538 Model Megathread

[Erc]

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...

Isn't that precisely the point?  If state-to-state correlation is low, that should increase the chance of surprises (in either direction).  All else equal, that helps the candidate who's down (i.e. Trump).  You can talk about the firewall to death, but that's contingent on her winning every single state behind the firewall.

As the correlation between state results goes down, the odds that some state behind that firewall does fall goes up.  In an election of surprises (both on the national and local level), we should not be surprised when there's one surprise on election day (even if we can and should be surprised by a particular result).

All of the states behind the firewall seem like a relatively sure bet, but there are a lot of them.  Taking everything in 538 more secure than Rhode Island, you have 9 states: NH, ME, PA, VA, MI, WI, MN, CO, NM. 

If the states were perfectly correlated, the odds of Clinton winning all 9 would be the odds of her winning her weakest (NH, at 64.7%).  If they were perfectly uncorrelated, it would be the product of all of them (around 4.9%).  Obviously, Nate thinks its somewhere in between those two numbers. 

Of course, there's also the potential of surprises in the other direction, as well (Clinton pulling off Georgia, or something).  But the possibility of surprises in Trump's favor are what should keep us up at night.

Personally, I think Clinton will win this one and it won't be close.  But that's one part wishful thinking, and one part all the LV screens are wrong when it comes to Latino voters.  Of course, a Trump supporter could think that the LV screens are wrong when it comes to uneducated white voters.  We could go through the whole unskewing thing, but that's a sign of desperation.

TL;DR  We should expect polling surprises on November 8, both in terms of the overall PV margin and in terms of state-by-state results.  This is a different election than the last 3-4 we've had.  I tend to think the surprises will be in Clinton's favor, but I can't say that for sure.  And that's why I'm worried.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Clinton is back above 60% in all three models this morning.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

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...

Hes probably talking about the 272 freiwal.

Obama's 2012 freiwal was only 253 EV.

By this metric alone, Clinton's path is clealy easier.

All hail and bow down before the freiwal

Hillary Clinton builds the best freiwals.  And she's gonna make Trump pay for it.

[Lief 🗽]

Obama's 2012 firewall included Ohio.

[ursulahx]

He also retweeted this earlier they came up with comparing models....

Here's the thing - I would far rather have a model with high confidence. A model with low confidence, however fast to react it is, is pretty much worthless IMO.

Which is why Silver's constant "Trump can win, y'know!" concern trolling is really annoying me (that, and the whole "Trump can win" part of it, obviously...).

[emailking]

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).

Whereas Obama could have lost a couple of states he was leading in and still won, even without picking off any states where Romney was leading. That's what he's saying.

[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.

[Gass3268]

Nevada switched back to Clinton in the polls-only.

[elcorazon]

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.

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

[Yank2133]

Nevada switched back to Clinton in the polls-only.

Why?

[Gass3268]

Nevada switched back to Clinton in the polls-only.

Why?

Clinton's national lead continues to climb. Trump got the closest he ever has to Clinton since the conventions on September 20th, only down 1.1%. Only three days later he's down 2.5%.

[Xing]

Nevada switched back to Clinton in the polls-only.

#Rigged
#NateTheUnskewer
#UneducatedWhiteVotesMatter

[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

[elcorazon]

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 #1,2,4,5 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?

#2 is PA. She can't lose that one. She has more states near tipping point than he does

[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 ...

[Erc]

Discussions like these are why I wish Nate would actually release the 538 model (or just the results of the simulations) for us to play around with.  We could then actually get a sense of whether the firewall really exists within his model.

[jaichind]

538 inputed a WV poll incorrectly. It has a Just Win poll with Clinton +27 when it should be Trump +27.  What a bizarre mistake to make.

[Mallow]

538 inputed a WV poll incorrectly. It has a Just Win poll with Clinton +27 when it should be Trump +27.  What a bizarre mistake to make.

Ya, I saw that too. They've since fixed it, though. Odd... you'd think they'd have scripts to automate those things.

[Mr. Morden]

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.

[jaichind]

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" 

[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...

[Mallow]

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 wasn't thinking a single one for all pollsters, I was thinking tailored to each pollster. But it's probably still easier to enter them manually, as you say.

[PaperKooper]

538 inputed a WV poll incorrectly. It has a Just Win poll with Clinton +27 when it should be Trump +27.  What a bizarre mistake to make.

Ya, I saw that too. They've since fixed it, though. Odd... you'd think they'd have scripts to automate those things.

They fixed it after I sent them an email. 

[muon2]

Discussions like these are why I wish Nate would actually release the 538 model (or just the results of the simulations) for us to play around with.  We could then actually get a sense of whether the firewall really exists within his model.

The results of the EC simulation are on the main page at the bottom. The chart doesn't have much detail, but one can see the peaks for the most likely combinations out of the simulation. The highest peak generally corresponds to the combination if all the states follow their current most likely candidate. The way I read it today, one can pull out that the most likely occurrence is a Clinton win with 272 EV. That is the current Clinton states on his map plus ME-2.

[AGA]

538's polls-only forecast gives Trump a higher chance of winning ME-02 than NE-02. How accurate is this?