538 model & poll tracker thread

[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.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

After getting his ass whupped last election, Nate is going with Biden having a 90 percent chance of winning?

Wow. Crazy sauce.

Nate actually didn't mark Clinton as a sure winner in 2016 and he never said Clinton had it in the bag. In 2020, he's cautioned that Trump can still win multiple times.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

After getting his ass whupped last election, Nate is going with Biden having a 90 percent chance of winning?

Wow. Crazy sauce.

Nate actually didn't mark Clinton as a sure winner in 2016 and he never said Clinton had it in the bag. In 2020, he's cautioned that Trump can still win multiple times.

Nate was among the most bullish forecasters on Trump.  His model had Clinton at 71% on Election Day and in the 60's a few days earlier.  A 30% chance (Trump's in 2016) is nothing to sneer at; it's the chance of a .300 hitter in baseball getting a hit in a particular at-bat.

(And it should be remembered that even 10% outcomes happen sometimes.  Ever had someone ask you to pick a number from 1 to 10, and you got it right?)

Exactly!
People just show how little they actually know about probability and models when they say this stuff.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

People just show how little they actually know about probability and models when they say this stuff.

So what are his error bars? How many standard deviations is he out? What happens if we feed different numbers into the machine - ie, assume a neutral electorate? What are his assumptions regarding states and their margins?

I mean, you wouldn't be asking these questions if you followed the site and podcast more rigorously.
But Trump's chances go up to almost 70% if you give him PA.
If you give him Wisconsin it goes up even more.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

2016 is 2016, 2020 is 2020. Pollsters have changed their methods since 2016, and the landscape is different from 2016.
If your argument is "he can catch lightning in a bottle twice", if you'll forgive the metaphor, then support it without citing 2016 as your primary argument.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Why are people engaging with a moron who has shown no understanding of statistics (or anything) and has been hilariously wrong election after election with his own mind-models?

Being in argument with someone in the minor leagues can be therapeutic as well as good practice for explaining things IRL.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Why are people engaging with a moron who has shown no understanding of statistics (or anything) and has been hilariously wrong election after election with his own mind-models?

Being in argument with someone in the minor leagues can be therapeutic as well as good practice for explaining things IRL.

I'd agree it can be fun, but people should be clear about how no one takes this clown seriously.

You bringing up Ben's history regarding his takes relating to presidential elections is certainly not unwelcome.