538 Model Megathread

[Figueira]

The polls-only model gives Clinton a higher chance of winning NE-02 than ME-02. Interesting, but probably due to the poll of ME-02 that had Trump up by one point.

It's because of that ridiculous Ipsos poll that had Clinton winning Nebraska. There has been barely any polling from Nebraska this year.

[Figueira]

ME-02 is now going for Trump on polls-only, while NE-02 is going for Clinton.

[Figueira]

Iowa flips to Trump on polls-only.

I noticed. I doubt this is a permanent development, though.

[Figueira]

How is red IA to the left of blue ME-02 on the path to 270 chart?

[Figueira]

So, if the election were held today, Rhode Island would be closer to the national average than New Missouri Iowa!

Uh, no? The nowcast has Trump 3 points ahead in Iowa, and Clinton 66 points ahead in Rhode Island, and 3 points ahead nationwide.

[Figueira]

So, if the election were held today, Rhode Island would be closer to the national average than New Missouri Iowa!

Uh, no? The nowcast has Trump 3 points ahead in Iowa, and Clinton 66 points ahead in Rhode Island, and 3 points ahead nationwide.

The nowcast has Clinton up 9 in RI.

Whoops, I was reading the wrong graph.

[Figueira]

Lots of weird stuff from the recent New England polls.

[Figueira]

I think the main issue is that Trump is such a weird candidate that we never know whether the RI polls for example are a result of polling error or actual high performance by Trump. Nobody said that those weird UT polls were just statistical noise.

[Figueira]

NH is now a comfortable Clinton win, but mostly due to that stupid Google poll.

[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.

[Figueira]

I haven't read through this thread, but it seems like the 538 model hasn't really been updated since pussygate, as it still has Utah at a 99.2% chance for Trump.

That's not 538's fault. It's just that there haven't been any Utah-specific polls from after the video was released.

[Figueira]

For me the biggest surprise on that map is West Virginia.

[Figueira]

It might take a while to calculate, but I think two-party vote percentage might be the best thing to look at.

[Figueira]

Come on, Arizona!

[Figueira]

NH now to the left of MN. Congrats TNV?

[Figueira]

It might take a while to calculate, but I think two-party vote percentage might be the best thing to look at.

I did exactly as you requested. Here is the two party swing map between 538's polls only model and 2012. Not too much of a difference, although the Great Lakes area looks much better now.

Interesting. Thanks.

[Figueira]

Clinton's odds are now lower than the Senate Democrats' odds.

[Figueira]

What is the uncertainty of the model, given the # of simulations they run?  That is, each time they enter new polls, they apparently run 10,000 simulations based on the latest #s, and that produces (among other things) an overall projected vote margin and win probability.  But let's say they then ran *another* 10,000 simulations with the same input #s but a different random seed?  How different would the results be?  Because if they'd be different, then in theory you could put in a favorable poll for one candidate and it would end up "helping" the other candidate, just because of simulation noise.  But I'm assuming that 10,000 is enough for the simulation noise to be small?

I've wondered the same thing. I suspect the noise should be small, although it would be noticeable if they actually reported the number of simulations instead of rounding it to the nearest 10.

[Figueira]

The new California poll caused North Carolina and Florida to switch places.

[Figueira]

He was never a psychic, but he's still the best poll aggregator.