538 model & poll tracker thread

[VAR]

Regardless of what you think about the model’s approach to uncertainty about the future, even giving Biden a 93% chance to win today seems low.

[Sorenroy]

It looks like the updating of information and the tracker are out of line with one-another. For a while the numbers were saying they were last updated two hours ago but had clearly updated more recently.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Nate Silver had 3 models in 2016. There was polls,polls+, polls+economy.

[OneJ]

Looks like I will be sticking with Morris' model.

[afleitch]

It seems they are using economic data back since 1880(!) but not Presidential Approval. I think that is strange.

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

Texas.....................Trump 71% favored to win, 5% margin
Maine.....................Biden 78% favored to win, 8% margin
Colorado................Biden 85% favored to win, 10% margin
New Mexico...........Biden 90% favored to win, 12% margin
Virginia...................Biden 92% favored to win, 11% margin


Guess which one isn't considered a "state to watch" (Yeah, seems they're going off of the 2016 list minus Utah. But sill)

[soundchaser]

I don’t see how Silver can give Trump an almost 2/3rds chance to win Texas when the polling looks as bad for him as it does. Feels like he’s relying *way* too much on past fundamentals there.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I wonder why they still have Trump favored to win NC even though on average Biden wins by 6 points nationally

[Pericles]

I wonder why they still have Trump favored to win NC even though on average Biden wins by 6 points nationally

North Carolina voted 6 points to the right of the nation in 2016, so that is not too far-fetched.

[Gallatine]

It seems they are using economic data back since 1880(!) but not Presidential Approval. I think that is strange.

Yeah, this seems like the kind of arbitrary decision that Silver would challenge other forecasters about (quite reasonably) were they to make it. Nate Cohn mentioned it in his Twitter thread, although he didn't exactly @ Silver over it. It's not quite as head-scratching as the NYT Headline factor, though. That's a bit amatuerish, really.

Not sure what to say that hasn't been said already. The model seems slightly conservative, the nowcast less so, except we don't get to see that one for some reason. Having it available might make the model seem less indecisive. Don't love that there's no national map. Unsure if Nate's fursona adds much insight - idk if people going to 538 need to be told that the underdog could win, but it is what it is.

And this is entirely subjective, but comparing the 2016 model to this year's one I think 2016's page is just a bit better. There's some cool stuff which didn't make it to this year's page, like the error bar plot, the hexmap, and the scenarios down at the bottom.

It's also more obvious where to go for individual states - you've got the national map as the first thing you see, but you've also got the sidebar, with the competitive states right at the top. The 2020 page has this list, but it's in a visually indistinct dropdown menu that's not anywhere near the content -which only takes up the middle 1/4 of the page, as if it were an essay with a page limit. Bit silly really. The 2016 page is also rather more pleasant to look at- seriously, what's with the two separate shades of grey and weird background swoosh on the 2020 model. That thing ugly. The 2018 page and the primary model are practically identical in design to the 2016 page, so not sure what inspired the switch. Maybe it works better on mobile?

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

I don’t see how Silver can give Trump an almost 2/3rds chance to win Texas when the polling looks as bad for him as it does. Feels like he’s relying *way* too much on past fundamentals there.

I'm guessing it's due to how Biden hasn't been polling higher than the 47/48% ceiling that Beto got. Same with Biden currently projected to do about as well as Stacy Abrams did.

In contrary, Biden is consistently polling over the 45% ceiling Dems usually get in Arizona.

Though I'm not sure how/if the model covers things like Democrats underperformance in Sunbelt state polls or undecideds overwhelmingly going for Biden at the moment (I guess they're triple-underlining 'at the moment')

[Libertas Vel Mors]

I wonder why they still have Trump favored to win NC even though on average Biden wins by 6 points nationally

North Carolina voted 6 points to the right of the nation in 2016, so that is not too far-fetched.

And is pretty inelastic too

[JRP1994]

Some of y'all are acting like Biden has a 15 point lead and that the election is tomorrow. The topline numbers of the model seem perfectly rational, and uncertainly inherently decreases the closer you get to the election.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1293649581356580867

[Rep Jessica]

I wonder why they still have Trump favored to win NC even though on average Biden wins by 6 points nationally

Lets just say that 2012 and 2016 both voted republican. I still believe NC still leans Trump and I'll have to see the results showing me otherwise before I'd believe otherwise. Same with Ga and Florida.

[GeorgiaModerate]

I wonder why they still have Trump favored to win NC even though on average Biden wins by 6 points nationally

Lets just say that 2012 and 2016 both voted republican. I still believe NC still leans Trump and I'll have to see the results show me otherwise before I'd believe otherwise. Same with Ga and Florida.

One of these things is not like the others.  Florida went Democratic in 2012.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Some of y'all are acting like Biden has a 15 point lead and that the election is tomorrow. The topline numbers of the model seem perfectly rational, and uncertainly inherently decreases the closer you get to the election.

[Ferguson97]

Some of y'all are acting like Biden has a 15 point lead and that the election is tomorrow. The topline numbers of the model seem perfectly rational, and uncertainly inherently decreases the closer you get to the election.

[McGarnagle]

I can't believe how sh itty this model looks.

Yes, I know, we're not supposed to swear and all. That said, I believe this is a rare care where it is warranted.

Edit: Wow, it actually automatically censors it. That's pretty sh itty.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I don't know, it seems fine to me. Factoring in that Trump can still win due to unpredictable circumstances and voter suppression 29% seems about right. Hell, I have given Trump 33% odds, so as pessimistic for Biden as this model seems to be perceived by some, my nonexistent model is even worse.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I don't know, it seems fine to me. Factoring in that Trump can still win due to unpredictable circumstances and voter suppression 29% seems about right. Hell, I have given Trump 33% odds, so as pessimistic for Biden as this model seems to be perceived by some, my nonexistent model is even worse.

This model though assumes a free and fair election though. Yes, it's possible for Trump to make up the gap, but in closing the gap, he'll need to hope to win over most of the current "undecides", having low 3rd party turnout, and getting lucky in the EC. Biden is at 50.4% in the national polling averages. On election day, it's extremely rare for canidates to receive less than their % of the NPV in polls, and when they do, it's marginally less. At this rate, Trump won't be peeling off much of Biden's support, so the stars will really have to line up in a straight line in order for him to win. The only reason people are still saying Trump has a good chance is because he pulled an "upset" in 2016, which in hindsight, wasn't really an upset if you actually looked at the data

[Progressive Pessimist]

I don't know, it seems fine to me. Factoring in that Trump can still win due to unpredictable circumstances and voter suppression 29% seems about right. Hell, I have given Trump 33% odds, so as pessimistic for Biden as this model seems to be perceived by some, my nonexistent model is even worse.

This model though assumes a free and fair election though. Yes, it's possible for Trump to make up the gap, but in closing the gap, he'll need to hope to win over most of the current "undecides", having low 3rd party turnout, and getting lucky in the EC. Biden is at 50.4% in the national polling averages. On election day, it's extremely rare for canidates to receive less than their % of the NPV in polls, and when they do, it's marginally less. At this rate, Trump won't be peeling off much of Biden's support, so the stars will really have to line up in a straight line in order for him to win. The only reason people are still saying Trump has a good chance is because he pulled an "upset" in 2016, which in hindsight, wasn't really an upset if you actually looked at the data

I see your point but we might not have a truly free and fair election though, and that's really all I'm accounting for in being as cautious as I am with my predictions.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I don't know, it seems fine to me. Factoring in that Trump can still win due to unpredictable circumstances and voter suppression 29% seems about right. Hell, I have given Trump 33% odds, so as pessimistic for Biden as this model seems to be perceived by some, my nonexistent model is even worse.

This model though assumes a free and fair election though. Yes, it's possible for Trump to make up the gap, but in closing the gap, he'll need to hope to win over most of the current "undecides", having low 3rd party turnout, and getting lucky in the EC. Biden is at 50.4% in the national polling averages. On election day, it's extremely rare for canidates to receive less than their % of the NPV in polls, and when they do, it's marginally less. At this rate, Trump won't be peeling off much of Biden's support, so the stars will really have to line up in a straight line in order for him to win. The only reason people are still saying Trump has a good chance is because he pulled an "upset" in 2016, which in hindsight, wasn't really an upset if you actually looked at the data

I see your point but we might not have a truly free and fair election though, and that's really all I'm accounting for in being as cautious as I am with my predictions.

Yeah, but Nate's model assumes a relatively free and fair election. Even with the voter suppression level at maximum in my model Biden still wins a majority of the time. I think really overestimate how much suppression could alter the outcome

[here2view]

I don't mind the model as much as I mind the god awful appearance of it as a whole.

[woodley park]

I don't mind the model as much as I mind the god awful appearance of it as a whole.

Yeah, they're doing too much. Economist does it better.