538 model & poll tracker thread

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

People just show how little they actually know about probability and models when they say this stuff.

So what are his error bars? How many standard deviations is he out? What happens if we feed different numbers into the machine - ie, assume a neutral electorate? What are his assumptions regarding states and their margins?

You can see the confidence intervals for predicted popular vote and electoral vote, as well as the complete electoral vote distribution, on the front page of the model.

Here are the current confidence intervals (not sure why Nate uses 80% though):



And here is the EV distribution:

[GALeftist]

Nate was among the most bullish forecasters on Trump.

The problem is he was still wrong. It doesn't matter that he was less wrong than others who were further out - the problem is that his model was significantly wrong.

Now, there's lots of reasons for it (mostly due to GIGO effects involving bad polls), but given that his model failed last time around, would behoove Silver to correct those problems so that the next time around, his prediction would be more accurate.

His model had Clinton at 71% on Election Day and in the 60's a few days earlier.  A 30% chance (Trump's in 2016) is nothing to sneer at; it's the chance of a .300 hitter in baseball getting a hit in a particular at-bat.

Yep, he was still wrong though.

(And it should be remembered that even 10% outcomes happen sometimes.  Ever had someone ask you to pick a number from 1 to 10, and you got it right?)

Problem is that his model is demonstrating significant evidence of systematic bias. If you're running a machine that consistently veers one way, and only one way, that means that you've got a problem with the protocol that you are using. Until you go under the hood and fix the protocol, you will still veer to the same direction.

His own statement seems to indicate this is a 55-45 Biden election (PA is the only route for Biden), so if Biden is up in PA, then that's the only path for him. Trump has similar issues with Ohio + Florida.

You could even conclude that despite being down in the battlegrounds, that Trump has an advantage due to having multiple paths wrt wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Minnesota.  

Everything about this is wrong. Just because Clinton was the favorite doesn't mean he was wrong. It means that things Silver expected to happen about 30% of the time happened. Also, where's your evidence that his model consistently overestimates Democrats?

Has Trump ever even been in striking distance in Minnesota? I can't find a poll that has him close, and most polls have Biden's lead in the double digits. Frankly, it seems increasingly clear that Wisconsin and Michigan are gone for Trump too. So, in actuality, it seems like your logic is bullish for Biden. Trump's most plausible victory scenario is 2016 - MI and WI, whereas Biden might not even need PA (which he's favored in anyway) because he's also favored in states like NC, GA, FL, and AZ and close to winning states like OH and TX.

[Wisconsin+17]

But Trump's chances go up to almost 70% if you give him PA.
If you give him Wisconsin it goes up even more.

The problem seems to be the data Nate is feeding in the machine, specifically the numbers for Michigan and Wisconsin. Also, he only has Texas going 1.4% in favour of Trump.

Ohio is also only .4 for Trump. Yeah, Nate's staked his reputation on this election here. He's going to regret calling it a 90 percent election for Biden.

[ultraviolet]

But Trump's chances go up to almost 70% if you give him PA.
If you give him Wisconsin it goes up even more.

Yeah, Nate's staked his reputation on this election here. He's going to regret calling it a 90 percent election for Biden.

Only cause GEM has it at 96%

[Wisconsin+17]

Everything about this is wrong. Just because Clinton was the favorite doesn't mean he was wrong. It means that things Silver expected to happen about 30% of the time happened. Also, where's your evidence that his model consistently overestimates Democrats?

There's a couple of things that could be wrong.

One, there is the statistical model. How you test that would be to input different paramaters (national polls, outcomes for the state), etc. If you put the parameters in for the election and it gives you numbers that are far out from what occurred, there's something wrong in how you are estimating probabilities.

Two, if you input the election results and it gives you results that are close to the actual result, then you can be relatively sure that the model itself is working, but that the problem are the inputs - GIGO.

Has Trump ever even been in striking distance in Minnesota?

He was last election. Trafalgar has had him close.

I can't find a poll that has him close, and most polls have Biden's lead in the double digits.

Again, GIGO. Polls for 2016 did not have Trump within a point in Minnesota, hence the polls would not accurately assess Trump's chances of winning Minnesota in 2016.

Frankly, it seems increasingly clear that Wisconsin and Michigan are gone for Trump too. So, in actuality, it seems like your logic is bullish for Biden. Trump's most plausible victory scenario is 2016 - MI and WI, whereas Biden might not even need PA (which he's favored in anyway) because he's also favored in states like NC, GA, FL, and AZ and close to winning states like OH and TX.

See above.

There hasn't been an election since Carter in 1980 when an incumbent has been down 6.5 nationally. Reagan himself was only up 9.75.

The only two are Carter in 1980 and Hoover in 1932.

Are you really saying that Biden is going to lead the next transformative election on par with 1980 and 1932? Really?

Because that's what Nate is saying.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

2016 is 2016, 2020 is 2020. Pollsters have changed their methods since 2016, and the landscape is different from 2016.
If your argument is "he can catch lightning in a bottle twice", if you'll forgive the metaphor, then support it without citing 2016 as your primary argument.

[Gustaf]

Why are people engaging with a moron who has shown no understanding of statistics (or anything) and has been hilariously wrong election after election with his own mind-models?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Why are people engaging with a moron who has shown no understanding of statistics (or anything) and has been hilariously wrong election after election with his own mind-models?

Being in argument with someone in the minor leagues can be therapeutic as well as good practice for explaining things IRL.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

I find it encouraging that, as the range of likely outcomes narrows, "Biden wins in a landslide" is still sitting at 29%.

[Gustaf]

Why are people engaging with a moron who has shown no understanding of statistics (or anything) and has been hilariously wrong election after election with his own mind-models?

Being in argument with someone in the minor leagues can be therapeutic as well as good practice for explaining things IRL.

I'd agree it can be fun, but people should be clear about how no one takes this clown seriously.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Why are people engaging with a moron who has shown no understanding of statistics (or anything) and has been hilariously wrong election after election with his own mind-models?

Being in argument with someone in the minor leagues can be therapeutic as well as good practice for explaining things IRL.

I'd agree it can be fun, but people should be clear about how no one takes this clown seriously.

You bringing up Ben's history regarding his takes relating to presidential elections is certainly not unwelcome.

[emailking]

The final prediction is Biden 89.16% chance of victory, Trump 10.39% chance.

Biden takes FL, GA, NC, AZ, NV, PA, MI, WI. Trump takes TX, IA, OH.

[Crumpets]

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1323517758303293440

[Crumpets]

For the record, this is 538's official final forecast going into tonight:

Biden/Harris 351 EV (349 on average) 53.3% PV
Trump/Pence 187 EV (189 on average) 45.4% PV

[Epaminondas]

It's looking like their final performance will be

- 50/53 for the Presidency (NC, ME-2 and FL wrong)
- 30/33 for the Senate (NC, ME and IA wrong)
- ~400/435 for the House (not enough room to list all errors)

An improvement over 2016, but by 2024 it's hard to see them keep their sterling reputation gained in 2012.

Will Nate even care at that point?

[emailking]

I doubt he's ever cared in that way. It's nice to be monetized but that's not going away, heck he just nailed the WS. I think the model did just fine, especially given the raw data.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

It's looking like their final performance will be

- 50/53 for the Presidency (NC, ME-2 and FL wrong)
- 30/33 for the Senate (NC, ME and IA wrong)
- ~400/435 for the House (not enough room to list all errors)

An improvement over 2016, but by 2024 it's hard to see them keep their sterling reputation gained in 2012.

Will Nate even care at that point?

If you are going to count this way, it’s technically 53/56, as the model did also correctly pick ME-01, NE-01, and NE-03.

[Figueira]

It's looking like their final performance will be

- 50/53 for the Presidency (NC, ME-2 and FL wrong)
- 30/33 for the Senate (NC, ME and IA wrong)
- ~400/435 for the House (not enough room to list all errors)

An improvement over 2016, but by 2024 it's hard to see them keep their sterling reputation gained in 2012.

Will Nate even care at that point?

In retrospect, 2012 was really more about the polling being pretty close to accurate rather than Nate Silver being any kind of genius. The one state he got right that a lot of people didn't was Florida, but I assume that was just a poll weighting thing.