538 Model Megathread

[OneJ]

He's now speaking on ABC.

[GeorgiaModerate]

538 addresses the elephant in the casino.

This makes me picture an elephant pulling a slot machine arm with its trunk!

[Angel of Death]

538 addresses the elephant in the casino.

This makes me picture an elephant pulling a slot machine arm with its trunk!

That could have been a perfect political cartoon to illustrate what the GOP actually did.

[IceSpear]

Nate is an awful spot here. If Hillary wins, he'll look bad because he was so bullish on Trump relative to the other forecasters. But even if Trump wins he'll get no credit, since he still has Hillary as a (very) modest favorite.

Hopefully Tuesday will spell the end of the discredited fraud's career.

[jaichind]

Nate is an awful spot here. If Hillary wins, he'll look bad because he was so bullish on Trump relative to the other forecasters. But even if Trump wins he'll get no credit, since he still has Hillary as a (very) modest favorite.

Hopefully Tuesday will spell the end of the discredited fraud's career.

Well, if Clinton wins narrowly with PV spread of around 1%-2% then Nate would look pretty good.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Nate is an awful spot here. If Hillary wins, he'll look bad because he was so bullish on Trump relative to the other forecasters. But even if Trump wins he'll get no credit, since he still has Hillary as a (very) modest favorite.

Hopefully Tuesday will spell the end of the discredited fraud's career.

If it will be Clinton +2-3 nationally (HuffPo Clinton +5) and if it will be close/Trump in FL and NC some other states, when other models say, it won't (Upshot  has C+3.5 for instance, 1-2% right of MI and NH ) his model might be considered as a winner.

[Blackacre]

Nate wins if something crazy happens. If Trump wins, if Clinton gets a landslide, he'll come out stronger. If his model is really accurate and gets 51/51 again, he comes out of this stronger. But if HRC overperforms but a couple of points, winning by 4-6 instead of 2-3, hes not gonna look so hot.

[°Leprechaun]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-dont-ignore-the-polls-clinton-leads-but-its-a-close-race/?ex_cid=2016-forecast

It's a close race, but she could win "bigly" in the ec because of a number of tossups like FL.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

538 addresses the elephant in the casino.

This makes me picture an elephant pulling a slot machine arm with its trunk!

That could have been a perfect political cartoon to illustrate what the GOP actually did.

Moreso Russian Roulette, no?

[Likely Voter]

If you compare the 538 model to the other models, they all agree on almost every state. All agree on Clinton winning her 'firewall' states (MI, WI, PA, MN, NH, CO, VA). All agree Trump holds AZ and GA and all agree he picks up IA and OH. Almost all also agree on Trump winning ME2. So if those picks are off, 538 team can just point to polling errors and say how everyone got it wrong. 

However, where they are out on a limb is NV, NC and FL. They are the only ones saying Trump is ahead in those states. And this is where he Huffpo article comes into play because it is the 538 "trendline adjustment" that gives Trump the lead in those states. Even 538s own adjusted polling averages have Clinton ahead in those 3 states. So if Clinton wins, they can't say "it was the polling, everyone else got those wrong." If Trump wins all 3, Nate Silver will be deemed an uber genius who saw what no others could see.

But if Trump loses all 3, the 'secret sauce' of the 538 (aka the 'trendline adjustment') is going to get a lot of flack. You can see some walkback  in the article about Nevada, but again the other models are saying Trump will lose so they are alone, and can't just blame the polls (even though NV polls have sucked in the past).   

Of course by Tuesday morning the 538 model may magically see the roughly 2% trendline adjustment (in Trump's favor) go down or even reverse, and then their model will probably align with Upshot and others.

[PresidentSamTilden]

538 addresses the elephant in the casino.

This makes me picture an elephant pulling a slot machine arm with its trunk!

That could have been a perfect political cartoon to illustrate what the GOP actually did.

LOL true

[Erich Maria Remarque]

If you compare the 538 model to the other models, they all agree on almost every state. All agree on Clinton winning her 'firewall' states (MI, WI, PA, MN, NH, CO, VA). All agree Trump holds AZ and GA and all agree he picks up IA and OH. Almost all also agree on Trump winning ME2. So if those picks are off, 538 team can just point to polling errors and say how everyone got it wrong. 

However, where they are out on a limb is NV, NC and FL. They are the only ones saying Trump is ahead in those states. And this is where he Huffpo article comes into play because it is the 538 "trendline adjustment" that gives Trump the lead in those states. Even 538s own adjusted polling averages have Clinton ahead in those 3 states. So if Clinton wins, they can't say "it was the polling, everyone else got those wrong." If Trump wins all 3, Nate Silver will be deemed an uber genius who saw what no others could see.

But if Trump loses all 3, the 'secret sauce' of the 538 (aka the 'trendline adjustment') is going to get a lot of flack. You can see some walkback  in the article about Nevada, but again the other models are saying Trump will lose so they are alone, and can't just blame the polls (even though NV polls have sucked in the past).   

Of course by Tuesday morning the 538 model may magically see the roughly 2% trendline adjustment (in Trump's favor) go down or even reverse, and then their model will probably align with Upshot and others.

I think NC and FL would be enough to claim that 538's model was best. However, after the 2nd letter, 538 could claim that it changed the race, if Hillary end up winning all 3 by descent margins.

[PresidentSamTilden]

^ That's called an excuse, and people don't like those. If he misses FL and NC (or god forbid ohio or something), he's gonna take a hit from pissed off, victorious democrats. Justifiably or not.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Already. Sort of.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-did-comey-hurt-clintons-chances/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[BlueSwan]

Somehow, Nevada is magically in the Clinton column now. It is not entirely clear what caused this.

[Lachi]

538 rolling with transit strike=lower turnout bullsh**t:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-transit-strike-in-philly-could-lower-turnout-among-black-and-poor-voters/?ex_cid=2016-forecast

[rafta_rafta]

doesn't philly have like a million polling booths.

 The DNC should still arrange buses for voters

[BlueSwan]

doesn't philly have like a million polling booths.

 The DNC should still arrange buses for voters

The strike had ended. No more concerns there.

[BlueSwan]

Model just dropped to 63,6% - lowest in a long time - and Nevada is back in the Trump camp.

[Alcon]

538 rolling with transit strike=lower turnout bullsh**t:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-transit-strike-in-philly-could-lower-turnout-among-black-and-poor-voters/?ex_cid=2016-forecast

It seems like a lot of FiveThirtyEight's non-main writers are basically there to throw red meat clickbait to its reader base of white liberals.  The formula seems to be:

1. Find an issue that touches on some liberal value, such as disproportionate impacts on minorities, gun violence, whatever.

2. Use fairly obvious statistical evidence to show that something liberals like/dislike does, in fact, have an effect.  Don't necessarily spend a ton of time contextualizing how much impact it does have.

3. Don't actually get into the impact or implications much, so you don't have to address counterarguments.  Just keep to the article limited to doing (2) to accomplish (1).

It's also kind of funny how, in many articles, they'll put in a lot of caveats about how there might be other, missing data...but then on something like their "voter fraud barely exists" article, the entire article is premised on ignoring that possibility.

Anyway yeahhh not a fan

[RJEvans]

Model just dropped to 63,6% - lowest in a long time - and Nevada is back in the Trump camp.

Looks like IBD and the LA Times poll knocked it down 3%.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Model just dropped to 63,6% - lowest in a long time - and Nevada is back in the Trump camp.

Looks like IBD and the LA Times poll knocked it down 3%.

Selzer is well. Shows a good trends for Trump.

[rafta_rafta]

If trump wins, Nate Silver will get plaudits despite being wrong. If Hillary wins by a big margin, Silver will no longer have status as first among equals among predictive modelling sites

[afleitch]

I love these solid national polls are driving Clinton down in the model :/

[jaichind]

All 3 models now have NV for Clinton, FL NC and ME2 for Trump.  This matches my prediction exactly.