The 12-foot birdie putt Sergio Garcia sank to win the Masters in April had bigger consequences than ensuring him a garish new jacket. It also meant somebody else would have to take on the title of “Best Player To Never Win A Major,” a crown that Garcia had worn for nearly a decade. And according to our calculations, that player should be England’s Lee Westwood, who shot 69 in the first round of the U.S. Open on Thursday.

No pressure, Westy.

The golf world usually hands out the dreaded “BPTNWAM” designation by reputation and consensus, but we wanted to take a crack at it using a formula. In the past, we’ve judged the quality of a player’s performance in majors — win or lose — using “major shares,” which estimate how many majors a player would be expected to win given his scoring relative to the field average in past majors. (Fractional “shares” of wins accumulate over time for good players; also-rans garner scores at or near zero.) So for our purposes here, I’m considering the BPTNWAM to be the player who, at the time of each major, had the most career major shares without an actual major victory.

According to those rules, here’s a chronology of the BPTNWAM since the great Ben Crenshaw took over the title in August of 1979:

Crenshaw would plug away for the next 18 major tournaments before finally shedding the label with a win at the 1984 Masters. (A player can leave the BPTNWAM list three ways: Winning a major; falling behind another player’s major shares; or not playing enough to qualify for the list anymore.) Among all the title-holders since 1979, Crenshaw’s streak was the third-longest — though it paled in comparison with the streak that Garcia just ended.

Garcia was the modern king of the BPTNWAMs. Before his win at the Masters, he had gone 35 consecutive majors (back to the 2008 British Open) as the BPTNWAM, and before that, he’d traded the title back and forth with Chris DiMarco a few times. His 37 total tournaments as BPTNWAM are the most of any player since 1979 (eight more than No. 2 Colin Montgomerie).

Now the honor falls to Westwood, whose 0.86 career major shares leads all major-less players in the U.S. Open field:

Westwood, at age 44, is perhaps the most decorated English golfer in recent history — he’s racked up 23 European Tour victories and seven Ryder Cup victories and even snapped Tiger Woods’s 281-week stranglehold on the No. 1 ranking in 2010. But the majors have been painful. He’s finished in the top 10 on 18 different occasions and been runner-up three times. This has earned him close to $9 million in prize money in the majors alone, but an empty trophy case.

Now on the unfamiliar grounds of Erin Hills (a Wisconsin course that’s never hosted a major before), Westwood can only hope his reign as BPTNWAM is short. He’s off to a good start, finishing Thursday 3 strokes under par — but the first three rounds are generally not the problem for the Englishman. Going into this week, Westwood’s average score in rounds 1 through 3 at the majors has been 72.0, but on Sunday, that number rises to 72.6, according to the statistical site Golfstats.

The bookmakers don’t like his chances this weekend, either. Before the tournament, his odds of winning were 65-to-1, according to VegasInsider.com. Maybe they’ve been scoping out the success rate for past BPTNWAMs: Even including Garcia’s victory in April, the title-holder won just four times in 149 tries (2.7 percent) going back to the 1980 Masters. That’s a big reason why the average BPTNWAM hung onto the designation for 11.5 tournaments (nearly three years’ worth of majors) over the same time period.

Westwood is also nearly outside the career phase where any golfers have ever won a major. So most likely, his BPTNWAM reign will end when he stops playing majors regularly, rather than with a championship victory. But golf has also given us a few stellar moments by players older than Westwood, including Jack Nicklaus’s Masters win at age 46 and, more recently, Tom Watson forcing a playoff in the British Open at age 59. Perhaps it won’t happen this week, but Westwood might just have enough left in the tank to shed his newfound, inglorious title in a grand way.

It has been more than three years since the Flint water crisis began, and many residents are still drinking bottled water. Today, Michigan’s attorney general announced new charges related to the crisis, including a charge of involuntary manslaughter, leveled at five public officials.

After the city of Flint’s water source was changed in April 2014 from Lake Huron to the Flint River, the corrosive river water wasn’t properly treated. That water in turn ate through the protective film inside of pipes and fixtures around the city, allowing lead to leach into the drinking water of tens of thousands of residents. But corrosive water can also be a breeding ground for Legionella bacteria, which causes Legionnaires’ disease. The bacteria are frequently found in the water cooling towers of large buildings such as hotels and hospitals, but they can also appear in local water systems. During the crisis, more than 100 people in Flint acquired the disease, which researchers have shown is likely a result of the improperly treated water.

One of the deaths related to Legionnaires’ led to the most severe charge handed out today, involuntary manslaughter. The charge is tied to the death of 85-year-old Robert Skidmore, one of 12 people who died from Legionnaires’ in Flint during the summers of 2014 and 2015. Nick Lyon, director of Michigan’s Department of Health and Human Services, was among those charged with involuntary manslaughter, as were Darnell Earley, former Flint emergency manager; Liane Shekter-Smith, former state drinking water chief; Howard Croft, former director of public works in Flint; and Stephen Busch, a district water supervisor for the state Department of Environmental Quality. Lyon was also charged with misconduct in office. Both charges are felonies in Michigan. More than a dozen other officials were previously charged with less serious crimes.

Skidmore died in 2015. Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette said at a news conference today that by that time, state officials knew about the outbreak but had not made the issue public, an action that they contend could have saved lives. Schuette also said that there are no plans to charge Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder but that officials are still investigating. He said his team has attempted to interview the governor, but “we were not successful,” the Detroit Free Press reported.

As a group of Republican senators works behind closed doors to draft new health care legislation to repeal and replace parts of the Affordable Care Act, a somewhat surprising group of dissidents to the GOP effort has emerged: conservative policy wonks.

Democrats, of course, have been solidly against Republican efforts to unravel Obamacare from the beginning. But some conservatives are joining them in arguing that the health care bill passed by the House last month contains some poorly written policy that could leave more Americans uninsured than would be under the ACA, or potential alternatives. Senate Republicans are writing their own measure, but considering that the House bill is something of a blueprint, these critiques could be a sign that some conservative health policy analysts will end up at odds with conservative politicians on reform efforts. Specifically, some conservative critics want the Senate to take a different approach than the House did on one of the toughest health policy issues: how to get insurance to people who are too poor to pay for it.

Republicans have long wanted to curb the cost of Medicaid, the state and federally funded public health insurance program for the poor. Since at least 1981, regular efforts have been made to rein in the program by changing it from an entitlement, where the federal government pays a set portion of the bills no matter how many people are enrolled, to a per capita cap or block grant. Those changes would give states a limited amount of money and more control over how to spend it than they have in the current arrangement. The House GOP bill would accomplish that longtime goal while also rolling back the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion, which made everyone earning under 138 percent of the federal poverty line (about $16,600 for an individual) eligible for the program. The House GOP bill would freeze enrollment in the expanded program starting in 2020.

But the bill, the American Health Care Act, would cut Medicaid without adding much in the way of support for people to buy insurance. Joseph Antos and James Capretta — longtime Obamacare critics and health policy scholars at the conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute — have criticized that part of the proposal, writing that too many low-income families would be unable to afford insurance.

Republicans often argue that income-based entitlement programs such as Medicaid discourage people from working or taking better jobs, because earning more can mean losing the government benefit. But in the case of the House GOP bill, argued Avik Roy, a conservative writer and health policy expert, older, working-age adults could lose coverage if they earn too much to qualify for Medicaid. That’s because the House bill provides subsidies to buy insurance based on age, not income and the cost of insurance, as is currently the case with the ACA. And lower-income, older adults will be getting a lot less in subsidies than they currently get, even though their subsidies are higher than for younger adults. According to estimates from the Kaiser Family Foundation, a low-income 60-year-old who earned slightly too much to be eligible for Medicaid would likely be on the hook for thousands of dollars a year in premiums, and in some cases, the cost could be more than her total income.

The House bill also includes a patchwork of changes to the private insurance market that would repeal some ACA regulations while leaving others in place. That approach led Chris Pope of the conservative Manhattan Institute to write that Republicans would be better off abandoning the current repeal effort altogether and instead focusing on changing policy using the powers of the federal Department of Health and Human Services. The ACA regulations must be more or less fully repealed, Pope argued, or the cost of insurance won’t drop enough to make it affordable for the majority of people buying plans on the private insurance market. Pope would like the money currently used for subsidies to go to helping people who have chronic health issues. Conservatives have joined liberals in arguing that various proposals that would keep the ACA’s protections for people with pre-existing conditions while reducing what insurers must cover are likely to punish the sick.

Of course, many Republicans support both the House bill and the GOP’s approach to Obamacare repeal. But there isn’t consensus among conservative policy wonks on the most important goals of health care reform (there isn’t consensus among liberals either). Tom Price, the secretary of health and human services, proposed bills while serving in the House that prioritized reducing government spending and regulation and targeted government aid for people with health concerns. The House bill would cut spending and regulations somewhat, and Price supports it. Roy, on the other hand, has outlined how he thinks near universal coverage could be achieved through free-market principles and conservative tools. The House bill focuses less on that approach. There is relative consensus among conservatives that the insurance market should have fewer regulations to bring down costs, but opinions vary on whether the House bill goes far enough in that respect.

It’s not yet clear where Senate Republicans will end up on this question of how much financial support should be given to low-income people. Sen. Dean Heller of Nevada, a key moderate since he is up for re-election in 2018 and represents a state that expanded Medicaid, said he couldn’t support the House bill when it was passed. He has since said he would support a phaseout of federal funding for Medicaid expansion that would take place over a longer period of time than the House bill calls for. Reports have also surfaced that the Senate bill could make deeper cuts to traditional Medicaid than the House bill would have. And it’s not yet clear how health insurance subsidies will be calculated in the Senate legislation, though it may include more support for older, low-income people than the House bill does.

Republicans will need the large tax cuts included in their health care bill to complete many of the other things on their agenda, which puts a lot of pressure on them to get a bill through Congress. There’s also a growing need for immediate fixes to some of the state health insurance marketplaces for people who don’t get insurance from an employer or a public program, where uncertainty over the future of health care reform, enrollment and payments to insurers is causing insurers to flee and rates to rise. There is some consensus among health policy wonks, however, that the Senate will need to handle policy differently than the House if it wants to not only pass a bill, but also keep its constituents insured heading into 2018.

The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast team takes on the state of the Democratic and Republican bases. Do moderates have a place in either party’s base? And should President Trump attempt to expand his appeal beyond his base? The crew also previews Tuesday’s Democratic primary in Virginia, where Tom Perriello and Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam are competing to be the party’s candidate for governor.

Plus, in “good use of polling or bad use of polling”: How untrustworthy is Trump compared to former FBI Director James Comey?

You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.

The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Monday evenings, with occasional special episodes throughout the week. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.

CLEVELAND — Between how agonizingly close the Cavs were to winning Game 3 and the way that absolutely everything worked for them during a comfortable, wire-to-wire victory in Game 4, it’s tempting to think Cleveland may have found something that works in this series.

Members of the Cavs’ Big 3 all had it going in Friday’s win. The role players, invisible early in the series, finally came to life and were difference-makers in the game. And, like in last year’s NBA Finals, Cleveland seemingly got under Golden State’s skin by being more physical.

But as impressive as their last two showings have been, and despite what we know about the Cavs’ ability to make a huge comeback, we aren’t ready to sound the alarm for the Warriors, who still hold a 3-1 edge in the best-of-seven series. That’s because it’s unclear how much of what Cleveland did in Friday’s 137-116 outburst is repeatable.

For starters, Cleveland hit 24 triples on the night, the most in NBA Finals history. The Cavs were the beneficiaries of some truly awful calls early in the contest and got to the line 22 times in the opening quarter en route to scoring a Finals-record 49 points in the first period alone. They had an All-Star-Game-like 86 points at halftime, and they had logged 115 points — more than they’d had in any full game this series — through the end of three periods. None of these numbers figure to show up again.

Yet the one thing that could prove to be sustainable is the dominant Batman/Superman act that LeBron James and Kyrie Irving have shown us they’re capable of pulling off. Irving had a game-high 40 points on Friday, while James finished with a 31-point triple-double. We’ve grown accustomed to seeing these two play their best when they absolutely have to, given that James averaged 36 points and Irving posted 30 a night over the final three games of last year’s series, after Cleveland fell behind 3-1. So if they managed to piece together three consecutive virtuoso showings last time, it’s not outside the realm of possibility that they could do it four times this year.

Yet the real bright spot for the Cavs was that they finally hit their open shots after some abysmal performances from deep earlier in the Finals. Cleveland hit just two of its 10 uncontested triples in Game 3, yet hit 12 of its 23 unguarded looks Friday. Those 12 uncontested makes in Game 4 were more than the Cavs hit in Games 1, 2 and 3 combined, according to ESPN Stats & Information Group.

Cleveland’s offense can also be an immense help to its troubled defense. The maligned Cavs defense ranked dead-last in transition D during the regular season. That same problem was on display in the first three games when the Cavs surrendered a combined 99 points in transition to the Warriors. But after scoring a basket — which gives the defense time to align itself properly — the Cavs defense was actually good, and tied for 10th in the NBA in defensive efficiency, according to Inpredictable, a site that specializes in advanced stats and win probabilities. That explains how the Cavaliers held Golden State to just seven points in transition on Friday.

The Cavs’ best rebounder finally makes an impact

If you had said before these Finals that Stephen Curry would have more rebounds than Tristan Thompson through three games, it would have been a good indication that the Cavs were getting slaughtered. If you had said Curry had more boards in Game 3 alone (13) than Thompson had in Games 1-3 combined (11), it would have been a good time to ask about the state of the Predators-Penguins series.

Thompson came out with great energy on Friday, though, and looked more like his normal self, despite the Warriors’ efforts to continue neutralizing him on the glass. He finished with 10 boards, including four on offense. All four of those second chances resulted in scoring plays for the Cavaliers, including these two putbacks.

He also set up a bucket each for James and Kevin Love, who caught fire, hitting six of eight from deep.

An engaged, productive Thompson would go a long way toward potentially making this a real series again, given that the Cavs won last year’s title by harassing the Warriors with their physical play. Outside of James, Thompson is the most physical player Cleveland has.

After looking like an MVP early in the Finals, Curry has struggled

Though the Warriors still managed to score 116 points, they didn’t get anywhere near their usual scoring production out of Curry, who finished with 14 points on just 4-of-13 shooting.

Much of that stemmed from Iman Shumpert and his teammates doing a much better job of staying with him and limiting his open looks after losing him behind screens and on second-chance opportunities earlier in the series. In Games 1, 2 and 3, the two-time MVP got 11, six and three uncontested attempts, per ESPN Stats & Info. In Game 4, Curry saw just one unguarded look.

The Cavs’ willingness to run hard at Curry did make them vulnerable in other ways: The Warriors shot 71 percent (10-of-14) off the point guard’s passes, up considerably from the 41 percent they shot after when receiving a pass from anyone else.

But in a series where Curry and Kevin Durant had their way early, the Cavaliers may have decided they’d prefer to take at least one of those two guys away and force the other Golden State players to beat them instead.

There have been roughly 100 million males born in America in the past 50 years. Among that total, there appears to finally be one who can safely be called a legitimate international soccer star.

Eighteen-year-old Christian Pulisic of the U.S. men’s national team scored twice on Thursday night in Colorado, lifting the USMNT to a critical World Cup qualifying win over Trinidad and Tobago. With the game tied 0-0 in the 52nd minute, Pulisic’s smart run and cool finish put the U.S. up a goal, and 10 minutes later the teenager slipped in behind the defense to double the lead. This has become typical for the Americans. Against Panama, Pulisic held off two defenders in the box to get free and feed Clint Dempsey for the USMNT’s lone goal. He scored one and assisted two in the 6-0 romp over Honduras. All told, over its crucial last three competitive matches, the U.S. has scored nine goals and Pulisic has scored or assisted six of them.

The team that has never quite had a scoring force to build around now seems to have a one-man army. As a result, the USMNT has nearly climbed out of the hole it dug under former coach Jurgen Klinsmann when it lost its first two matches in the “Hex,” as the North and Central American qualifying group for the 2018 World Cup in Russia is known. With two wins and a draw in its last three qualifiers, the U.S. has raised its chances for making the tournament from 60 percent to 83 percent percent.

Evidence of Pulisic’s quality is not limited to matches against Caribbean nations and middling Central American challengers. He has proved himself for German power Borussia Dortmund in the Bundesliga. This past season, Pulisic scored four goals and assisted eight in the Bundesliga and Champions League. And there’s good reason to believe these numbers were no fluke or merely a function of a hot finishing run. By expected goals, a statistical estimate of the quality of scoring chances, Pulisic’s shots and passes created chances with an estimated value of roughly five expected goals (xG) and seven expected assists (xA). Among nonstrikers with at least 1,500 minutes played, Pulisic was eighth in the Bundesliga in xG + xA per 90 minutes, slightly behind Bayern Munich’s Douglas Costa.

The more advanced numbers show that the young American is not limited to shooting, either. For the Panama goal, Pulisic had to beat two defenders in close quarters. His ability to break a defense by winning one-on-ones helps his team create chances even when Pulisic doesn’t get the goal himself. With 72 successful take-ons (beating a defender in an open-field contest), Pulisic was fifth among Bundesliga players in take-ons per 90 minutes, just ahead of Bayern Munich’s world-class veteran wingers Arjen Robben and Franck Ribery.

And last night against Trinidad and Tobago, Pulisic scored twice after runs off the ball into dangerous areas. His ability to read space and slip unmarked into the penalty box is already elite. Thirty-six times in the last season Pulisic made a run to receive an entry pass into the penalty area, and 16 times he dribbled by a defender to get into the penalty area. In this statistic, Pulisic led all Bundesliga players. He outpaced even Bayern’s Thomas Muller, the 2014 World Cup hero for Germany who had made his name ghosting into scoring positions without alerting the defense.

Just this level of production would be enough to make Sam’s Army salivate. But at 18, Pulisic is hardly a finished product and has room to get even better. If you compare his production to players under 20 years of age in the top leagues in Europe, he stands out all the more.

Pulisic’s 0.52 expected goals+assists per 90 minutes is the best mark by any 18-year-old nonstriker in the top five leagues since 2010-11. Among under-20s, Pulisic is seventh and surrounded by high-priced stars such as Leroy Sane of Manchester City and Real Madrid’s Marco Asencio. In terms of receiving or dribbling the ball into the penalty area, he ranks only behind Manchester United’s young star Marcus Rashford and Kylian Mbappe, whose market value is reportedly north of $130 million. Right now Pulisic is not considered to be on the market, but high eight-figure fees are common for players at his level and age.

For the U.S. team, the emergence of a true star creates new tactical concerns. Opposing teams will key on Pulisic and look to shut him down. At home against Honduras and Trinidad and Tobago, manager Bruce Arena — who took the reins after Klinsmann was fired in November– played Pulisic at the tip of a diamond midfield to give him freedom. Pulisic paid it off not only with goals but by being a consistent outlet all over the attack third. But at Panama, Pulisic mostly stuck to the wing, as he had under Klinsmann. These two maps show where Pulisic received the ball in the final third when playing a central role behind the striker as opposed to his pass receptions as a winger. As a winger, Pulisic plays on the wing or moves from the wing into the penalty area, whereas from the 10 he can move across the width of the field in the final third.

The toughest game the USMNT will play in the Hex is this Sunday in at the Estadio Azteca in Mexico City, where it has never won a competitive fixture and only drawn twice in nine matches. Arena is unlikely to use the same attacking tactics he used against Trinidad and Tobago with the diamond and will most likely choose a more defensive formation with Pulisic on the wing. But if he wants to maximize the Americans’ chances of stealing a rare win in front of nearly 90,000 at the Azteca, he should look into finding a way to play Pulisic in the hole behind the striker rather than leaving him on the wing where his positioning is more predictable and he can be more easily contained. To play a more defensive formation while keeping Pulisic central would probably require benching the veteran Dempsey, who typically plays as the more reserved of two strikers.

A U.S. manager has never had the luxury of such a decision. But the moment to commit to Pulisic and the future of the USMNT may be Sunday.

In an emergency installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the team reacts to former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony before the Senate intelligence committee. The FiveThirtyEight team also tracked Comey’s testimony in real time on our live blog.

You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.

The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Monday evenings, with occasional special episodes throughout the week. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.

On the morning of the U.S. presidential election, we pointed out that there were three scenarios for what might transpire that night, each of which were about equally likely. In Scenario No. 1, the polls would be spot-on; Hillary Clinton would win narrowly, with a 3-to-4 percentage point popular victory and somewhere on the order of 300 electoral votes. In Scenario No. 2, Clinton would outperform her polls, leading to a near-landslide victory and possible wins in states such as Arizona and Georgia which had traditionally favored Republicans. And in Scenario No. 3, Donald Trump would beat his polls; because the Electoral College favored Trump, even a small polling error in his favor would probably be enough to make him president. Scenario No. 3 is the one that transpired, but it wasn’t any more or less likely than the other two.

There’s a similar set of scenarios in play for the U.K. general election, which is taking place on Thursday. Conservatives lead by an average of 6 to 7 percentage points in recent polls, but with a wide range — anywhere from a 3-point Labour lead in one survey to a 13-point Conservative lead in another. Some of these polls were conducted partly or wholly before the terror attack in London on Saturday, but it’s not clear what effect the attack has had, with polls differing on whether the Conservative lead is rebounding and expanding slightly or instead continuing to narrow.

We don’t have a model of this election — but in our view, there’s no way around the fact that uncertainty is high and that nobody should be surprised about the outcome unless perhaps Labour wins an outright majority of seats. U.K. polls have not historically been very accurate. And pundit attempts to outguess the polls have often been even worse. (In 2016, pundits and betting markets were notoriously confident that Britain would vote to remain within the European Union even when polls showed a nearly even race.) However, if one takes the polling average but assumes that the error is as high as it has been historically, then it turns out that each of these three outcomes are roughly as likely as one another:

Scenario No. 1: Narrow-ish Conservative majority

In this case, the polling average is fairly accurate (although some individual polls will unavoidably be off). May wins by 5 to 9 percentage points, close to the 6.5-point margin that Conservatives won by in 2015. At the higher end of this range, Conservatives might gain one or two dozen seats in Parliament from the 330 they had (there are 650 seats in total). At the narrower end, they might just barely hang onto their majority.

Either outcome would be disappointing relative to when May called the election in April — when Conservatives were ahead by about 17 points on average and possibly headed for a 400-seat majority — and wouldn’t speak highly of her political skills. But it would also be something of a relief given how much polls have tightened since then and still possibly give them their largest majority since 1987.

Scenario No. 2: Conservative landslide

Since Conservatives lead by 6 to 7 percentage points on average, and since U.K. polls have missed by an average of about 4 points in the past, it’s not at all hard to imagine them winning the popular vote by double digits. Indeed, Conservatives have often outperformed their polls in recent U.K. elections, such as in 2015 when polls implied a hung parliament and they instead won a majority. On Saturday, we made a long argument as to why this doesn’t necessarily imply that they will beat their polls again. The gist of it is that pollsters are seeking to correct for their past errors — in some cases, by applying turnout models that shift the polls by several percentage points in Tories’ favor — so it may be a mistake to apply a mental adjustment on top of the one that pollsters are already making.

But a Conservative overperformance is certainly possible if Labour’s youth turnout doesn’t materialize, if undecided voters worry about the unpopular Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn running the government, or if the terror attack pushes voters to May. Such an outcome might yield somewhere in the neighborhood of 375 seats in Parliament for Conservatives — perhaps more if Labour holds ground in the cities but collapses in working-class areas, as happened to Democrats in the 2016 U.S. election.

Scenario No. 3: Conservatives lose their majority

To be precise, I mean that Conservatives win fewer than 326 seats; we’re making no predictions about whether they’d then find a coalition partner to form their next government or if there would be some sort of Corbyn-led government instead. Betting markets as of Wednesday night imply there’s only about a 15 percent chance of Conservatives failing to win an outright majority.

If you take the polls at face value, however, the chances are surely higher than that. If Labour beats the final polling average by only 1 or 2 percentage points, both sides will start having to sweat out the results from individual constituencies. And if they beat their polls by much more than that, May’s majority is probably toast. If this happens, the adjustments that pollsters made to discount Labour turnout will have proven to be counterproductive, and the lesson for pollsters will be to trust their data instead of making too many presumptions about who is likely to vote. The lesson for May, meanwhile, would be never to call a “snap” election again in a country where public opinion can shift so rapidly.

In the video above, FiveThirtyEight’s Kyle Wagner breaks down some things the Cleveland Cavaliers can do to stay competitive in the NBA Finals as the series heads back to Cleveland.

The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast team debates whether it was politically savvy of President Trump to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement. They also take a look at the topsy-turvy world of UK election polling. Plus, in a British edition of “good use of polling or bad use of polling,” they weigh news that British TV broadcasters are de-emphasizing polls in their campaign coverage.

You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.

The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Monday evenings, with occasional special episodes throughout the week. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.