Profile picture
, 7 tweets, 3 min read
My Authors
Read all threads
Offered as an illustration of the limits of "fundamentals"-based election models:

The "Time for Change model", as specified here, predicts that Trump will lose the popular vote by ~36 points (not a typo) based on that 2Q GDP print.

pollyvote.com/en/components/…
On the other hand, if you ground your model in Real Disposable Income like some others do (e.g. the "Bread and Peace" model) you may have Trump winning in an epic landslide. Possibly the same if you use 3Q GDP (forecasted to be +15% annualized) instead of 2Q.
It certainly helps to use a wider array of indicators over a longer time frame (that's what we do) but the notion that you can make a highly *precise* forecast from fundamentals alone in *this* economy just doesn't pass the smell test.
Looking at these "fundamentals" models (something I spent a ton of time in 2012) was really a seminal moment for me in learning about p-hacking and the replication crisis. It was amazing to me how poorly they performed on actual, not-known-in-advance data.
fivethirtyeight.com/features/model…
Of course, if you're constructing such a model *this year*, you'll choose variables in way that just so happens to come up with a reasonable-looking prediction (i.e. it has Trump losing, but not by 36 points). But that's no longer an economic model; it's just your personal prior.
Literally that's what people (e.g. The Economist's model) is doing. They're just "adjust[ing]" their "economic index" in arbitrary ways so that it doesn't produce a crazy-looking number for 2020. projects.economist.com/us-2020-foreca…
Maybe these adjustments are reasonable. But what you *can't* do is say none of the data is really salient to 2020, so much so that you have to make some ad-hoc, one-off adjustments, and *then* claim Biden is 99% to win the popular vote because the historical data proves it.
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh.

Keep Current with Nate Silver

Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @NateSilver538 see all

Profile picture
Nate Silver
@NateSilver538
I have a few thoughts on this and similar polls that ask people if they'll get vaccinated.

1. In the medium run, the limiting factor is likely to be access and availability to the vaccine.
That is to say, if we get to the point where **everyone who wants a vaccine can get one in reasonably short order**, then we can start thinking about how to persuade more people to be vaccinated. But getting to that first point may not be easy.
2. Headlines on polls like these can sometimes be misleading by treating "not sure" responses as "no". You'll have a poll result like e.g. 40% yes, 20% no, 40% "need to learn more", and the headline will frame it as "only 40% will get vaccinated!" when really it's 40-80%.
Read 8 tweets
Profile picture
Nate Silver
@NateSilver538
At the end of the day, it's only July, there are a lot of unprecedented events happening, polling is more accurate than its critics think but probably *not* as accurate as it was in say 2004-2012—and if we wind up in a photo finish, Trump likely wins b/c of the Electoral College.
So while Biden has a robust polling lead now, and a number of other things going for him, it's a little early to be all that confident about what is going to happen.
I think part of it, too, is the pandemic warps people's sense of time (it certainly warps mine). November feels weirdly soon if you don't have the usual milestones and rhythms to ground yourself. But in political time, the final 99 days of the campaign are often an eternity.
Read 3 tweets
Profile picture
Nate Silver
@NateSilver538
FWIW, here's a regression-based estimate of Biden's current standing in each state. This works by taking our state polling averages, and trying to figure out what differences there are from past elections based on regional or demographic variables (without overfitting the model).
As you can see, this matches polling data well. Then again, it's supposed to do so. In fact one limitation of the this technique is that if there are biases in the polling (say, they underestimate Trump's standing with a certain group) they'll also be reflected in your estimates.
This ^^ is also an issue for techniques like MRP (in fact, even more so, since MRP generally uses just one pollster's data). Still, it's fun to look at and does have *some* predictive accuracy. Among other things, clear that CO and VA are pretty solidly into blue territory now.
Read 4 tweets

Embed code for your website

×
Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!