Weird 538 maps

[Figueira]

Post your weird 538 maps here. You can find them if you hover over the dots on the 538 forecast page: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/ Most of them are normal but you'll find a few that defy logic and reason.

Also remember to check the EV totals to make sure you color in the right CDs in NE/ME.

To start off (this is a 277-261 Biden win):

[ProgressiveModerate]

This was one from a few days ago

[McGarnagle]

I wish I could have been there in the room reviewing the model. I would have told him, "Nate, this is a bad idea. What's with this Fivey Fox stuff? This is going to be a laughing stock. Just add a map like last time."

[Ferguson97]

Biden 379 - Trump 159

Craziest parts are Louisiana, South Carolina, and Mississippi going to Biden while Arizona stays in Trump's column.

[VAR]

[ProgressiveModerate]

Wait; how'd you get the state %?

[It's Perro Sanxe wot won it]

Biden 345 - Trump 193

What even is this

[Galeel]

Biden 345 - Trump 193

What even is this

this has gotta be my favorite one. there's so much going on here. It reminds me of a Bill Clinton map.

[Hammy]

Biden 345 - Trump 193

What even is this

this has gotta be my favorite one. there's so much going on here. It reminds me of a Bill Clinton map.

That GA staying R while SC doesn't isn't even the most bizarre thing on here makes it even more amusing

[Figueira]

In which South Carolina votes D while North Carolina and ME-1 vote R.

Biden 285-253

[One Term Floridian]

This was one from a few days ago

Pence got replaced by Jindal lmao

[Brandern]

I wish I could have been there in the room reviewing the model. I would have told him, "Nate, this is a bad idea. What's with this Fivey Fox stuff? This is going to be a laughing stock. Just add a map like last time."

Nate Silver does tons of hallucinogenics, I think it is finally doing him in. Not relying on 538 this time...

[McGarnagle]

I wish I could have been there in the room reviewing the model. I would have told him, "Nate, this is a bad idea. What's with this Fivey Fox stuff? This is going to be a laughing stock. Just add a map like last time."

Nate Silver does tons of hallucinogenics, I think it is finally doing him in. Not relying on 538 this time...

I think hallucinogenics would probably have resulted in something more aesthetically pleasing.

[Kuumo]

Found these two amazing gems on the 538 model today.

This one looks like a parody of some bad Atlas takes like Biden being weak with Hispanics, Biden having a chance at winning Utah, Biden bringing back all the Obama-Trump voters to win Ohio, ME-02, and Montana, and Alaska being a "sleeper state" (muh trended D every election since 2008). With Republican New Jersey to top it at all off.

This map looks like one of those 2016-trends-on-steroids 2040 electoral maps or maybe a pro-life Democrat vs pro-choice Republican map (with a few exceptions like TX, MI, NC, NH).


There were also a lot of maps with Republican Minnesota and Democratic Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania that must've overreacted to that Trafalgar poll. Why did 538 have to cater to the muh 2016, 70% chance=100% chance crowd by publishing 100 maps a day instead of creating one user-friendly interactive map like in past years?

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Yeah the biggest problem with the model right now is that it has fat tails (which yeah okay, still some uncertainty because we're months from election day, guess that makes sense) that aren't correlated with each other at all. That's why you're getting obviously bunk outcomes like R-AZ but D-LA.

I'm not sure why Nate's model is doing this because I've definitely seen him harping on state correlations before. Right now the model seems to just grab tail-outcomes for random states in random directions and it leads to obviously whacky stuff.

With that said I spotted this gem on the back panel a few days ago

[Ferguson97]

Yeah the biggest problem with the model right now is that it has fat tails (which yeah okay, still some uncertainty because we're months from election day, guess that makes sense) that aren't correlated with each other at all. That's why you're getting obviously bunk outcomes like R-AZ but D-LA.

I'm not sure why Nate's model is doing this because I've definitely seen him harping on state correlations before. Right now the model seems to just grab tail-outcomes for random states in random directions and it leads to obviously whacky stuff.

With that said I spotted this gem on the back panel a few days ago

Reagan BTFO

[big data boi]

Still some uncertainty because we're months from election day, guess that makes sense

No way lol. Nate Silver is just on crack this year. Just look at the n=100 sample scatter for each state. One of them is an outlier so preposterous that they built the model to make the distributions more platykurtic on purpose.

West Virginia. Enough said

[Crumpets]

Still some uncertainty because we're months from election day, guess that makes sense

No way lol. Nate Silver is just on crack this year. Just look at the n=100 sample scatter for each state. One of them is an outlier so preposterous that they built the model to make the distributions more platykurtic on purpose.

West Virginia. Enough said
-snip-

I'm picturing... a platypus with Kurt Russell's hair?

[Hope For A New Era]

This was one from a few days ago

the unholy marriage of "if Obama won even bigger in 2008" and "Parscale's fever dreams"

[Gustaf]

Yeah the biggest problem with the model right now is that it has fat tails (which yeah okay, still some uncertainty because we're months from election day, guess that makes sense) that aren't correlated with each other at all. That's why you're getting obviously bunk outcomes like R-AZ but D-LA.

I'm not sure why Nate's model is doing this because I've definitely seen him harping on state correlations before. Right now the model seems to just grab tail-outcomes for random states in random directions and it leads to obviously whacky stuff.

With that said I spotted this gem on the back panel a few days ago

The issue is that they're allowing a lot of subgroup variance. If you think about it you can tell how many of the weird maps happen.

It can be, say, "extremely good Biden black voter scenario" (black turnout 80% or something) combined with "extremely good Trump Hispanic voter scenario" (Trump wins Hispanics!) and then suddenly Biden is winning places in the Deep South with all his black voters while Trump wins New Mexico, etc.

One of the specifically weird things is that they allow Corona to be a group thing for states. So when you combine a bunch of different tail end scenarios for different groupings, including some that group states along non-political lines (like Corona) you get these really wild outcomes.

[Former President tack50]

Yeah the biggest problem with the model right now is that it has fat tails (which yeah okay, still some uncertainty because we're months from election day, guess that makes sense) that aren't correlated with each other at all. That's why you're getting obviously bunk outcomes like R-AZ but D-LA.

I'm not sure why Nate's model is doing this because I've definitely seen him harping on state correlations before. Right now the model seems to just grab tail-outcomes for random states in random directions and it leads to obviously whacky stuff.

With that said I spotted this gem on the back panel a few days ago

Is that a Jorgensen win in WY or did Wyoming literally just disappear?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Biden winning 278 plus AZ, IA, NC, GA, without FL or TX

[ultraviolet]

Are the state margin circles even numbers from the model or are they just there for visuals? Because they are wayyy too spread out to be realistic at all.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I know it's not 538, but I thought this was kinda funny. Ds get blown out but Durbin still manages to hold on lol

[Ferguson97]

Yeah the biggest problem with the model right now is that it has fat tails (which yeah okay, still some uncertainty because we're months from election day, guess that makes sense) that aren't correlated with each other at all. That's why you're getting obviously bunk outcomes like R-AZ but D-LA.

I'm not sure why Nate's model is doing this because I've definitely seen him harping on state correlations before. Right now the model seems to just grab tail-outcomes for random states in random directions and it leads to obviously whacky stuff.

With that said I spotted this gem on the back panel a few days ago

Is that a Jorgensen win in WY or did Wyoming literally just disappear?

Cody, Wyoming 100% turnout for KANYE WEST