Slate/Votecastr real time election projections

[Erich Maria Remarque]

But they can only do this when they have individual level data on which particular people have voted (like they apparently do for CO, but not other states).

Are you sure, as I understand, they project early voting in other stated as well.

Projection of early voters. I didn't say anything about projection of who win the state. It is pretty meaningless.

But we can compare their projection of early voting with polls. Some polls ask voters who already voted. For instance if their projections is much Trump-friendly = polls probably underestimate him. And vice versa.

Sorry, what I mean (but forgot to explicitly say) is that once they have the modeled support score for each registered voter in the voter file, they will have data such as Amanda X has a .7 Clinton support score. That means they estimate that there is a 70% probability that Amanda X supports Trump. And they have data that Joe Y has a .4 Clinton support score.

So then if they have individual data for who has voted, they can then just add up each individual's support score and average it by the total number of people who have voted. So for example, if the only 2 people who have voted in a precinct are Amanda X and Joe Y, then the estimated vote is (.7 + .4) / 2 = .55. So they estimate Clinton has 55% support there (out of 2 votes cast, 1.1 votes for Clinton, .9 votes for Trump).

But you can only do this if you know specifically which individuals have voted - if you know that Amanda X and Joe Y are the particular people who have voted.

If you don't know that, but instead just know that 5 people have voted in Precinct Z and 3 people have voted in Precinct Q, then what you do for both of those precincts is to take the support scores of all the registered voters in each of those precincts weighted by their turnout scores, and that gives you your estimated vote percentage in that precinct. Then you can get your statewide or countywide vote estimate by averaging those weighted by the known aggregate turnout in each precinct. For example, if the average turnout-score weighted support-score in precinct Z is .7 Trump and for precinct Q is .2 Trump, then the estimated vote would be .7 * 5 + .2 * 3 = 4.1 votes estimated for Trump. Since there are a total of 8 votes, that then means 3.9 estimated votes for Clinton (not counting 3rd parties for this example).

So that is what they do for states that have early vote, but in which the state does not report to them which particular individuals have early voted.

I wasn't even arguing that much about the methodology I assume that it is pretty good.

So if it is, we can compare their estimation of EV to the poll's estimation of EV. For instance, the polls showed that Hillary is winning EV by 6-10% in Florida and by 10% in NV (according to PPP). If we see that their estimation is ~similar, we know that polls were about right. If their estimation of EV is outside those bounces, we may conclude that polls overestimate one or another candidate. Or at least, that we have some indications. I know that this model also is based on polls, so it can also underestimate Hispanics or whatever group it might be. But still it is interesting to compare.

That's my point.

[Wiz in Wis]

Looking at how they model Wisconsin's EV, I have to say, I'm surprised at how substantial the Trump under-performance looks in WOW. I know it's early, but he's only winning Ozaukee by 8, while Clinton is taking Milwaukee by about the margin Obama won it in 2012. Romney won Ozaukee by 30 overall in 2012. Same story in Waukesha/Washington/Dodge/Jefferson/Walworth... all huge swings from Romney.

In other words, based on this model (which may be dogpoop)
Strong Dem Counties showing roughly 2012 margin (and a few strong swings to Clinton)
Strong GOP Counties showing huge Trump drop off compared to Romney.

[Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it.]

Should we be worried about those PA numbers?

[Wiz in Wis]

Should we be worried about those PA numbers?

It's just based on by mail absentee, so its a very small number, and should be GOP leaning.

[win win]

You should not be worried about the PA numbers.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Should we be worried about those PA numbers?

It's just based on by mail absentee, so its a very small number, and should be GOP leaning.

Nevada?

[Ebsy]

Should we be worried about those PA numbers?

It's just based on by mail absentee, so its a very small number, and should be GOP leaning.

Nevada?

Pennsylvania only has excuse absentee balloting and no early voting, giving the GOP a decisive edge among the relatively few absentee ballots due to mostly older, whiter voters casting them. Almost all vote in Pennsylvania comes in on election day.

[Sigh144]

IS there anywhere to go for updates besides here?

McDonald, Ralston and SChale are all MIA for the most part. Im so nervous here.

I have a bad feeling the deplorable pigs may pull this out.......

[bilaps]

They will have new numbers in about half an hour

[fldemfunds]

This thing is a sh**t show and completely useless.

[bilaps]

This thing is a sh**t show and completely useless.

so don't follow it. you can always follow dems are hitting 10523532% in miami dade or orange county, great news for hillary feeds

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Should we be worried about those PA numbers?

It's just based on by mail absentee, so its a very small number, and should be GOP leaning.

Nevada?

Pennsylvania only has excuse absentee balloting and no early voting, giving the GOP a decisive edge among the relatively few absentee ballots due to mostly older, whiter voters casting them. Almost all vote in Pennsylvania comes in on election day.

But I asked about Nevada

Though, they have only 580k of 770k that voted. I assume that last few days were very good to D, at least according to NV guru.

[Ebsy]

Should we be worried about those PA numbers?

It's just based on by mail absentee, so its a very small number, and should be GOP leaning.

Nevada?

Pennsylvania only has excuse absentee balloting and no early voting, giving the GOP a decisive edge among the relatively few absentee ballots due to mostly older, whiter voters casting them. Almost all vote in Pennsylvania comes in on election day.

But I asked about Nevada

Though, they have only 580k of 770k that voted. I assume that last few days were very good to D, at least according to NV guru.

I mean, Nevada has in person early voting so is not comparable at all to Pennsylvania. Dems have built a similar lead to 2012 there, especially in Clark County, and the unaffiliated voters are younger and more diverse than 2012 due to Democratic registration efforts over the last 2 years.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Before people take Slate seriously, remember they have 58 staffers who vote Clinton and none for Trump.

#unskewtheturnout

[Erich Maria Remarque]

They will have new numbers in about half an hour

So much hype for "real-time" data...

I mean, Nevada has in person early voting so is not comparable at all to Pennsylvania. Dems have built a similar lead to 2012 there, especially in Clark County, and the unaffiliated voters are younger and more diverse than 2012 due to Democratic registration efforts over the last 2 years.

I'm asking if Trumpistas should be sad based on results from this model

[BlueSwan]

I'm asking if Trumpistas should be sad based on results from this model

Your question seems to imply that Trumpistas have feelings?

[bilaps]

Updated data. Looks great for Clinton. Lead everywhere.

[Devout Centrist]

Updated data. Looks great for Clinton. Lead everywhere.

Especially Florida, where her lead has increased to over 200k votes.

[Wiz in Wis]

Eh... PA and NH aren't looking great, and NV still looks weird, but yes, OH, IA, FL and WI looking very good for Hillary.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

I'm asking if Trumpistas should be sad based on results from this model

Your question seems to imply that Trumpistas have feelings?

Only:

SAAAAD!

ARRGH!

[bilaps]

Eh... PA and NH aren't looking great, and NV still looks weird, but yes, OH, IA, FL and WI looking very good for Hillary.

88k in PA and 10k in NH is good for her

[Wiz in Wis]

Eh... PA and NH aren't looking great, and NV still looks weird, but yes, OH, IA, FL and WI looking very good for Hillary.

88k in PA and 10k in NH is good for her

Yeah... assuming these are based on the early (today) votes, I guess you have a point, as Dems tend to vote later in the day. Still... not exactly a blowout.

[Mallow]

Eh... PA and NH aren't looking great, and NV still looks weird, but yes, OH, IA, FL and WI looking very good for Hillary.

Considering PA started the day (with early votes) with Trump in the lead, I'll take the Clinton advantage we have now.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Updated data. Looks great for Clinton. Lead everywhere.

Especially Florida, where her lead has increased to over 200k votes.

Why is it good? It is EV data.

According to polls
a) Clinton has about 6-10% lead in Florida, 10% in Nevada in 26%(!!!) in WI (according to PPP). According to this just 3%
b) Trump will be doing much better.

It this model is right, than polls overestimated Trump heavily...
Both in FL and NV and WI

But I doubt.

https://twitter.com/ppppolls/status/795455957765681152

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/794571735760797697

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So either the model is bad, PPP are junk/partisan or Trump is your next president

[Speed of Sound]

Updated data. Looks great for Clinton. Lead everywhere.

Especially Florida, where her lead has increased to over 200k votes.

Why is it good? It is EV data.

According to polls
a) Clinton has about 6-10% lead in Florida, 10% in Nevada in 26%(!!!) in WI (according to PPP). According to this just 3%

As to that, that's exactly the lead Schale predicted she had in EV last night.