538 model & poll tracker thread

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Given how important the “economic fundamentals” are to Nate’s model, I’m a little surprised that Biden hasn’t seemed to gain anything from the stock market crash over the past few days.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

[DaleCooper]

It'd be nice if there was an "If the election were held today" toggle for the 538 forecast. I'm curious how much of the day-to-day chances here are based on the uncertainty factor.

[wbrocks67]

It'd be nice if there was an "If the election were held today" toggle for the 538 forecast. I'm curious how much of the day-to-day chances here are based on the uncertainty factor.

I also liked how in 2016 they had "polls only", "polls plus", etc. I feel like that would be more helpful this year since theres all this talk about the "fundadmentals"

[Astatine]

It'd be nice if there was an "If the election were held today" toggle for the 538 forecast. I'm curious how much of the day-to-day chances here are based on the uncertainty factor.

I also liked how in 2016 they had "polls only", "polls plus", etc. I feel like that would be more helpful this year since theres all this talk about the "fundadmentals"

I also liked how in 2016 they had... an actual map.

[American2020]

https://twitter.com/ChairmanMoet/status/1303704803265179650/photo/1

[Gustaf]

538 has Biden up to 74% now, highest since July.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1303728393595293698

[Skye]

So chance of Biden winning by double-digits (30%) is higher than Trump winning the EC (26%).

Huh.

[ProgressiveModerate]

So chance of Biden winning by double-digits (30%) is higher than Trump winning the EC (26%).

Huh.

The uncertainty seems way too high in the model. That's basically a 56% of an "unexpected" result either way. The chance of those events collectively should be more like 25% in my view.

[Crumpets]

Biden is now at an all-time high in Arizona at 64% chance to win.

[Lief 🗽]

Good numbers for Biden lately but unfortunately the size of the headlines in the NYT tomorrow about Trump’s comments to Bob Woodward will send Biden’s chances plummeting back down.

[GeneralMacArthur]

So chance of Biden winning by double-digits (30%) is higher than Trump winning the EC (26%).

Huh.

This is the case with the state projections as well.  For example, they have Trump at 22/100 to win Minnesota.  But that 22 includes:

Trump 57.4 Biden 40.6
Trump 55.3 Biden 43.7
Trump 54.4 Biden 43.7
Trump 53.5 Biden 44.5
And another 8 Trump +4 or +5 results.

I can definitely see Trump winning Minnesota but I think the odds of him winning by a wide margin (+4 or above) are exceedingly slim.  I would expect that if Trump wins, there's an 80-90% chance he wins by less than 2%.

[Crumpets]

This could be the weirdest I've come across yet:

Biden/Harris 419 EV
Trump/Pence 119 EV

EDIT: Whoops, meant to post this in the weird maps thread.

[Kuumo]

This could be the weirdest I've come across yet:

Biden/Harris 419 EV
Trump/Pence 119 EV

Titanium R Oregon strikes again!

[Vosem]

So chance of Biden winning by double-digits (30%) is higher than Trump winning the EC (26%).

Huh.

The uncertainty seems way too high in the model. That's basically a 56% of an "unexpected" result either way. The chance of those events collectively should be more like 25% in my view.

I'm not sure either of those results would be totally unexpected. If the current polling average is Biden+7, it only takes a 3-point swing in one direction for a national double-digit victory, and it only takes a 3-point swing in the other direction for an EC split to start to become quite plausible. Given the stability in this race, I don't think I'd put the odds that Trump wins or Biden wins by 10 or more to be 56%, but if this race were one with a normal amount of volatility I think that would be a fair call.

[emailking]

Biden up to 75, and Trump down to 25, in the model.

[SnowLabrador]

Biden up to 75, and Trump down to 25, in the model.

The fact that Trump has any chance at all shows just how depraved this country is.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Well, looks like Biden won't be taking a NYT Headlines hit today.  The NYT is more interested in super-sleuthing the Beirut footage from last month than in covering any of the major Trump stories.

https://twitter.com/DaytimeDan/status/1304020650340872192

[wbrocks67]

Well, looks like Biden won't be taking a NYT Headlines hit today.  The NYT is more interested in super-sleuthing the Beirut footage from last month than in covering any of the major Trump stories.

https://twitter.com/DaytimeDan/status/1304020650340872192

So much for "Liberal bias"

[bilaps]

Yeah, NYT is openly for Trump to win.

Some people here....

[Crumpets]

Well, looks like Biden won't be taking a NYT Headlines hit today.  The NYT is more interested in super-sleuthing the Beirut footage from last month than in covering any of the major Trump stories.

https://twitter.com/DaytimeDan/status/1304020650340872192

So much for "Liberal bias"

I swear the NYT and CNN are genuinely offended by the "liberal media" label and think that if they are just nice enough to conservatives, that they'll stop calling them names and will start reading/watching in droves.

[American2020]

Biden: 75%
Trump: 25%

https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsCo/status/1304155690915700737

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

Trump at 69% in the TX forecast, first time he's been below 70% since August 4.

Also, small thing, but I still can't get over how they have NM & VA (94/95% Biden) as "states to watch" but TX isn't considered one. Hell, they currently got Biden standing a better chance of winning MI/MN/NH/NV/PA/WI than Trump does of winning TX. How is it not a "state to watch"?

[wbrocks67]

Trump at a 69% in Texas, first time he's been below 70% since August 4.

Also, small thing, but I still can't get over how they have NM & VA (94/95% Biden) as "states to watch" but TX isn't considered one. Hell, they currently got Biden standing a better chance of winning MI/MN/NH/NV/PA/WI than Trump does of winning TX

their TX model makes no sense.