538 Model Megathread

[Ozymandias]

I thought everything about Silver's most recent post...

fivethirtyeight.com/features/clintons-leading-in-exactly-the-states-she-needs-to-win/

...was spot-on, except for this puzzling line near the end: "She has one really good Electoral College path, but it’s only one path, instead of the robust electoral map that President Obama had in 2008 and 2012."

WTH? I mean, he JUST went into tremendous detail about how Clinton's closest state, New Hampshire, is safer than Trump's five closest states. And how states don't appear to be as well-correlated this election as they have been in the past.

So saying Clinton doesn't have a robust path is just silly...

[Ozymandias]

Hes probably talking about the 272 freiwal.

Right, but I don't think that explains the tenor of for example this tweet:

@NateSilver538 This is NOT a robust position for Clinton though. If polling is off in one of the firewall states, she doesn't have a good backup plan.

Because if, say, she loses NH (the current 538 tipping point state), then she actually has not just one but five backup plans: NV, FL, NC, OH, & IA, all of which are more likely (according to 538) to flip to Clinton than NH is to flip to Trump.

[Ozymandias]

Because if, say, she loses NH (the current 538 tipping point state), then she actually has not just one but five backup plans: NV, FL, NC, OH, & IA, all of which are more likely (according to 538) to flip to Clinton than NH is to flip to Trump.

If she loses NH, that doesn't make it any more likely she'll win one of those 5 states then it already is right now. If anything, it's less likely. Losing New Hampshire is the assumption in this scenario. That's unlikely to happen, but if it does, she is more likely to lose than win (at least according to current polling).

I'm not sure that's true, but it doesn't really matter, because you can make that claim about dozens of states.

What matters in terms of preserving the firewall is how likely your weakest state is to be the potential tipping point state, i.e., to prove decisive in a close election.

Right now, New Hampshire isn't even in the top 10 on 538's Tipping Point state list:

1. Florida (16.8%)
2. Pennsylvania (11.6%)
3. Michigan (9.8%)
4. North Carolina (8.0%)
5. Ohio (7.9%)
6. Virginia (6.7%)
7. Colorado (6.1%)
8. Wisconsin (5.2%)
9. Minnesota (3.9%)
10. Nevada (3.4%)
11. New Hampshire (2.4%)

Note that ALL FOUR of Trump's weakest states (NV, FL, NC, OH)-- i.e., those where his expected margin of victory is lower than Clinton's in NH-- are higher on this list.

By definition, that means Clinton doesn't need NH as much as Trump needs those four states, so she has more robust -- AND less precarious-- paths to victory.

[Ozymandias]

But that forgets the fact that #2 on the list is a Hillary State as is #3, 6, 7, 8 & 9. She needs ALL those states to hold her FREIWAL

Not if one of states #1,4,5 on the list also flip-- and they're more likely to flip.  

That's my point.

Look, if the only way Clinton could recover from a breach in the firewall is to win states like AZ, GA, or MO, then I would agree she's really vulnerable and has a very limited path.

But if she does lose a firewall state, she can easily recover by winning NV, FL, NC, OH, or IA.

Which is why she has many paths to victory.

Why is that so hard to understand?

EDITED: To correct mistake in list elcorazon noted below

[Ozymandias]

#2 is PA.

Thanks, fixed.

She can't lose that one.

Sure she can-- she can lose PA if she still wins FL ... or OH + NV ... or NC + NV ...

[Ozymandias]

Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538  1m1 minute ago
Now for the world's most boring tweet: Here's how 538 model uses or doesn't use various Electoral College projections from online pollsters:

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/791421640609497089

Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538  3m3 minutes ago
Basically, some of these are Electoral College projections are polls, and some are models. We use the polls but not the models.

[Ozymandias]

This is a pretty cool animated gif:

Josh Katz ‏@jshkatz  17m17 minutes ago
Clinton win chances over the past three months, forecast by forecast

https://twitter.com/jshkatz/status/793553664724140032

[Ozymandias]

Nick Gourevitch ‏@nickgourevitch  1h1 hour ago
There has not been a large (2 points+) polling error that has gone against Democrats since 1996. Chart via @ForecasterEnten:

[Ozymandias]

The polls have never actually been wrong in 50..maybe 70 years.

Well, given that the goal of national polls is to predict the winner of the popular vote, they actually were wrong in 2000.