Election models megathread

[Unbeatable Titan Susan Collins]

The senate model is clearly underestimating Republicans due to reliance on polls, the GOP has outperformed what the polls said in the Senate 4 cycles in a row, 2014, 2016, 2018 and 2020, in all 4 cycles the GOP won more senate seats than most projected, no reason to believe the polls have corrected for the bias.

I know that’s true for 3 of the elections, but are you sure about 2018? I thought the results matched the polls in the Senate then - it was only Democrat hopium that was defeated.

The finial 2018 FL Senate rcp average was was Nelson+2.4
The final rcp average for Indiana Senate 2018 was Donnelly +1.3, Braun won by 6

[GeorgiaModerate]

The senate model is clearly underestimating Republicans due to reliance on polls, the GOP has outperformed what the polls said in the Senate 4 cycles in a row, 2014, 2016, 2018 and 2020, in all 4 cycles the GOP won more senate seats than most projected, no reason to believe the polls have corrected for the bias.

I know that’s true for 3 of the elections, but are you sure about 2018? I thought the results matched the polls in the Senate then - it was only Democrat hopium that was defeated.

The finial 2018 FL Senate rcp average was was Nelson+2.4
The final rcp average for Indiana Senate 2018 was Donnelly +1.3, Braun won by 6

Now do the other races that year for comparison.

[kwabbit]

The senate model is clearly underestimating Republicans due to reliance on polls, the GOP has outperformed what the polls said in the Senate 4 cycles in a row, 2014, 2016, 2018 and 2020, in all 4 cycles the GOP won more senate seats than most projected, no reason to believe the polls have corrected for the bias.

I know that’s true for 3 of the elections, but are you sure about 2018? I thought the results matched the polls in the Senate then - it was only Democrat hopium that was defeated.

The finial 2018 FL Senate rcp average was was Nelson+2.4
The final rcp average for Indiana Senate 2018 was Donnelly +1.3, Braun won by 6

Now do the other races that year for comparison.

I believe polls also underestimated Rs in Ohio, Michigan, and Tennessee. Democrats were underestimated in Texas, Nevada, Arizona. Overall a small bias which overrated Democrats, but it was more of an issue of underrating the partisanship of red states.

[kwabbit]

The senate model is clearly underestimating Republicans due to reliance on polls, the GOP has outperformed what the polls said in the Senate 4 cycles in a row, 2014, 2016, 2018 and 2020, in all 4 cycles the GOP won more senate seats than most projected, no reason to believe the polls have corrected for the bias.

I know that’s true for 3 of the elections, but are you sure about 2018? I thought the results matched the polls in the Senate then - it was only Democrat hopium that was defeated.

The finial 2018 FL Senate rcp average was was Nelson+2.4
The final rcp average for Indiana Senate 2018 was Donnelly +1.3, Braun won by 6

Now do the other races that year for comparison.

There’s a lot of reason to believe that polls are once again underestimating Republicans. The most significant is that pollsters have made few changes to methodology to prevent a repeat of the error that happened in 2020. At least after 2016, pollsters were vocal about now weighting for education.

After 2014, 2016, and 2020 were all significant misses, with only 2018 being accurate, it’s reasonable for one’s prior to be that polls will underestimate Republicans. Not that it’ll be a miss as strong as 2020, but it’s likelier than not for the polls to miss in that direction.

[Roll Roons]

The senate model is clearly underestimating Republicans due to reliance on polls, the GOP has outperformed what the polls said in the Senate 4 cycles in a row, 2014, 2016, 2018 and 2020, in all 4 cycles the GOP won more senate seats than most projected, no reason to believe the polls have corrected for the bias.

I know that’s true for 3 of the elections, but are you sure about 2018? I thought the results matched the polls in the Senate then - it was only Democrat hopium that was defeated.

The finial 2018 FL Senate rcp average was was Nelson+2.4
The final rcp average for Indiana Senate 2018 was Donnelly +1.3, Braun won by 6

Now do the other races that year for comparison.

The RCP average also had Missouri as a dead heat but Hawley won by 6.

[ProgressiveModerate]

The senate model is clearly underestimating Republicans due to reliance on polls, the GOP has outperformed what the polls said in the Senate 4 cycles in a row, 2014, 2016, 2018 and 2020, in all 4 cycles the GOP won more senate seats than most projected, no reason to believe the polls have corrected for the bias.

I know that’s true for 3 of the elections, but are you sure about 2018? I thought the results matched the polls in the Senate then - it was only Democrat hopium that was defeated.

The finial 2018 FL Senate rcp average was was Nelson+2.4
The final rcp average for Indiana Senate 2018 was Donnelly +1.3, Braun won by 6

In 2018, polling on net was pretty accurate, but it underestimated partisanship which def lead to Dems being overestimated in a lot of key Senate races in deep red states. In most "normal" swing states polling was pretty good. (PA, WI, AZ, NV, TX).

We saw a simillar theme too in 2020 where a lot of polls showed very close Senate (and Pres) races in normally R states (SC, KS, AK, MT) that ended up being far off. However, a lot of the polling in deep blue states was pretty decent.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/jhkersting/status/1542994391241052163


It makes sense to consolidate discussions of the various models in one place, so I'm going to make this a megathread for that purpose.

[Annatar]

The senate model is clearly underestimating Republicans due to reliance on polls, the GOP has outperformed what the polls said in the Senate 4 cycles in a row, 2014, 2016, 2018 and 2020, in all 4 cycles the GOP won more senate seats than most projected, no reason to believe the polls have corrected for the bias.

I know that’s true for 3 of the elections, but are you sure about 2018? I thought the results matched the polls in the Senate then - it was only Democrat hopium that was defeated.

The 2018 senate polls were biased, look at states like Indiana, Missouri, Florida etc, even in many senate races democrats won, they won by smaller margins than the polls said.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/senate/

GOP did better than the median 538 senate forecast.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

The senate model is clearly underestimating Republicans due to reliance on polls, the GOP has outperformed what the polls said in the Senate 4 cycles in a row, 2014, 2016, 2018 and 2020, in all 4 cycles the GOP won more senate seats than most projected, no reason to believe the polls have corrected for the bias.

I know that’s true for 3 of the elections, but are you sure about 2018? I thought the results matched the polls in the Senate then - it was only Democrat hopium that was defeated.

The 2018 senate polls were biased, look at states like Indiana, Missouri, Florida etc, even in many senate races democrats won, they won by smaller margins than the polls said.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/senate/

GOP did better than the median 538 senate forecast.

Much worse than the inaccuracy of their predictions in 2018 was 538’s insistence on presenting everything in bizarre fractions. Jackie Rosen was a “4 in 7” favorite to win while Beto O’Rourke was a “2 in 9” underdog.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Cook rankings having WI and PA, GA, NV, AZ as Tossups, Gonzalez hasFL, GA, KS as Tossup states so when these models predict an R S they are wrong because Cook has a blue wall map and Gonzales has FL Gov this isn't the end all be all

[Senator Incitatus]

The senate model is clearly underestimating Republicans due to reliance on polls, the GOP has outperformed what the polls said in the Senate 4 cycles in a row, 2014, 2016, 2018 and 2020, in all 4 cycles the GOP won more senate seats than most projected, no reason to believe the polls have corrected for the bias.

I know that’s true for 3 of the elections, but are you sure about 2018? I thought the results matched the polls in the Senate then - it was only Democrat hopium that was defeated.

The 2018 senate polls were biased, look at states like Indiana, Missouri, Florida etc, even in many senate races democrats won, they won by smaller margins than the polls said.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/senate/

GOP did better than the median 538 senate forecast.

Yes: my big takeaway on election night 2018 is that a bunch more seats could have gone Republican if anyone had realized they were competitive. Models overstated the margins big time in some races Democrats won, implying they were completely safe: Ohio (11.6 vs. 6.80), Michigan (11.3 vs. 6.5), West Virginia (7.5 vs. 3.3). And massively understated Blackburn (5.3 vs. 10.80) and Cramer (4.6 vs. 10.80).

Nevada was obviously the big exception among competitive states, as it usually is. Pennsylvania was also a lowball for Casey, though not too shocking since Barletta completely stopped campaigning. One of the few races the model did really nail, New Jersey, is why I expected polling to be accurate there in 2021 and was totally wrong.

[Brittain33]

Yes: my big takeaway on election night 2018 is that a bunch more seats could have gone Republican if anyone had realized they were competitive. Models overstated the margins big time in some races Democrats won, implying they were completely safe: Ohio (11.6 vs. 6.80), Michigan (11.3 vs. 6.5), West Virginia (7.5 vs. 3.3). And massively understated Blackburn (5.3 vs. 10.80) and Cramer (4.6 vs. 10.80).

I understand the frustration at seeing elections written of as uncompetitive finish off close, but I don’t think you can draw the conclusion that they could have swung even further to a Republican win. Midterm turnout in 2018 was extremely high, more like a Presidential election, which was unprecedented. The surge in invisible Republican voters was already banked in the elections finishing closer than projected - that shows how some people were missed by polls or avoided them. But with polarization and turnout so high, there was no reservoir of untapped voters OR swing voters who would have gone the other way that would have pushed a Renacci over the top. To expect that is to count those invisible Republican voters twice - once when the candidates overperformed the polls, and a second time “if they only knew…” but they can only vote once.

[Politician]

Yes: my big takeaway on election night 2018 is that a bunch more seats could have gone Republican if anyone had realized they were competitive. Models overstated the margins big time in some races Democrats won, implying they were completely safe: Ohio (11.6 vs. 6.80), Michigan (11.3 vs. 6.5), West Virginia (7.5 vs. 3.3). And massively understated Blackburn (5.3 vs. 10.80) and Cramer (4.6 vs. 10.80).

I understand the frustration at seeing elections written of as uncompetitive finish off close, but I don’t think you can draw the conclusion that they could have swung even further to a Republican win. Midterm turnout in 2018 was extremely high, more like a Presidential election, which was unprecedented. The surge in invisible Republican voters was already banked in the elections finishing closer than projected - that shows how some people were missed by polls or avoided them. But with polarization and turnout so high, there was no reservoir of untapped voters OR swing voters who would have gone the other way that would have pushed a Renacci over the top. To expect that is to count those invisible Republican voters twice - once when the candidates overperformed the polls, and a second time “if they only knew…” but they can only vote once.

You also forget Republicans ran bad candidates in WV and OH (and completely gave up on the latter). With Jenkins in WV and a competent Republican campaign in OH, they could definitely have won both races.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

These models don't take into account the minority vote which is key in OH, NC and FL and the problem with Grassley he has won every race by double digits and so has Greg Abbott and they only lead by 5 if you add the Minority votes a 300 K statewide Provisional ballots that can change a red state blue, because Beasley, Demings are only down 3 pts

The models don't also predict that there can be split voting Kemp is doing better than Walker Lake is obviously doing better than Masters against Kelly and Vance is doing worse than DEWINE, 2018 had split voting DeWine won and so did Sherrod Brown the same in AZ Ducey won and Sinema won, Lake was down 5 pts to Hobbs in the last GE poll but she will do alot better than Blake Masters whom is down 48/39 to Mark Kelly

Having said that it's a 303 map ANYWAYS, Biden will win 278 in 2024 VA, CO, NV, MI, WI, and PA and Gov Evers was up 47/43 on Kleefisch and Barnes was up 46/44 all the users say Johnson is a shoe in are flat wrong

A 303 map will give D's 25 Govs and 52)48 S and Rs aren't getting 245 seats it will be 217/230, D's aren't being shut out the H for a decade, I know why Rs are projecting 25o precisely so D's can't will the H back til 203o which will never happen

Mary Peltola is leading in Twitter in AK AL Sarah Palin and Palin is supposed to be a shoe on, and Golden has lead in 5 straight polls like Mills I posted them, 51)49 Those two seats tell you Rs aren't getting 250 SEATS

[Minnesota Mike]

You also forget Republicans ran bad candidates in WV and OH (and completely gave up on the latter). With Jenkins in WV and a competent Republican campaign in OH, they could definitely have won both races.

Have Republicans ever lost with a good candidate? It seems like every time a Republican loses the loss is blamed on a crappy candidate instead of on crappy ideas.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Users like to go by Biden low Approvals and so do Election models but D's are outpacing Biden low Approvals because Harris poll had Ds and Rs tied at 50% not 39% which is why Russian Bear and Big Serg aren't on here anymore maybe they realized 41% doesn't matter that's all Russian Bear talked about before he disappeared in the Ukraine war aftermath

Biden doesn't need over 303 he only needs 278  CO, VA,, NV and the rust belt with CA, IL and NYour Senate maps follow the Blue wall but as we know there is partisan gerrymandering in FL and TX and OH but it won't be 250 seats 180Ds that lock is out for the entire decade of the H, if lucky Rs will get 230 seats 12 seats is nothing to win back in 24

[Senator Incitatus]

Yes: my big takeaway on election night 2018 is that a bunch more seats could have gone Republican if anyone had realized they were competitive. Models overstated the margins big time in some races Democrats won, implying they were completely safe: Ohio (11.6 vs. 6.80), Michigan (11.3 vs. 6.5), West Virginia (7.5 vs. 3.3). And massively understated Blackburn (5.3 vs. 10.80) and Cramer (4.6 vs. 10.80).

I understand the frustration at seeing elections written of as uncompetitive finish off close, but I don’t think you can draw the conclusion that they could have swung even further to a Republican win. Midterm turnout in 2018 was extremely high, more like a Presidential election, which was unprecedented. The surge in invisible Republican voters was already banked in the elections finishing closer than projected - that shows how some people were missed by polls or avoided them. But with polarization and turnout so high, there was no reservoir of untapped voters OR swing voters who would have gone the other way that would have pushed a Renacci over the top. To expect that is to count those invisible Republican voters twice - once when the candidates overperformed the polls, and a second time “if they only knew…” but they can only vote once.

I didn’t mean to imply this was more than frustration; it was my present sense impression of the results as they came in. But yes, they could have expanded the baseline by putting more resources into those races, thus making the surprise result even closer. They also could have spent less in safe races like Tennessee.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Just note whenever you see a Change poll or a PPP poll 9/10 they are accurate they were wrong in FL and NC last time but was right about AZ, they have all our D incumbents leading including Warnock and when they have IA Senate not Gov competetive with Franken and Grassley that's a warning to Rs that Grassley isn't assured the victory just like Impact has Ryan ahead but doesn't show anything on the Gov race that means Reynolds and DeWine are Favs


Nikki Fried and Crist and Beto has a good shot at winning Abbott and Grassley won by double digits and they lead only by 5 how the heck are they favs and MOE is 5/6 pts just like FL and NC Beasley and Demings are 3 pts behind


It's not a red wave yet in the H Mary Peltola is leading Palin and no one has posted the poll but the Mods delete my polls, so I don't post them, but it's only July not Labor Day so there is no red wave yet in the H is it's close in AK, most users have Golden losing in my previous posts Golden have lead in 5 straight polls like Mills 51/46

[UncleSam]

You also forget Republicans ran bad candidates in WV and OH (and completely gave up on the latter). With Jenkins in WV and a competent Republican campaign in OH, they could definitely have won both races.

Have Republicans ever lost with a good candidate? It seems like every time a Republican loses the loss is blamed on a crappy candidate instead of on crappy ideas.

Most people agree that James was a good candidate in MI in both runs, outrunning the baseline partisanship / national environment of the state in both cases and outrunning Trump by over a point in 2020.

But yes, in general this board loves to call any losing candidate a bad candidate in hindsight, even if nobody thought so beforehand. People like Katie McGinty, Bill Nelson, Martha McSally (in 2018), etc. we’re all thought of as decent to good candidates until they lost, at which point they became terrible unelectable losers who dragged down their respective national party with how big of a loser they are.

[GeorgiaModerate]

You also forget Republicans ran bad candidates in WV and OH (and completely gave up on the latter). With Jenkins in WV and a competent Republican campaign in OH, they could definitely have won both races.

Have Republicans ever lost with a good candidate? It seems like every time a Republican loses the loss is blamed on a crappy candidate instead of on crappy ideas.

Most people agree that James was a good candidate in MI in both runs, outrunning the baseline partisanship / national environment of the state in both cases and outrunning Trump by over a point in 2020.

But yes, in general this board loves to call any losing candidate a bad candidate in hindsight, even if nobody thought so beforehand. People like Katie McGinty, Bill Nelson, Martha McSally (in 2018), etc. we’re all thought of as decent to good candidates until they lost, at which point they became terrible unelectable losers who dragged down their respective national party with how big of a loser they are.

How about Jon Ossoff?  People said he was a terrible candidate after losing the GA-06 special to Handel, and then a brilliant one after beating Perdue for Senate.  (TBF, his second campaign was far better than his first one.)

[UncleSam]

You also forget Republicans ran bad candidates in WV and OH (and completely gave up on the latter). With Jenkins in WV and a competent Republican campaign in OH, they could definitely have won both races.

Have Republicans ever lost with a good candidate? It seems like every time a Republican loses the loss is blamed on a crappy candidate instead of on crappy ideas.

Most people agree that James was a good candidate in MI in both runs, outrunning the baseline partisanship / national environment of the state in both cases and outrunning Trump by over a point in 2020.

But yes, in general this board loves to call any losing candidate a bad candidate in hindsight, even if nobody thought so beforehand. People like Katie McGinty, Bill Nelson, Martha McSally (in 2018), etc. we’re all thought of as decent to good candidates until they lost, at which point they became terrible unelectable losers who dragged down their respective national party with how big of a loser they are.

How about Jon Ossoff?  People said he was a terrible candidate after losing the GA-06 special to Handel, and then a brilliant one after beating Perdue for Senate.  (TBF, his second campaign was far better than his first one.)

Yup, perfect example of the fact that ‘strong candidate’ and ‘weak candidate’ are poorly defined and inconsistently applied on this forum.

[2016]

Is there a possibility to ban Olowakandi at least from the Congressional & Governor Topics of Talk Elections until the 2022 Election is over!

[GeorgiaModerate]

Is there a possibility to ban Olowakandi at least from the Congressional & Governor Topics of Talk Elections until the 2022 Election is over!

I have not seen anything that violates the ToS.  If you find a user's signal-to-noise ratio too low, you can always Ignore him; the button is just up there on the right.

[Minnesota Mike]

Is there a possibility to ban Olowakandi at least from the Congressional & Governor Topics of Talk Elections until the 2022 Election is over!

I have not seen anything that violates the ToS.  If you find a user's signal-to-noise ratio too low, you can always Ignore him; the button is just up there on the right.

Although you can still see an ignored persons posts if someone else quotes them as I found out with this post.   I make liberal use of the ignore feature, I would guess about a quarter of posts are from people I ignore. I don't mute people who I disagree with, I just mute people who who add nothing to the conversation.  FWIW I think my record is 10 posts in a row in I thread from people I have on ignore.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Is there a possibility to ban Olowakandi at least from the Congressional & Governor Topics of Talk Elections until the 2022 Election is over!

I have not seen anything that violates the ToS.  If you find a user's signal-to-noise ratio too low, you can always Ignore him; the button is just up there on the right.

Although you can still see an ignored persons posts if someone else quotes them as I found out with this post.   I make liberal use of the ignore feature, I would guess about a quarter of posts are from people I ignore. I don't mute people who I disagree with, I just mute people who who add nothing to the conversation.  FWIW I think my record is 10 posts in a row in I thread from people I have on ignore.

If you don't want to see their posts in quotes: go to your Profile, select "Atlas - Forum Options", check the boxes for "Hide posts by ignored users more thoroughly" and "Redact quoted posts by ignored users when possible", and then click Save at the bottom right.