538 Model Megathread

[BoAtlantis]

Emerson has a Republican bias because they only call landlines but still has Hillary up by 2 in AZ.

I doubt AZ will go blue in the end but she seems to be making progress.

[ApatheticAustrian]

the sun belt is an area of future republican doom right now.....even if the rust belt keeps crawling right-ward on the longest of all runs.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Emerson has a Republican bias because they only call landlines but still has Hillary up by 2 in AZ.

I doubt AZ will go blue in the end but she seems to be making progress.

We could see movement happen in either direction.  The range of possible outcomes is narrowing, however.  IN, MO, TX, SC, and MS were on the radar two months ago, but they've since fallen off.  I think GA may still be in the cards, but we haven't had post-debate (non-junk) polling.

Right now Clinton's ceiling is 2012 + NC, AZ, NE2, GA

I dare say Clinton's floor is the 272.  Though I can see 272-CO-PA-MI happening in an utter disaster scenario.  The window on that is closing rapidly, and might be closed permanently after the second debate.

The 538 model is of dubious use as long as it's using the junk Google surveys.  I'd like to see Nate defend them in an article.

[rafta_rafta]

Emerson has a Republican bias because they only call landlines but still has Hillary up by 2 in AZ.

I doubt AZ will go blue in the end but she seems to be making progress.

AZ and GA are not going to go blue. i think her resources are better spent in shoring up the firewall and trying to flip Ohio.

[AGA]

Clinton is now winning Arizona in the now-cast.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Emerson has a Republican bias because they only call landlines but still has Hillary up by 2 in AZ.

I doubt AZ will go blue in the end but she seems to be making progress.

AZ and GA are not going to go blue. i think her resources are better spent in shoring up the firewall and trying to flip Ohio.

GA had an RCP average of Trump +4  during Clinton's September disaster, when national polling was even, or Trump was slightly ahead.  Since then there have been NO polls out of Georgia.  Don't write the state off until we get reliable post-debate polling.  If GA is R+4 and it's a 5-point race nationally, Clinton should take it, or at least come close.

[emailking]

The 538 model is of dubious use as long as it's using the junk Google surveys.  I'd like to see Nate defend them in an article.

If the surveys aren't faked and if they provide numbers that are better than what you would obtain from random chance (they do), then it has use for a statistical model if given a proper weighting. This is true even if they are very inaccurate. He doesn't have to defend using them because it's just statistics. You could quibble with him about the weighting.

[BoAtlantis]

Emerson has a Republican bias because they only call landlines but still has Hillary up by 2 in AZ.

I doubt AZ will go blue in the end but she seems to be making progress.

We could see movement happen in either direction.  The range of possible outcomes is narrowing, however.  IN, MO, TX, SC, and MS were on the radar two months ago, but they've since fallen off.  I think GA may still be in the cards, but we haven't had post-debate (non-junk) polling.

Right now Clinton's ceiling is 2012 + NC, AZ, NE2, GA

I dare say Clinton's floor is the 272.  Though I can see 272-CO-PA-MI happening in an utter disaster scenario.  The window on that is closing rapidly, and might be closed permanently after the second debate.

The 538 model is of dubious use as long as it's using the junk Google surveys.  I'd like to see Nate defend them in an article.

Google Survey was actually very good in 2012 and got Obama's margin over Romney correctly in popular vote. Their strength is that they use a huge number of samples.

Their only problem is that their state to state results aren't reliable.

Their NC 9/27 - 10/3 survey shows +11 Trump.
Their FL 9/27 - 10/3 survey shows +8 Trump.
Their PA 9/27 - 10/3 survey shows a tie.
Their GA 9/27 - 10/3 survey shows +15 Trump.
Their ME 9/27 - 10/3 survey shows +28 Hillary.
Their KS 9/27 - 10/3 survey shows +8 Hillary.

[BoAtlantis]

Emerson has a Republican bias because they only call landlines but still has Hillary up by 2 in AZ.

I doubt AZ will go blue in the end but she seems to be making progress.

AZ and GA are not going to go blue. i think her resources are better spent in shoring up the firewall and trying to flip Ohio.

Just like how Republicans think PA is in play every four years.

AZ is just a noise. It's Democrat's wet dream though I'd love to be proven wrong.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

The 538 model is of dubious use as long as it's using the junk Google surveys.  I'd like to see Nate defend them in an article.

If the surveys aren't faked and if they provide numbers that are better than what you would obtain from random chance (they do), then it has use for a statistical model if given a proper weighting. This is true even if they are very inaccurate. He doesn't have to defend using them because it's just statistics. You could quibble with him about the weighting.

The data quality is poor, the likely voter screening is poor (it's self-reporting, not human-guided or at all scientific), and it's based on IP-location, which is deeply flawed.  Trump is up 8 points in Florida and Clinton is up 9 in Missouri?  Clinton up 29 in Maine and 3 in Indiana?  And only 1 nationally?  Meanwhile Clinton's +9 in Kansas is completely accounted for by the fact that IP geolocation defaults to the geographic center of the United States if no precise location can be found.

There's no justification for including this garbage.  At least not that I can see.  If Nate wants to defend it, I'm all ears.

[ApatheticAustrian]

i don't think AZ and GA are really possible this cycle but i think the part of the electorate leaning more to the DEMs is growing there stronger than the population of the republican parts of PA....could be wrong

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Emerson has a Republican bias because they only call landlines but still has Hillary up by 2 in AZ.

I doubt AZ will go blue in the end but she seems to be making progress.

AZ and GA are not going to go blue. i think her resources are better spent in shoring up the firewall and trying to flip Ohio.

Just like how Republicans think PA is in play every four years.

AZ is just a noise. It's Democrat's wet dream though I'd love to be proven wrong.

AZ and GA went for Bill Clinton.  IN went for Obama.  These things aren't set in stone.

The Sunbelt will be unusually good for Hillary this year, offset by the Rust Belt being unusually bad.  This isn't a trend, just issues specific to this election cycle.  Where the new economy thrives, Hillary will do well.  Where the old economy sputters, Trump will find traction.  This is why Trump is doing relatively well in Ohio and Iowa, and Clinton is doing relatively well in Arizona and Georgia.

It's not a trend, it's new economy vs old.

[emailking]

The 538 model is of dubious use as long as it's using the junk Google surveys.  I'd like to see Nate defend them in an article.

If the surveys aren't faked and if they provide numbers that are better than what you would obtain from random chance (they do), then it has use for a statistical model if given a proper weighting. This is true even if they are very inaccurate. He doesn't have to defend using them because it's just statistics. You could quibble with him about the weighting.

The data quality is poor, the likely voter screening is poor (it's self-reporting, not human-guided or at all scientific), and it's based on IP-location, which is deeply flawed.  Trump is up 8 points in Florida and Clinton is up 9 in Missouri?  Clinton up 29 in Maine and 3 in Indiana?  And only 1 nationally?  Meanwhile Clinton's +9 in Kansas is completely accounted for by the fact that IP geolocation defaults to the geographic center of the United States if no precise location can be found.

There's no justification for including this garbage.  At least not that I can see.  If Nate wants to defend it, I'm all ears.

It doesn't matter if they're inaccurate. You could have a series of polls that are off by an average of 30 points, but if you accumulate enough of them, you would know exactly where the race stands. I understand the concept may be unpalatable, but it is true.

You raise what you see as apparent contradictions as evidence the surveys have no value. For example Trump is up 8 points in Florida and Clinton is up 9 in Missouri. It doesn't matter if one or both are wrong or even very wrong. What that's telling you is that it is more likely that the current polling average is underestimating Trump in FL than that it is overestimating him. Likewise, it indicates it's more likely the current polling average is underestimating Clinton in MO that that is is overestimating her. If it's not a good survey, then the amount by which you would conclude your likelihoods may be off is perhaps not much, but they still should move with the new evidence.

"Garbage" is your word. They're only garbage if they're faked or give you no information better than random chance. These are way better than random chance. So they improve the model by including them. They need to be weighted relative to their accuracy, but throwing them out entirely is throwing out valid data that can improve the model.

[BoAtlantis]

The 538 model is of dubious use as long as it's using the junk Google surveys.  I'd like to see Nate defend them in an article.

If the surveys aren't faked and if they provide numbers that are better than what you would obtain from random chance (they do), then it has use for a statistical model if given a proper weighting. This is true even if they are very inaccurate. He doesn't have to defend using them because it's just statistics. You could quibble with him about the weighting.

The data quality is poor, the likely voter screening is poor (it's self-reporting, not human-guided or at all scientific), and it's based on IP-location, which is deeply flawed.  Trump is up 8 points in Florida and Clinton is up 9 in Missouri?  Clinton up 29 in Maine and 3 in Indiana?  And only 1 nationally?  Meanwhile Clinton's +9 in Kansas is completely accounted for by the fact that IP geolocation defaults to the geographic center of the United States if no precise location can be found.

There's no justification for including this garbage.  At least not that I can see.  If Nate wants to defend it, I'm all ears.

He has addressed this before.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-a-50-state-poll-as-good-as-50-state-polls/

"Is a 500-person subsample of Colorado voters from a 20,000-person national poll the same thing as a 500-person poll that was dedicated to Colorado, specifically?

After thinking and researching my way through the problem, my answer is that these polls aren’t quite the same. The Colorado-specific poll is likely to provide a more reliable estimate of what’s going on in that particular state. And it deserves a higher weight in our model as a result."

"One potential source of error has to do with demographic weighting. Polls of all kinds engage in extensive demographic weighting because people aren’t equally likely to respond to polls Typically, for instance, white voters are more likely to respond to telephone polls than black voters. Pollsters attempt to counteract this by giving extra weight to the black voters they reach until the demographics of their poll matches that of Census data or other reliable sources."

"With online polls, the problem is that IP addresses aren’t 100 percent reliable — for instance, a website would think I’m in Connecticut right now because that’s where ESPN’s internet connection is based, even though I’m writing from the FiveThirtyEight office in New York City. "

"..........we’ll continue to use the state-by-state breakouts from Ipsos and other pollsters, but we will significantly lower the weight assigned to them in our polling averages. These polls will continue to have some influence around the margin — we don’t want to discard their data entirely — but state-specific polls will have more influence on the forecast. "

[BoAtlantis]

Emerson has a Republican bias because they only call landlines but still has Hillary up by 2 in AZ.

I doubt AZ will go blue in the end but she seems to be making progress.

AZ and GA are not going to go blue. i think her resources are better spent in shoring up the firewall and trying to flip Ohio.

Just like how Republicans think PA is in play every four years.

AZ is just a noise. It's Democrat's wet dream though I'd love to be proven wrong.

AZ and GA went for Bill Clinton.  IN went for Obama.  These things aren't set in stone.

The Sunbelt will be unusually good for Hillary this year, offset by the Rust Belt being unusually bad.  This isn't a trend, just issues specific to this election cycle.  Where the new economy thrives, Hillary will do well.  Where the old economy sputters, Trump will find traction.  This is why Trump is doing relatively well in Ohio and Iowa, and Clinton is doing relatively well in Arizona and Georgia.

It's not a trend, it's new economy vs old.

I thought AZ was only in play for Clinton because of Perot.

I hope the poll is up to something but until I see another poll, I doubt she is truly ahead.

[ApatheticAustrian]

even if she is not ahead, if that holds in more polls, trump's campaign MUST spend even more money and time there.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

https://twitter.com/antbejarano/status/783799109576630273

KERRY DID NOT LOSE PENNSYLVANIA YOU F[INKS]ING MORON.

Why do people still defend this dumbass?

[Mallow]

Sorry, that page doesn't exist.

[Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it.]

Seems like he's balding to a point where he also loses brain cells.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Sorry, that page doesn't exist.

Fixed

[Devout Centrist]

It was a simple mistake. I pointed it out on their Facebook page and it was promptly fixed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the Giants win the World Series, though, then Nate is a confirmed hack fraud.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Iowa has flipped to blue on polls-only. 

[Ebsy]

Arizona is blue on the nowcast.

[Slander and/or Libel]

BLUE ARIZONA ON NOWCAST!!
BLUE ARIZONA ON NOWCAST!!
BLUE ARIZONA ON NOWCAST!!
BLUE ARIZONA ON NOWCAST!!
BLUE ARIZONA ON NOWCAST!!
BLUE ARIZONA ON NOWCAST!!

OMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGG

Ok, I'm gonna calm my bits now.

Clinton is now winning Arizona in the now-cast.

Arizona is blue on the nowcast.

It's as though people don't read the rest of the thread.

[elcorazon]

I just noticed Arizona is now blue on the nowcast!!!!