538 Model Megathread

[elcorazon]

Alaska is at 30% on Polls Only - higher than GA

[Gass3268]

Alaska is at 30% on Polls Only - higher than GA

Probably because no one has polled GA since Hillary has had her comeback.

[Figueira]

Alaska is at 30% on Polls Only - higher than GA

Probably because no one has polled GA since Hillary has had her comeback.

No, the states should move around based on national polls. Alaska is light pink due to its high uncertainty; the actual predicted margin is still more Republican than Georgia.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Alaska is at 30% on Polls Only - higher than GA

Probably because no one has polled GA since Hillary has had her comeback.

I think Georgia is going to be tough for Hillary because it is so inelastic.  But, I'm not nearly as optimistic about somewhere like Arizona, Alaska, or even Montana.

[Gass3268]

Alaska is at 30% on Polls Only - higher than GA

Probably because no one has polled GA since Hillary has had her comeback.

No, the states should move around based on national polls. Alaska is light pink due to its high uncertainty; the actual predicted margin is still more Republican than Georgia.

They move because of the national polls, but their partisan order (think of that snake they have) are based on state polls.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Alaska is at 30% on Polls Only - higher than GA

Probably because no one has polled GA since Hillary has had her comeback.

No, the states should move around based on national polls. Alaska is light pink due to its high uncertainty; the actual predicted margin is still more Republican than Georgia.

They move because of the national polls, but their partisan order (think of that snake they have) are based on state polls.

And there have been several recent AK polls that showed it close. 

[dspNY]

That NBC/WSJ poll is going to do some real cool things to the models

[Gass3268]

That NBC/WSJ poll is going to do some real cool things to the models

I keep refreshing it, lol!

[RJEvans]

That NBC/WSJ poll is going to do some real cool things to the models

It's a small sample size so I'm not sure it will change too much.

[adrac]

It's in; only a one or two percentage point change.

Edit: One thing to note: NE-02 has gone over the line.

[heatcharger]

Darn. ME-02 didn't flip either, but it's close.

[Gass3268]

Damn, Florida is over 70% in the polls-only.

[Nyvin]

Trump is a hair away from being in the teens in the Polls Plus forecast!

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

The Now-cast has one result (Clinton with 358 EV) now surpassing a 2% probability.  As Election Day draws nearer, certain "spikes" in the probability histogram will get taller in all three models.

[Wiz in Wis]

Clinton at her highest point ever in Polls-plus.

[Angel of Death]

And she is still hardly doing better in the Electoral College than Obama in 2012, much less 2008.

[adrac]

And she is still hardly doing better in the Electoral College than Obama in 2012, much less 2008.

I suspect that will change if we get some state polls this week.

[IceSpear]

Didn't Nate think Rhode Island could be a battleground state based off a single shoddy Emerson poll? lol

It's funny how despite how "complex and advanced" his model is that it can fall prey to the most obvious screw up in the book: taking a single poll seriously when there's no corroboration. Doubly so if the poll is from a shoddy firm. Triply so if the poll is completely out of line with what you'd expect.

[elcorazon]

Didn't Nate think Rhode Island could be a battleground state based off a single shoddy Emerson poll? lol

It's funny how despite how "complex and advanced" his model is that it can fall prey to the most obvious screw up in the book: taking a single poll seriously when there's no corroboration. Doubly so if the poll is from a shoddy firm. Triply so if the poll is completely out of line with what you'd expect.

It's all about probability. If you have a small number of polls, it is true that they, likely, get too much weight. More polls improves the accuracy of the model. As people discussed above, even a state like Alaska, which does have some polls, gives a larger chance of an upset because we can't "know" what's going to happen as well as we might in Georgia, even if Georgia, in all likelihood should be closer than Alaska (or anyway should be to the left of Alaska), because Alaska has more uncertainty, there is statistically a greater chance it could swing in an election about this close...similarly based on a tight race and a close poll, there was a decent chance RI could have been a surprising result. It makes sense to me, anyway.

And it should be noted one national poll won't swing the numbers that much... there needs to be corroboration as this could be an outlier, an odd moment in time, on the edge of the margin of error, etc... not to mention as Trump's chances drop, it is harder for the raw % change to be as great (moving from 22% to 20% is a pretty large move while going from 48% to 46% is a pretty small move).

[Nym90]

He never thought Rhode Island was a swing state. That one poll showing Clinton up by only 3 (with no other polls showing otherwise) did cause Trump to have over a 10 percent chance of winning Rhode Island for a while, which while seemingly ridiculous given past results there, is probably about right given a lack of any other evidence.

That same pollster, Emerson, now has Clinton up by 20 in their latest poll, thereby "fixing" the Rhode Island odds.

[IceSpear]

Didn't Nate think Rhode Island could be a battleground state based off a single shoddy Emerson poll? lol

It's funny how despite how "complex and advanced" his model is that it can fall prey to the most obvious screw up in the book: taking a single poll seriously when there's no corroboration. Doubly so if the poll is from a shoddy firm. Triply so if the poll is completely out of line with what you'd expect.

It's all about probability. If you have a small number of polls, it is true that they, likely, get too much weight. More polls improves the accuracy of the model. As people discussed above, even a state like Alaska, which does have some polls, gives a larger chance of an upset because we can't "know" what's going to happen as well as we might in Georgia, even if Georgia, in all likelihood should be closer than Alaska (or anyway should be to the left of Alaska), because Alaska has more uncertainty, there is statistically a greater chance it could swing in an election about this close...similarly based on a tight race and a close poll, there was a decent chance RI could have been a surprising result. It makes sense to me, anyway.

And it should be noted one national poll won't swing the numbers that much... there needs to be corroboration as this could be an outlier, an odd moment in time, on the edge of the margin of error, etc... not to mention as Trump's chances drop, it is harder for the raw % change to be as great (moving from 22% to 20% is a pretty large move while going from 48% to 46% is a pretty small move).

There's a pretty big difference though between a "small number of polls" and a single shoddy poll. I could see placing some weight on the former, but not the latter.

[IceSpear]

He never thought Rhode Island was a swing state. That one poll showing Clinton up by only 3 (with no other polls showing otherwise) did cause Trump to have over a 10 percent chance of winning Rhode Island for a while, which while seemingly ridiculous given past results there, is probably about right given a lack of any other evidence.

That same pollster, Emerson, now has Clinton up by 20 in their latest poll, thereby "fixing" the Rhode Island odds.

It was 25% on the now-cast. lmao. That's completely embarrassing.

[Alcon]

^ You do realize stuff like that is based on the past relationship between poll results (including apparent outlier polls) and actual results?  He's not just making it up.  You can have a serious conversation about how to handle uncertainty, and how to weight new data vs. fundamental data, but it's kind of lame to criticize a counterintuitive model outcome without providing any real criticism of the underlying assumptions or methodology.

[IceSpear]

^ You do realize stuff like that is based on the past relationship between poll results (including apparent outlier polls) and actual results?  He's not just making it up.  You can have a serious conversation about how to handle uncertainty, and how to weight new data vs. fundamental data, but it's kind of lame to criticize a counterintuitive model outcome without providing any real criticism of the underlying assumptions or methodology.

This reminds me of the people who argued "Nate wasn't wrong about Michigan...Sanders winning was just the 0.01% event actually occuring!" In other words, Nate and his model can never be wrong under any circumstances. How convenient.

As for the methodology, you don't need a Ph.D. in statistics or political science to realize that giving Donald Trump a 25% chance of winning the state of Rhode Island is absurd. Common sense certainly prevailed over all those complex models that showed a Romney landslide.

[LLR]

Clinton's currently at her best ever in most, if not all, swing states