538 model & poll tracker thread

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

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.

I don't think they, like most news organizations, know what to make of the apparent competitiveness & the polls.

We'll see in a month from now, but they currently have Trump's chances in TX lower than they had Hillarys chances in MI/PA/WI at any time post-first debate

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

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"?

Where are you even seeing “states to watch”?  I see a list of “states with the closest races” (which Texas is on) and “states closest to the tipping point” (which TX is not on, but neither are NM or VA).

The 538 model of TX right now breaks down as a virtual tie in the polling average (56%), Trump +5 in the demographics (27%) and a whopping Trump +12 in the “economics and incumbency” fundamentals (17%).  Fortunately, the “economics and incumbency” party gradually declines to 0 as we get closer to the election, so Texas will also get much closer in the projection if the polls stay the same.

[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"?

Where are you even seeing “states to watch”?  I see a list of “states with the closest races” (which Texas is on) and “states closest to the tipping point” (which TX is not on, but neither are NM or VA).

In the dropdown menu on the top-left bar. It seems to be the same states they categorized in 2016 minus UT. I know they probably haven't given it a thought outside of Utah and it's a really petty thing to bring up

[Gustaf]

If you hover over the states in the snake chart you can now see the projected final percentages. Praise!

[tagimaucia]

There was some weird bug yesterday afternoon/early evening where Biden's projected win likelihood was showing up as 79% on one of my devices (but when I opened it up in another computer it was 75%).  Even when I reloaded it on the original device it still showed up as 79% for a while.  Very odd.

Maybe the model briefly became self aware, decided that Nate had added way too much uncertainty this year, and tried to assert itself.

[Figueira]

If you hover over the states in the snake chart you can now see the projected final percentages. Praise!

I don't want to spam this constantly, but here's the current projection:

Edit: Wisconsin

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

.

Maybe the model briefly became self aware, decided that Nate had added way too much uncertainty this year, and tried to assert itself.

I'd like to think it's the former. 

[Landslide Lyndon]

Today we had three national polls which showed Biden ahead by 12, 10, and 9 points.
And yet 538's aggregate remains stuck at 7.5. I don't know about you but this starts to look absurd to me.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Today we had three national polls which showed Biden ahead by 12, 10, and 9 points.
And yet 538's aggregate remains stuck at 7.5. I don't know about you but this starts to look absurd to me.

In defense of 538, those 3 polls showed good numbers for Biden in the previous poll.

[Horus]

Today we had three national polls which showed Biden ahead by 12, 10, and 9 points.
And yet 538's aggregate remains stuck at 7.5. I don't know about you but this starts to look absurd to me.

Silver is accounting for the shy Trump vote.

[GeorgiaModerate]

GEM is poking fun at the model again:

https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1304536851043287040

[emailking]

I don't agree with his assessment. We've had 58 Presidential elections which is nowhere near enough to know how weird things could get if you could run this election 40,000 different ways. Heck just look at 2016 where a single sate Utah is about 20% less Republican than it should be given how the other states went.

[Astatine]

I don't agree with his assessment. We've had 58 Presidential elections which is nowhere near enough to know how weird things could get if you could run this election 40,000 different ways. Heck just look at 2016 where a single sate Utah is about 20% less Republican than it should be given how the other states went.

UT is the most cherrypicked example to underline this point. Third party candidates were uniquely strong in 2016 in comparison to other election cycles and that an independent conservative from UT whose whole campaign was basically about winning UT would perform quite well there should be factored in, even with no polling (and far as I remember, it was actually?). Such circumstances are simply non-existent to that degree this year.

Or what would be a logical explanation of OR going red with SD going blue, apart from that state correlations are way to low?

[Kuumo]

I don't agree with his assessment. We've had 58 Presidential elections which is nowhere near enough to know how weird things could get if you could run this election 40,000 different ways. Heck just look at 2016 where a single sate Utah is about 20% less Republican than it should be given how the other states went.

UT is the most cherrypicked example to underline this point. Third party candidates were uniquely strong in 2016 in comparison to other election cycles and that an independent conservative from UT whose whole campaign was basically about winning UT would perform quite well there should be factored in, even with no polling (and far as I remember, it was actually?). Such circumstances are simply non-existent to that degree this year.

Or what would be a logical explanation of OR going red with SD going blue, apart from that state correlations are way to low?

State correlations are a big reason why Trump won in 2016. The Presidential election in each state doesn’t happen in a vacuum. I remember an article on FiveThirtyEight about two months before the 2016 election that said Hillary would have around a 97% chance of winning the election with zero correlation between states, but that her chances were more like 75% at the time due to correlation between potential polling errors in demographically similar states. Trump overperformed his polling average in most Midwestern states because demographically similar states tend to have similar results. Utah had a strange result compared to other states because no other states come close to its majority Mormon electorate. The new model would do well to heed FiveThirtyEight’s advice from four years ago.

[wbrocks67]

Today we had three national polls which showed Biden ahead by 12, 10, and 9 points.
And yet 538's aggregate remains stuck at 7.5. I don't know about you but this starts to look absurd to me.

In defense of 538, those 3 polls showed good numbers for Biden in the previous poll.

Isn't it supposed to be a rolling average though? There should be way more of a placement on the freshness of the poll (i.e. the avg is a rolling average of the 3 most recent days of polls) versus whatever he got in the last one. The simple fact that Biden had polls today of +15, +12, +10, and +9, and the national average didn't move an *inch* just seems ridiculous.

RCP is trash, but at least its just a straight up average. Unfortunately, RCP excludes many, while 538 just can't give us a flat out average and they have to add extra BS into it, even though it's not even part of the forecast/model

[Figueira]

I don't agree with his assessment. We've had 58 Presidential elections which is nowhere near enough to know how weird things could get if you could run this election 40,000 different ways. Heck just look at 2016 where a single sate Utah is about 20% less Republican than it should be given how the other states went.

These weird scenarios keep coming up in the 100 scenarios that actually show up on the website though.

[emailking]

I don't agree with his assessment. We've had 58 Presidential elections which is nowhere near enough to know how weird things could get if you could run this election 40,000 different ways. Heck just look at 2016 where a single sate Utah is about 20% less Republican than it should be given how the other states went.

UT is the most cherrypicked example to underline this point. Third party candidates were uniquely strong in 2016 in comparison to other election cycles and that an independent conservative from UT whose whole campaign was basically about winning UT would perform quite well there should be factored in, even with no polling (and far as I remember, it was actually?). Such circumstances are simply non-existent to that degree this year.

Or what would be a logical explanation of OR going red with SD going blue, apart from that state correlations are way to low?

I have no idea. Yes there's a reason why Utah was not as red as expected, just like there'd be a reason why Biden wins everything but New Jersey, if that happens. It's probably a reason that wouldn't apply to the succeeding election either. Who knows?

[DaleCooper]

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1304480539676639233

Lol

[emailking]

I don't agree with his assessment. We've had 58 Presidential elections which is nowhere near enough to know how weird things could get if you could run this election 40,000 different ways. Heck just look at 2016 where a single sate Utah is about 20% less Republican than it should be given how the other states went.

These weird scenarios keep coming up in the 100 scenarios that actually show up on the website though.

He addressed that in this thread.

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1300825856072454145

Basically the model thinks there's a non-trivial chance something weird can happen. The specific maps that are being called out though individually may have a very low likelihood of occurring.

[Astatine]

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1304480539676639233

Lol

Trump's chances of winning Oregon went up from 7 % (09/10) to 9 % (09/11)...

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

(snip)
Lol

He's as desperate for the horserace as the news media he claims to be above

[DaleCooper]

(snip)
Lol

He's as desperate for the horserace as the news media he claims to be above

But why Oregon? I just don't understand that.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I don't agree with his assessment. We've had 58 Presidential elections which is nowhere near enough to know how weird things could get if you could run this election 40,000 different ways. Heck just look at 2016 where a single sate Utah is about 20% less Republican than it should be given how the other states went.

Utah didn't vote 20% less Republican than it should based on the polls.  At this point in the 2016, there were several showing Trump with a very narrow lead in Utah.  So if the model came up with an output in which Utah voted Democratic, there was at least evidence to support this.  Trump actually outperformed his polls by a significant degree in Utah.   

By contrast, I'm not seeing any evidence whatsoever suggesting any strongly Democratic states have the potential to go rogue in this election.  And I can't even remember any huge shock results like this in the past.  Probably the biggest shock relative to PVI was Obama winning Indiana in 2008, and this too was predictable from the the polling by September.

[emailking]

I don't agree with his assessment. We've had 58 Presidential elections which is nowhere near enough to know how weird things could get if you could run this election 40,000 different ways. Heck just look at 2016 where a single sate Utah is about 20% less Republican than it should be given how the other states went.

Utah didn't vote 20% less Republican than it should based on the polls.  At this point in the 2016, there were several showing Trump with a very narrow lead in Utah.  So if the model came up with an output in which Utah voted Democratic, there was at least evidence to support this.  Trump actually outperformed his polls by a significant degree in Utah.   

By contrast, I'm not seeing any evidence whatsoever suggesting any strongly Democratic states have the potential to go rogue in this election.  And I can't even remember any huge shock results like this in the past.  Probably the biggest shock relative to PVI was Obama winning Indiana in 2008, and this too was predictable from the the polling by September.

Sanders's win over Clinton in Michigan in 2008 was a 20 point swing from the polling that week.

Now I know you can give me reasons why that's different and why it won't happen this time (and yes I know it was the primary). The point is that shock results happen. And your guess is as good as mine at how likely a shock result in Oregon is if you give it a go 40,000 times.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I don't agree with his assessment. We've had 58 Presidential elections which is nowhere near enough to know how weird things could get if you could run this election 40,000 different ways. Heck just look at 2016 where a single sate Utah is about 20% less Republican than it should be given how the other states went.

Utah didn't vote 20% less Republican than it should based on the polls.  At this point in the 2016, there were several showing Trump with a very narrow lead in Utah.  So if the model came up with an output in which Utah voted Democratic, there was at least evidence to support this.  Trump actually outperformed his polls by a significant degree in Utah.  

By contrast, I'm not seeing any evidence whatsoever suggesting any strongly Democratic states have the potential to go rogue in this election.  And I can't even remember any huge shock results like this in the past.  Probably the biggest shock relative to PVI was Obama winning Indiana in 2008, and this too was predictable from the the polling by September.

Sanders's win over Clinton in Michigan in 2008 was a 20 point swing from the polling that week.

Now I know you can give me reasons why that's different and why it won't happen this time (and yes I know it was the primary). The point is that shock results happen. And your guess is as good as mine at how likely a shock result in Oregon is if you give it a go 40,000 times.

I know the chance the model estimates of any one particular freak event happening is very small.

But it still seems like there is a category of freak event that the model collectively overestimates.  That is an election where one candidate wins in a national landslide, but the other candidate randomly wins a state that should be safe for the landslide winner.

I can’t off the top of my head think of a single historical example of this happening.  Nor can I think of a plausible explanation for why it might happen this year.  It’s not just that I think there is a less than a 1-in-40,000 chance that Biden wins in a landslide but loses New Jersey.  I think there is less than a 1-in-40,000 chance that Biden wins in a landslide but loses any deep blue state, especially given the Nate’s caveat that he is only attempting to model a reasonably free and fair election.