538 model & poll tracker thread

[Gass3268]

Where is the tightening?

https://twitter.com/NilesGApol/status/1294276724855672845?s=20

[Lief 🗽]

Where is the tightening?

https://twitter.com/NilesGApol/status/1294276724855672845?s=20

That's just the polls though. Once you incorporate newspaper headline width measurements, it's really anyone's game.

[Gass3268]

Where is the tightening?

https://twitter.com/NilesGApol/status/1294276724855672845?s=20

That's just the polls though. Once you incorporate newspaper headline width measurements, it's really anyone's game.

Newspaper headlines = included
Presidential approval = not included

[Devils30]

I'm just skeptical of NV being more R than MI WI PA, GA being more R than Ohio.

[ultraviolet]

It’s unbelievable that you have to go to each state’s individual page to see the forecast for it. There should be a map, or at the very least a list that’s all on one page.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Biden's chances have been inching up...he's gone from 71 to 72 to 73 since the model launched.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Biden's chances have been inching up...he's gone from 71 to 72 to 73 since the model launched.

At least this model seems more stable than the 2016 one where the chances of winning changed dramatically week by week

[The Mikado]

Biden's chances have been inching up...he's gone from 71 to 72 to 73 since the model launched.

At least this model seems more stable than the 2016 one where the chances of winning changed dramatically week by week

That race changed dramatically week to week, though, especially towards the end.

2020 is really steady.

The model is backdated every date to June 1st. Lowest it's had Biden's chances was 69% on June 8th, and highest it's had him was 79% for several days around June 27th. It's been static in that 10% range since June 1st.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1294372448335532034

[SPQR]

It’s unbelievable that you have to go to each state’s individual page to see the forecast for it. There should be a map, or at the very least a list that’s all on one page.

This, and it's quite ironic given the importance that they've given to data visualization.

[emailking]

or the polls would have to be pretty systematically biased towards Biden. Both of which are possible, of course, but you can't really put a number on it.

You can though based on historical systematic bias. It's applied both to Trump and Biden in the model.

[Figueira]

LOL, this is one of the maps that showed up on the 100 randomly selected maps.

[ProgressiveModerate]

LOL, this is one of the maps that showed up on the 100 randomly selected maps.

If the Dakotas weren't like that it would be realistic

[Astatine]

LOL, this is one of the maps that showed up on the 100 randomly selected maps.

If the Dakotas weren't like that it would be realistic

And NE-01.

[Crumpets]

LOL, this is one of the maps that showed up on the 100 randomly selected maps.

I suppose it models the random incident whereby a meteor hits the Dakotas or Canada invades between now and November and installs a puppet liberal government in areas under its control.

[ProgressiveModerate]

LOL, this is one of the maps that showed up on the 100 randomly selected maps.

I suppose it models the random incident whereby a meteor hits the Dakotas or Canada invades between now and November and installs a puppet liberal government in areas under its control.

I mean ND and SD are small white states which mean they're some of the most highly elastic states in the nation, and tend to be very reactive to waves

[BaldEagle1991]

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1294372448335532034

Let's hope to see that 33% go up to 45% of in that range.

[South Dakota Democrat]

LOL, this is one of the maps that showed up on the 100 randomly selected maps.

I suppose it models the random incident whereby a meteor hits the Dakotas or Canada invades between now and November and installs a puppet liberal government in areas under its control.

I mean ND and SD are small white states which mean they're some of the most highly elastic states in the nation, and tend to be very reactive to waves

Not enough to actually flip, though.  Especially now, since they've gotten even more Republican.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1295117455984136192

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

LOL, this is one of the maps that showed up on the 100 randomly selected maps.

I suppose it models the random incident whereby a meteor hits the Dakotas or Canada invades between now and November and installs a puppet liberal government in areas under its control.

The Canadian voter fraud bus driving illegal Canadians across the border to steal Montana broke down. Sad!

[Gustaf]

In the vein of ridiculous 538 maps I'm seeing this one:

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1295335388811333632

[Alben Barkley]

The race is not tightening. A 1 point shift over a month or two, mostly due to outliers like the CNN poll and a series of subpar internet polls, does not change the fact that Biden’s strong leads remain consistent in the highest quality polls. It’s clearly just noise.

Sad to see Nate may have totally lost his touch and become just another hack political pundit trying desperately to concoct a horse race where one does not exist, even if he has to deny the obvious reality right before all of our eyes to do so.

His rambling article published earlier attempting to respond to criticisms of the “uncertainty” in the model did nothing for me except confirm the man is deep down a slide into Howard Hughes la la land. Totally detached from reality, going on about Michael Dukakis and convention bumps and debate pageantry and s—t in a year like this, when COVID is all that matters, the electorate is extremely stable and polarized, and none of that other crap has even really mattered in a while anyway.

As for his not including Trump’s incredibly stable approval ratings as part of the model, a guy in the comments said it better than I could:

The fundamental flaw with the model is that Nate Silvers is considerading the uncertainty "normal" in this election year. That fact alone should be exploding a whole bunch of logic bombs that destroy this model. It just isn't true. There is no reasonable level of uncertainty that exists that could stand to benefit Trump in a significant enough way to make this anything close to a 70-30 race. There just isn't a universe where that can possibly be true.

538 missed by far the most important factor for the uncertainty index. In fact, if applied, it would go a long way to removing a huge amount of uncertainthy. Namely, the Standard diviation (and low baseline) of Trump's approval ratings. Yes, I understood Nate's criticism of using approval ratings, however, there is no President with anything remotely similar in U.S. history. In other words, we have almost four years of "polling" that doesn't move an inch, that's totally unresponsive, even when juxtoposed against historically important breaking news. While Carter didn't lose by 20 points (per Nate's example), Carter also (at one point) had an approval rating of almost 75%. There is a calculus possible even with Carter that doesn't exist with Trump. There was evidence that every other president "could" become more popular when things change. There is no evidence to suggest that Trump could get more popular if news changes. I don't know how you can be a quantitatively inclined model and just ignore that. Who seriously thinks Trump is going to get a convention bounce that brings the race closer than 5 points, even if he gives the best speach of his life? It's perfectly predictable based on approval ratings that he won't get a significant bounce. A model that says he might is just clearly not looking at the world with reasonable glasses.

The point is that every other President (or major nominee) was, at least to some extent, objectively "presidential"... Donald Trump isn't. Don't take that as a partisan statement, just look at your very convenient approval rating charts that you posted. For huge swaths of America, Trump is completely disqualified from holding the office. Trump's approval rating at the highest point in his first term can reasonably be seen as a proxy for how many people are at least open to voting for him again. For Trump, that number is a shocking low 45.5%... let's look as some other presidents. Obama 65.1%,George Bush 81.1%, Clinton 60.9%, H.w. Bush 85.8%, Reagan 68%, Carter 74.9% Ford 71%, Nixon 66%... Trump won the first time because Hillary Clinton's approval rating was basically the same as his.

This is what is wrong with your model. Literally every other president in history at least stood a chance of convincing a majority of voters that they deserved relection since every other president in history had already convinced a majority of voters (at some point) that they had done a good job for at least a portion of the their time in office. 538 completely failed in capturing this reasonably obvious fact.

[Ferguson97]

In the vein of ridiculous 538 maps I'm seeing this one:

This is where Brad Pascale uses a monkeys paw to have Trump win Oregon

[The Mikado]

In the vein of ridiculous 538 maps I'm seeing this one:

This is where Brad Pascale uses a monkeys paw to have Trump win Oregon

I'd be perfect if they also carried NM, Parscale's other great white whale.