first night of the draft by trading away the second overall selection that would become Travis Hunter, in exchange for the Jacksonville Jaguars’ first round pick in both this year's and next year’s drafts, as well as the 35th overall selection this year. They then selected a fantastic defender in DT Mason Graham as their first round selection. The Browns then had two early selections on the second day of the draft, in underrated linebacker Carson Schwesinger and Ohio State running back Quinshon Judkins, both filling huge positions of need. They selected a solid tight end in Harold Fantin before concluding day two by selecting a quarterback above Shedeur Sanders, taking Oregon’s Dillon Gabriel. The Browns rounded out their draft with two day two selections. They further bolstered their running back room with Dylan Sampson out of Tennessee. And then, against all odds, they selected projected first round quarterback Sheduer Sanders in the fifth round.

While Cleveland’s draft was bizarre, it’s hard to not be thoroughly impressed. The Browns solidified multiple offensive positions of need, gave themselves not one, but two shots at a future franchise QB, acquired a new defensive cornerstone, and set themselves up in a great position for next year’s draft, with two first round selections. It is for those reasons that I believe that the Browns are the biggest winners of this year’s draft.

#2 - New York Giants

Well, we did just discuss the team that (would’ve) picked second overall, so why not discuss the team that picked third? The Giants had an incredible draft class, selecting the other elite talent at the top of the board - edge rusher Abdul Carter from Penn State - at third overall, declining to reach on a quarterback. Then, the G-Men made a bold move, trading up from the second round back into the first to select high-upside, Ole Miss quarterback Jaxson Dart, hopefully securing a future star at the most important position. The Giants then followed up in the third and fourth rounds by selecting two absolute steals, Toledo DT Darius Alexander, and Arizona State RB Cam Skattebo. They secured a high upside project at the game’s most important position, two bargain selections, and one of the two best overall players in the draft. New York made some fantastic moves that should (hopefully) aid their franchise for a long time. 

#3 - Baltimore Ravens

The Ravens are a perfect example of a team making the most of the draft despite only possessing late round selections. For those who aren’t familiar, teams with better regular season records are given later picks in order to keep a competitive balance in the league. However, teams occasionally make late selections and still draft players at bargain prices to fill each of their needs, which is exactly what the Ravens did this year.

The Ravens began night one by selecting Malaki Starks, a versatile defensive back, to help aid Kyle Hamilton in a Ravens secondary that was disappointing last season. In the second round, the Ravens managed to land Marshall edge rusher Mike Green, who many expected would go decently high in the first round. Baltimore then made another great selection in the third round, taking LSU offensive lineman Emery Jones Jr. to help shore up an inconsistent offensive line. The Ravens then made several great day three selections to help add depth around the roster, including kicker Tyler Loop to compete with Justin Tucker for the starting job next season. Overall, it’s hard not to be impressed with what Baltimore managed to accomplish this draft. 

#4 - Dallas Cowboys

I hate to admit it, but the more I look at the Cowboys draft, the more I like it. The Cowboys began with a pick that I’m actually not a huge fan of, slightly reaching on Alabama offensive lineman Tyler Booker to replace retired offensive guard Zack Martin. The Cowboys then took an interesting philosophy in the next two rounds. Instead of reaching on a wide receiver, a position of need, the Cowboys instead took two bargain players that I believe made their draft. In the second round, the Cowboys snagged Boston College defensive end Donovan Ezeiruaku, a player who many (including myself) were surprised made it out of the first round. With their third selection, the Cowboys got an absolute bargain with Cornerback Shavon Revel Jr. from East Carolina, a player who easily would have gone in the first round and been considered one of the best cornerbacks in the draft if not for a torn ACL towards the end of last season. One more selection that I like from the Cowboys was their fifth round pick, taking Texas running back Jaydon Blue to help fill the still-evident void in the running back room. While there are arguments to be made that Dallas failed to acquire players at their biggest positions of need (most notably wide receiver), the reason I love the Cowboys draft is that they managed to draft three players who easily could have gone in the first round. Dallas added three future stars to their lineup, and I wouldn’t be surprised if all three became franchise cornerstones for the team

#5 - Seattle Seahawks

Honorable mentions to the Bills and Cardinals, who both also could have been in this spot. Overall, I love what Seattle did this draft. Coming into the draft, Seattle had two selections in both the second and third rounds due to prior trades of WR D.K. Metcalf and QB Geno Smith, and it was clear Seattle was ready to make some moves. Seattle began by selecting offensive lineman Grey Zabel in round one, a player who provided aid at their biggest position of need. Seattle then traded one of their third round picks to skyrocket up in the second round and select South Carolina safety Nick Emmanwori, a player who I believe should have been selected in the first round of the draft. The Seahawks then made another great second round selection in tight end Elijah Arroyo, a player who was dominant at Miami and who fell as far as he did only because of the high quality tight end class he found himself in. Then, the Seahawks selected hyper-athletic quarterback Jalen Milroe in the third round, an incredible prospect to sit behind Sam Darnold. Seattle then finished out their draft on day three with some solid depth selections. While they didn’t make any massive splashes, each of their selections provide some great help to the team, and I would not be surprised if this class pumps out multiple pro bowlers.

Biggest Losers:

#1 - Cincinnati Bengals

While I do have this class ranked last, it’s worth noting that this draft featured no teams who consistently made mind-numbingly bad decisions, just a few picks that I’m not a huge fan of. The Cincinnati Bengals came into this draft with one goal in mind: help the defense. The Bengals defense was… not very good last year, and contracts to several key offensive players meant that they couldn’t afford to add much high-end talent through free agency. I expected a draft filled almost exclusively with defensive players, and Cincinnati instead opted to draft split right down the middle, with three offensive and three defensive picks. With their first pick, the Bengals opted to take Texas A&M edge rusher Shemar Stewart, arguably the most polarizing player in the draft. While Stewart has the best athleticism of any player available, he put up relatively poor college production, with only 4.5 sacks in each of his three college seasons. While he has incredible upside and could be a fantastic player, there’s a very decent chance Stewart is unable to fully achieve his potential. The second round selection from the Bengals was linebacker Demetrius Knight, a pick which I honestly consider to be a pretty decent reach on the Bengals part. The Bengals then made a few more selections that felt a little off, and had what I would consider to be a relatively poor class, hinging very heavily on the production of the draft’s most boom-or-bust player.

#2 - Atlanta Falcons

I’ll give the Falcons two things. First, the first selection they made, defensive end/linebacker Jalon Walker, was an incredible value/great pick. And second, the Falcons definitely added some incredible players at their biggest weakness from last season, the pass rush. However, Atlanta made one of my least favorite moves in the draft too. After the great Jalon Walker selection, the Falcons thought it was necessary to trade back into the first round, using both their second round selection as well as their first round selection from next year’s draft, in order to select a second defensive end, James Pearce Jr. from Tennessee. While Pearce is undoubtedly talented, he also features a multitude of character concerns that took him off of several teams’ draft boards, and he plays the same position as the first player the Falcons selected. In a very deep edge class, there was very little need for the Falcons to put their 2026 draft at a huge disadvantage in exchange for selecting Pearce. Otherwise, I do like the selection of Notre Dame safety Xavier Watts in the third round, but I believe that this Falcons draft hinges too much on instant production of their two first round selections, and put them at a large disadvantage for next year’s draft.

#3 - Minnesota Vikings

I’m sure Henry will love putting this on his website.1 Last season, the Vikings traded up a whopping three times early on in the draft in order to secure both quarterback J.J. McCarthy and edge rusher Dallas Turner. While those trades both still have a chance to pan out for Minnesota, they did highly limit the team’s draft capital this season. The Vikings made only five draft selections, the lowest in the league, and only one of them was in the first two rounds. That selection was Donovan Jackson, an Ohio State offensive lineman who many considered a second round talent. The Vikings aren’t ranked even lower for me is for two reasons: First, it’s hard to dislike this draft too much for decisions made during last year’s draft, which shouldn’t really impact the grading. And second, both the third round selection of receiver Tai Felton and the fifth round selection of Tyrion Ingram-Dawkins made for some very solid value picks, and both could become decent contributors for the Vikings. While the team was disadvantaged for this draft and their total number of selections proves that, a couple of decent value picks save them from being my lowest rated draft class.

#4 - Detroit Lions

I simply didn’t like most of the selections made by Detroit during this draft. The Lions began by making a pick I consider a reach, selecting Ohio State defensive tackle Tyleik Williams. I do like the fit of Williams in Detroit, but it was definitely puzzling to see this be Detroit’s first round selection. Easily, my favorite pick from Detroit this draft was their second round selection of Georgia guard Tate Ratledge, a player who I think will do a great job reinforcing their offensive line. However, I questioned each of Detroit’s last four selections. Most notably among those picks was the third round selection of WR Isaac TeSlaa, a player who will likely struggle to see the field in Detroit and was considered a massive reach by most analysts. Overall, Detroit’s draft class was filled with puzzling decisions and picks I would consider to be big reaches. 

#5 - Miami Dolphins

Honorable mentions to the Buccaneers - who escaped this slot because of the overall talent of their selections despite some very questionable team fits - and the Chicago Bears, who also made some strange positional investments throughout the majority of the draft. The reason that the Dolphins are ranked so low isn’t necessarily due to the talent of their top two selections. 13th overall pick Kenneth Grant is undoubtedly a great player, albeit a little bit of a reach at his draft spot. I love guard Jonah Savaiinaea from Arizona, and I think he will be a tremendous player. I also think that the selection of Ollie Gordon II in the sixth round was a steal, and will give them tremendous depth at the running back selection. However, The Dolphins just lacked draft capital to make a lot of high quality selections - as they traded both their third and fourth round picks in order to move up in the second round to select Savaiinaea - and the draft class overall reflects this lack of depth from the mid rounds. While the Dolphins landed some good players, I believe that the overall upside of this class is highly limited due to that second round trade up. 

While I’ve gone through and ranked each of these draft classes, it’s important to note that the draft just shows a fragment of the careers of each of these players. Once we see each of these draftees play in actual NFL games, it will become easier to identify who actually had the best and worst draft classes. However, considering the current stance of the draft, these are the teams who I believe made the best and worst selections overall.

1

Henry here - I indeed did not enjoy this part.

Wide Left

2025 NFL Draft Consensus Big Board: The Top 300 Players in the 2025 NFL Draft, According to 112 Analysts

Welcome to the landing page for the Consensus Big Board for the 2025 NFL Draft. As often as possible, I’ve tried to provide it free, without subscription, to as many people as possible…

Read more

a year ago · 45 likes · Arif Hasan

This guest article was reviewed and edited for grammatical and accuracy purposes, and for clarity. No opinions were altered.

About the dashboard

• 🔃 April 8th, 9:45 AM: The tournament has finished! The forecast has been updated with the latest results.

Congrats to Jason Li, who has won our ESPN Tournament Challenge group and the $30 prize!

2025 March Madness Forecast

2025 March Madness Team Ratings

Our bracket picks

Using a combination of our own ratings and odds from NCAAgamesim.com, we pick a winner in each game/round to identify a champion. Feel free to download the image below.

Status + NWS advisories

🔃 April 4th, 9:55 AM: MMSD schools are open today. Our snowday forecast has been frozen (see what I did there?) for the remainder of the school year, and will return next winter. Check out our severe weather dashboard for odds of tornados, hail, and more!

Looking Ahead: This forecast is no longer updating until next winter.

Current forecast

How the forecast has changed

The latest data

Models & Images

There are no NWS models/images available for Friday at this time.

Future Days

Below are closure odds for as far out as the model can predict given the data that we have. They will only be updated daily until they are the next school day, when they’ll take over this page.

There are no future days to show, as the forecast is finished for the year.

It was a solid night for Democrats overall, and a worrying one for Republicans (and Elon Musk especially) last night. Susan Crawford went well beyond expectations in her clear victory in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court race, and Democrats overperformed (although they still lost) in both Florida’s 1st and 6th districts.

It was a good night for vibes, but data was so-so

The vibes were fairly accurate, (I predicted all three outcomes with little data on Monday) but the data that we did have wasn’t necessarily super predictive in the end. In the Wisconsin race, Crawford beat our polls-based estimate by about 5%, doubling her margin-of-victory over Brad Schimel. Two of the six polls we had Crawford winning by 8%, so maybe the average would have only been off by 2% (a very typical polling error) if we had a larger collection of surveys to look at. The actual result ended up being much more comparable to the 2023 WI Supreme Court race, where Janet Protasiewicz won by around 11%, than I would’ve guessed, as I anticipated a 4-6% win for Crawford.

In Florida, we did not have any public polling (that I was able to find), so the only real data we had were early/mail voting numbers and turnout figures, which the New York Times was nice enough to compile daily. The story was similar here, as Republicans did overperform the turnout figures, but still won by significantly smaller margins than they typically do in these two districts.

Takeaways

Let’s start with Wisconsin - if there’s anything the Democratic party should recognize from last night’s outcome, it’s that Elon Musk and President Trump really aren’t well-liked in the Badger state. Now you might be saying, “Henry, Trump just won Wisconsin in 2024!”. And you’re not wrong, but Wisconsin was Kamala’s best of the seven key swing states, and also shifted the least towards Donald Trump. Poor Democratic turnout, Joe Biden’s mistake, too little time for Harris to run an effective campaign, and unhappiness (justified or not) with the economy lost her the election. Wisconsin is still going to be a place where reproductive rights and common sense, normal candidates will be compelling to the majority of voters. Now, there’s a non-zero chance this is one of the final straws for Trump in his… strange partnership that he has formed with Elon, and he kicks him to the curb in a matter of weeks. I think it’s safe to say that if Elon did have an impact here in Wisconsin, it was a negative one for Republicans.

Florida is perhaps more promising for Democrats in a different way: Although Florida isn’t a swing state (anymore, despite it appearing close in 2016 and 2020 polls) and most of it’s congressional districts aren’t key to the 2026 midterms (California and New York are the hot spots) the massive overperformance of both Democratic candidates last night is telling. If Democrats can replicate these 10-20% shifts in moderately competitive GOP seats, they have a very easy path to taking back the House majority. Now, part of this overperformance is the fact that Democrats are now the low-propensity voters who show up even when overall turnout is low, and presumably more Republicans show up next November, but even a little bit of that shift matters a lot.

What’s next?

So where do we go from here with elections? Let’s set aside 2026 for now, simply because I don’t want to even think that far ahead quite yet, (deep down I know it isn’t that far) and let’s look at 2025. Virginia and New Jersey will hold elections for governor on November 4th, with Virginia being the really interesting one to watch, as the current governor is Republican Glenn Youngkin, but VA has voted Democratic at the presidential level since 2008. I plan on posting a forecast this summer for those races. Both Arizona’s 7th (September 23rd) and Texas’ 18th district will hold special elections to replace representatives who died shortly into their current terms, so we’ll see if we have any polling/analysis on those when they are a bit closer. Virginia will also elect a new House of Delegates (state legislature) and Pennsylvania might have three Supreme Court seats on the ballot.

I plan on posting (as soon as I have time to sit down and make it) a page where you can see how our polling averages and forecasts performed in 2024, and maybe integrating that into a larger “how accurate we were” dashboard eventually, not unlike the one on HenryDRiley.com.

Other than that, I’m taking a break from elections for now, and am going to get the Big Eight softball/baseball models up and running, finish up March Madness, and maybe look at other projects we can post. Thanks for reading, and keep an eye on your inbox for more. If you’re not subscribed already, it’s free, and I encourage you to do so below.

Helpful resources

Wisconsin county benchmarks w/ live results data (by Elliott Morris of "Strength In Numbers"

Early Turnout Data from the New York Times

AP News Wisconsin Supreme Court Race Results

AP News Florida's 1st District Special Election Results

AP News Florida's 6th District Special Election Results

11:00 PM, Tuesday, April 1st

Our live coverage of Election Night has concluded.

10:59 PM, Tuesday, April 1st

Apologies for the (overwhelming) lack of updates, but the night moved quickly with race projections, and I didn’t get home until around 9:30. Susan Crawford will serve on the state Supreme Court, defeating Brad Schimel. Jill Underly won re-election as the State Superintendent, and Republicans won both congressional races in Florida this evening, but by much smaller margins that they typically maintain there.

2:46 PM, Tuesday, April 1st

Although it’s not directly related to today’s races, Sen. Cory Booker (NJ) is still speaking out in opposition to the Trump agenda on the Senate floor. He has been effectively (but not technically) filibustering for almost 21 hours, per a Yahoo timer. The Senate record for longest continuous speech period is held by Strom Thurmond, who spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

1:39 PM, Tuesday, April 1st

HDR Analytics is launching this live updates page for tonight’s elections in Florida and Wisconsin. I won’t be able to post on here from around 6 PM until 8-9 PM, but we may still have uncalled races after that. If we do, check back here for the latest.

UPDATE:

Another cool tool to follow tonight, Elliott Morris (who led FiveThirtyEight after Nate Silver until ABC/Disney dissolved it and created the Economist’s 2020 Election Forecast) has made a handy spreadsheet with county-by-county benchmarks for the WI race tonight: You can view it here.

In what is typically a dormant period for elections after a new President takes office, and with the 2026 midterms still over a year away, this Tuesday will feature three major elections that could have national ramifications. And despite President Trump specifically scheduling tariffs for Wednesday (April 2nd) because he was “a little superstitious” about implementing them on April Fools Day, these elections are very real. Here are my thoughts, predictions and the (limited) data we have for these races.

Wisconsin has the biggest state election this year (again)

Since this is most likely what you clicked on this article for, I’ll start with my personal best guess on what will happen in our state supreme court race to replace retiring (liberal) justice Ann Walsh Bradley. I believe that Susan Crawford (liberal) will defeat Brad Schimel by a relatively comfortable margin, (if I had to guess, maybe around 4-6 percentage points) based on Democrats’ consistent overperformance in special/off-year elections (those not in presidential/midterm cycles) and the particular dynamics of the race. It’s important to note that turnout/early voting data is probably becoming less indicative, or at least less of an advantage for Democrats, as Republicans now seem to use mail/early voting more than they did in 20201. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel confirms:

• “The number of absentee ballots cast is up 54% compared to 2023's Supreme Court race. Those using the in-person early voting option has especially surged.

• Conservative-leaning Washington County has seen a massive 165% increase in in-person early voting over 2023 data, while GOP stronghold of Waukesha County also has increased 100%.”

In general, the campaign has been more about, well, the campaign itself, than about any major policies or issues the court may rule on in the near future. Although the Crawford camp has at least attempted to frame the race as a “punch back” at the Trump administration, and a referendum on reproductive rights and abortion, (Wisconsin’s 1849 ban is still contested) the dueling TV ads (which you’re sick of if you live here) are mainly criticizing their opponent’s donors, i.e. Elon Musk and George Soros. Crawford in particular has made Elon Musk a cornerstone of her GOTV message, even calling her opponent “Elon Schimel” in their first and only debate.

I do believe that this race will be a bit closer than the 2023 matchup between Janet Protasiewicz and Dan Kelly, where Protasiewicz won by 11%, a relative landslide in Wisconsin, simply due to renewed GOP enthusiasm after their 2024 electoral success. Keep an eye on Dane Co. and Milwaukee Co. for Democratic turnout, and the WOW counties as well as counties up north for Republican votes. I’m fairly confident we’ll know who won on Tuesday, or at least by early morning Wednesday.

Could Democrats flip two U.S. House seats before 2026?

Short answer, no. Although there are two Republican-held House seats up for grabs in Florida, Democrats are highly unlikely to win both, although one could end up being more competitive than usual. Former Rep. Matt Gaetz vacated Florida’s 1st District when he resigned to (unsuccessfully) become Trump’s Attorney General, and Former Rep. Mike Waltz vacated the 6th District to become Trump’s National Security Advisor. If you are a bit surprised that the name of the National Security Advisor sounds vaguely familiar, just give “Signalgate” a Google. Yeah, that was Mike Waltz who added Atlantic editor Jeff Goldberg to a Signal chat with sensitive (and likely classified) information on U.S. military operations in Yemen last week.

There’s really nothing to imply that the 1st District, which was R+32% in 2024, will be all that competitive. However, the 6th District, which was R+33% in 2024, seems to be more peculiar. The New York Times is reporting that early turnout data is only around R+10%, a sharp drop in support for the GOP if accurate. Now, it would most likely take a miracle for the Democrat, Josh Weil, to pull off a victory here, but if this race is even competitive, it bodes well for congressional Democrats’ chances in 2026. As such, I believe that both Republicans will win in Florida’s special U.S. House elections tomorrow, probably by around 10-15% in the 6th district, and 25-35% in the 1st.

Resources for Election Night

I unfortunately have a prior commitment for most of tomorrow night, and will not be able to post much in terms of live updates here, and certainly can’t run a livestream, but I encourage anyone interested to follow along with returns as they come in using the two links below.

AP News Wisconsin Supreme Court Race Results

AP News Florida's 1st District Special Election Results

AP News Florida's 6th District Special Election Results

I know this wasn’t a super lengthy/detailed article, but there isn’t a whole lot to discuss until we see actual results, so keep an eye on those tomorrow, and if you live in any of the three jurisdictions holding elections, get out and vote!