538 Model Megathread

[Wells]

It's getting really close in the new now-cast model. Trump is up to a 46% chance to win. (NH goes to Trump. I'm sure nobody is going to whine about that.)

Clinton 274
Trump 264

[HAnnA MArin County]

It's getting really close in the new now-cast model. Trump is up to a 46% chance to win. (NH goes to Trump. I'm sure nobody is going to whine about that.)

Clinton 274
Trump 264

LoLz no.

[Devout Centrist]

It's getting really close in the new now-cast model. Trump is up to a 46% chance to win. (NH goes to Trump. I'm sure nobody is going to whine about that.)

Clinton 274
Trump 264

If the election was held today.

If.

[Wells]

And now Nate Silver has everybody's favorite tipping point state odds! The top five (according to polls-only) are:

Florida 15.2%
Pennsylvania 10.9%
Ohio 9.0%
Virginia 7.2%
North Carolina 5.9%

They also have a voter power index. It turns out that voters from Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire are very powerful.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

If we voted today, Trump's 90th percentile:

402-136

Crooked Hillary's 90th percentile:

418-120

[Doimper]

Weird that NC is leaning Dem more than Florida.

[Likely Voter]

bear in mind that these models are only as good as the available data. The biggest input is state polling. Half the battlegrounds have had little to no polling in last few weeks, so that leads to anomalies like NC looking more D than IA.

[twenty42]

June 28 polls-plus odds (release date):

79.1% Clinton, 20.9% Trump

July 21, 11:00 AM EDT:

59.9% Clinton, 40.1% Trump

Something to think about, for sure.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Polls plus is a proven failure. I'll take the bettors consensus over that at this point, and I find them to be really irrational and uninformed/out of touch generally

[JRP1994]

Polls plus is a proven failure. I'll take the bettors consensus over that at this point, and I find them to be really irrational and uninformed/out of touch generally

No. Different polls plus than the primary model.

Note: polls plus is identical to the model that called 49/50 in 2008 and 50/50 in 2012.

[JRP1994]

Also, when the polls-plus was wrong in the primary, it was usually due to underestimating Trump, rather than being too bullish on his chances.

[The Other Castro]

It's a young model and extremely reactive to the polls right now, which there aren't enough of. Betting markets have been fairly stable for a while now. Give it time.

[fldemfunds]

Anyone who understands trends in electoral history could have told you the polls were going to tighten. But if Hillary has a 60% chance pre-convention of winning, then it's going to be really difficult for Trump to close that further, barring an economic collapse of some sort.

What should worry Republicans more isn't the % likelihood of him winning, it's that most state-polls aggregate lead has Hillary up 2-5 points consistently despite having a bad week before the Republicans had their convention (double whopper against her in a row, basically). Combined with the likelihood she's going to outspend him 2 or 3 to 1, it basically means his candidacy is on life support.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

We're in the midst of a week-long commercial for Trump, with fake smiles and a fake conservative consensus (except Ted Cruz, who for once won my admiration).

The RNC will end, conservatives will go back to expressing their reservations about Trump, while the DNC's Hillary lovefest will make the RNC look like the awkward forced marriage that it is.

Hillary will be up 10 points in mid-August before things stabilize and we settle back to the 5-point equilibrium that will probably be the ultimate outcome.  And as time goes on and there's less chance for movement, Hillary's chances on 538 will continue to rise.

This is looking like a Clinton victory, 50-44-6.

[Erc]

The main difference between polls only and polls plus, by my understanding, is that polls plus bakes in an expected reversion to the mean: the "fundamentals" of the race (i.e. the economy is doing decently but this would be a 3rd consecutive term for the democrats) suggest this should be a close race, and polls plus gives some weight to that fact.

Of course, I would think that the real fundamental of this race is that Donald Trump is the Republican nominee, and that the natural "mean" in such a race is a 10-point loss for Trump.  Of course, such thinking wasn't really helpful in the primary.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Of course, I would think that the real fundamental of this race is that Donald Trump is the Republican nominee, and that the natural "mean" in such a race is a 10-point loss for Trump.  Of course, such thinking wasn't really helpful in the primary.

He's been legitimized as a candidate and a human being, as much as I vociferously disagree with both of those notions.  The sight of the rest of the GOP enabling this massive, crass ego trip is alarming and disturbing.  In years past this convention would be seen for the perversion that it is.  But at this point the new normal has been established.  A man like Donald Trump as the face of a major political party and possible commander-in-chief is now totally ok with at least 44% of voters.  My feelings, and the feelings of much of the pundit-sphere, are irrelevant.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

People don't seem to understand that Trump has no turnout game, which as a Republican means almost no chance. Look for an Iowa Caucus repeat.

[Erc]

People don't seem to understand that Trump has no turnout game, which as a Republican means almost no chance. Look for an Iowa Caucus repeat.

Turnout game matters a lot less in the general than for caucuses, for obvious reasons, though it could matter on the margins.

Though there are a lot of things generally relating to the likely/registered voter distinction (ground game, the Latino vote, the undecideds, Johnson, etc.) that I'm not confident the polls will ever have a good handle on, and could prove to be a surprise in November.

[fldemfunds]

People don't seem to understand that Trump has no turnout game, which as a Republican means almost no chance. Look for an Iowa Caucus repeat.

Turnout game matters a lot less in the general than for caucuses, for obvious reasons, though it could matter on the margins.

Though there are a lot of things generally relating to the likely/registered voter distinction (ground game, the Latino vote, the undecideds, Johnson, etc.) that I'm not confident the polls will ever have a good handle on, and could prove to be a surprise in November.

In my experience, a good ground game can make about a 5% difference if operated in a vacuum, which HRC's will probably be.

[Mehmentum]

Lol, the OP is literally bragging about their candidate having a 39% chance of winning.  Sad!

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Turnout game matters a lot less in the general than for caucuses, for obvious reasons, though it could matter on the margins.

It's not going to swing the vote nationally by any significant margin.  However, if there's a close fight for a pivotal state, ground game can make all the difference.  Particularly in a certain 20-EV eastern state where the Democratic vote is geographically concentrated and easily mobilized.

[Slander and/or Libel]

The main difference between polls only and polls plus, by my understanding, is that polls plus bakes in an expected reversion to the mean: the "fundamentals" of the race (i.e. the economy is doing decently but this would be a 3rd consecutive term for the democrats) suggest this should be a close race, and polls plus gives some weight to that fact.

Of course, I would think that the real fundamental of this race is that Donald Trump is the Republican nominee, and that the natural "mean" in such a race is a 10-point loss for Trump.  Of course, such thinking wasn't really helpful in the primary.

I think that's part of the problem with some of these prognostications, but I don't quite know how to quantify it. Whatever the polls say right now, my thinking is based on 2012, and these couple of facts:

Romney lost to Obama by 4 points.
With demographic change, in 2016, that would have been 5 points.
Romney won 27% of Hispanics, Trump recently polled at 19%.
Romney won 56% of college educated whites, Trump recently polled at 42%.

Those latter numbers are subject to change, but they get at what I'm thinking here. I think 2012 is a decent baseline to start working from, or at least as good as anything else at this point. So Trump's got to make up a 5 point deficit before he even worries about starting to make up the deficits that are unique to him compared to Romney. I honestly have a difficult time seeing it happen.

[twenty42]

Lol, the OP is literally bragging about their candidate having a 39% chance of winning.  Sad!

Bragging? Nah...I have no personal stake in Trump winning or losing. I merely thought Trump's chances of victory doubling over the course of three weeks was worth bringing up.

[Boston Bread]

Polls plus is a proven failure. I'll take the bettors consensus over that at this point, and I find them to be really irrational and uninformed/out of touch generally

No. Different polls plus than the primary model.

Note: polls plus is identical to the model that called 49/50 in 2008 and 50/50 in 2012.

Polls plus becomes more or less identical to polls-only by election day. The fact that "polls plus" got it right on election day is attributable only to polling.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Polls plus is a proven failure. I'll take the bettors consensus over that at this point, and I find them to be really irrational and uninformed/out of touch generally

No. Different polls plus than the primary model.

Note: polls plus is identical to the model that called 49/50 in 2008 and 50/50 in 2012.

Polls plus becomes more or less identical to polls-only by election day. The fact that "polls plus" got it right on election day is attributable only to polling.

Not to mention Silver had a 50.3% chance of Obama winning Florida in 2012. That's flipping a coin that it would take thousands of flips to determine is slightly weighted one way. In what sense was that a "call"?