538 Model Megathread

[Sorenroy]

Nate Silver predicts Trump will never win the Republican nomination!

However that was based more on his own beliefs then on data. There is a big difference between Nate Silver the pundit and Nate Silver the statistician.

Also, it is in no way difinitive. Using the 80% confidence interval and the polls-plus model the map could swing as far to the left as:

and as far right as:

(Michigan)

[Sorenroy]

For some reason in their polls-plus model Ohio currently sits at a 46.3-46.2 Clinton win, but they have their odds of winning at 50.1-49.9 in favor of Trump.

[Sorenroy]

Hillary Clinton's 90th Percentile

Hillary Clinton — 407
Donald Trump — 131

Hillary Clinton's 99th Percentile

Hillary Clinton — 513
Donald Trump — 25

Hillary Clinton's 99.9th Percentile

Hillary Clinton — 538
Donald Trump — 0

Donald Trump's 90th Percentile

Donald Trump — 355
Hillary Clinton — 183

Donald Trump's 99th Percentile

Donald Trump — 426
Hillary Clinton — 112

Donald Trump's 99.9th Percentile

Donald Trump — 525
Hillary Clinton — 13

[Sorenroy]

Clinton's now below 70 in polls-plus.  The surge is real!

For the first time in a month.

[Sorenroy]

It's funny when people pretend like 538's models represent reality, rather than an attempt to estimate reality, based on a basket of historical data, and assumptions about how to apply it.

Exactly. It is true that they model what will probably happen, but they make no quams about having a large MOE.

For example, here is the tossup states per the "80% chance outcome falls in this range" for the state of the race today (now-cast):

[Sorenroy]

Odd... you'd think they'd have scripts to automate those things.

How would such a script work?  Search through the PDF of the poll release for the Clinton and Trump numbers?  When every pollster will have poll releases that look different?  It's a lot easier to just type in the numbers manually.

I was more thinking as one manually enters the numbers and they are off the average by, say, 10%, a popup windows comes up saying "a you sure about that" 

If that was the case and it was my job to enter those godawful Google polls...

[Sorenroy]

Made another swing map based on 538's polls only model. Red = Clinton does better than Obama in 2012. Blue = worse

Margin or percentage?

[Sorenroy]

In the polls-plus model, the election is now >80% Clinton with Clinton also >80% in every single one of the freiwal states. Georgia has also dipped (slightly) below 80% once again.

[Sorenroy]

Something to note: Polls-only has both ME and NE unified.  I'd be kind of disappointed if there's no CD split on either, TBH.

Only on the national overview. Click on one of the states and you will be able to look at the CD model.

[Sorenroy]

Decided to make a map of all the states that have never dipped below an 80% chance of the leading candidate winning for more than a week in the polls-plus model:

Clinton — 176
Trump — 146
tossup* — 216

*Edit: I do not think the grey are tossup (that's just what it says in the calculator), I think they are the not-titanium-[party here] states.

Edit #2: I used the polls-plus model for this map.

[Sorenroy]

Decided to make a map of all the states that have never dipped below an 80% chance of the leading candidate winning for more than a week:

Clinton — 176
Trump — 146
tossup — 216

This is the most farcical definition of "tossup" I've seen in a long, long time.

Never said they were*. I actually tend to go with safe over 80%, lean over 66.6% and tossups being less than 66.6%.

*Edit: fixed.

[Sorenroy]

Your post literally says the word tossup.

Fixed. I just have it that way because that's what it said in the calculator.

[Sorenroy]

Seems like the 538 model for Utah is automatically putting in all polls without McMuffin at 0.00 weight.

[Sorenroy]

Trump is back in single-digits in the now-cast, and NE-02 has flipped in the polls-only model.

Speaking of CDs, ME-02 has flipped back to Clinton in all three models.

[Sorenroy]

Utah has been added to the list of "States to watch".