538 Model Megathread

[Speed of Sound]

The Now Model has gone coo coo for Clinton Puffs, giving HRC a 91.5% chance to win the election with all swing states and some lean states going D.

Which makes sense; the now-cast currently has it as nearly an 8 pt race (45.1/37.5). I'd expect to win more than 9/10 times, too, if the election day polling showed those kinds of numbers. The other 2 forecasts think it's ~5-6 pts.

[Speed of Sound]

Can anyone see the now-cast at the moment? The site breaks for me when I try to get to it.

94/6 to Clinton. SC, MO leaning Trump; AZ leaning Clinton; GA, IA, NC, NV all likely Clinton (~70-80%).

[Speed of Sound]

Maryland, you hero.

[Speed of Sound]

For comparison, Princeton Election Consortium now has their odds of a Clinton victory at 96%/98% in their two models with an EV projection of 337/201.

[Speed of Sound]

Is it possible for Utah to turn purple in any of the forecasts in the remaining time or is the inertia that would need to be overcome just too great?

Ehm, he had lead in just one poll. But 3-4 polls showing him leading and he might take a lead in Now-cast.

Yeah, there's no reason he shouldn't be able to take over in Nowcast. As you say, though, he certainly shouldn't be yet.

[Speed of Sound]

Wasn't really sure where I wanted to put this, but the Princeton Election Consortium now has their odds of a Clinton victory at 97% in their random drift projection and at 99% in their Bayesian projection, which is the first time I've seen 99% pop up in their numbers. They have the EVs at 336-202.

EDIT: In fact, while I'm here, here's everyone's projections as collected by NYT

[Speed of Sound]

Trump's been gaining ground every day since the debate. Am I right to be a little nervous?

no

[Speed of Sound]

While we're comparing the two, I'll admit that I'm a tad shocked that Wang's model hasn't back off at all. Still 97 random/99 Bayesian, as it was a week ago. I thought it might revert a bit, but not so far.

[Speed of Sound]

Didn't Wang get his Florida prediction wrong in 2012?

Technically, yes, but not really:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Speed of Sound]

While we're comparing the two, I'll admit that I'm a tad shocked that Wang's model hasn't back off at all. Still 97 random/99 Bayesian, as it was a week ago. I thought it might revert a bit, but not so far.

Wang's model has insanely small confidence levels.  Didn't he have the Dems as like 90% favorites to maintain the Senate for most of 2014, but flipped it a few days before the elections?

Maybe true, but he hasn't moved below 95% on this election in eons.

[Speed of Sound]

Seeing a Trump fan call him Daddy is the creepiest thing I've seen all week, so thanks for that.

Pretty much.

Young men in desperate need of a "cool" father figure makes up 90% of Trump's online support.

[Speed of Sound]

Seeing a Trump fan call him Daddy is the creepiest thing I've seen all week, so thanks for that.

Pretty much.

Young angry white men in desperate need of a "cool" father figure makes up 90% of Trump's online support.

Fixed for you.

We're on the internet, so I didn't think that I really needed to qualify those obvious parts.

[Speed of Sound]

Nowcast has NV FL NC OH IA all leaning Trump.  Some by the narrowest of margins of course.

Input garbage, output garbage. Only Nate could have his model claim Trump's leading NV and then release an article about how Clinton is likely to exceed her already positive NV polls.

[Speed of Sound]

Lol. Model is basically the same as 2012...

Good thing the quality of polls and the nature of the electorate are the same as 2012.

[Speed of Sound]

Update: New Hampsire is out of the freiwal.

I defined the Freiwal as the states that always seem to have a better chance of being carried by HRC than the election according to 538. New Hampshire was among them, but now thanks to Trump leading in a couple polls, it is not

Those polls right or not, God bless NV.

[Speed of Sound]

The development over the last few days is super scary. Clinton's win percentage:

Oct 29th: 81,1%
Oct 30th: 78,8%
Oct 31st: 75,2%
Nov 1st: 71,2%
Nov 2nd: 67,7%
Today: 64,7%

That is virtually a linear nosedive, losing an average of 3,28 points PER DAY. As a thought experiment, if the trend continued, on election day the model would have Clinton at 48,3%.

Trump wont win PA or Colorado  unless her chance drop to 42 percent

Harry Enten keeps saying she won't lose NV, which, if true, would add to Hillary's overall chances given the models have NV around 50/50 depending.

And, more importantly, Harry's saying it because Jon Ralston is saying it. Jon Ralston is the one and only guy when it comes to covering NV for this.

[Speed of Sound]

I see the junk polls have erased Clinton's bounce.

Poor, poor Nate.

[Speed of Sound]

Nate is NOT AMUSED!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Speed of Sound]

The best part of this isn't that Nate's defense of his model is wrong- cause he's right on that- it's how obvious it is that he knows it won't be right.

[Speed of Sound]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

sweatin'dog.gif

[Speed of Sound]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

sweatin'dog.gif

I_want_confirmation_so_i_seek_approval.mpg

IenjoythismememorethanIshould.xml

[Speed of Sound]

Oh Nate.....

[Speed of Sound]

Is this supposed to be some kind of humble brag? Good grief.

You must be logged in to read this quote.