Because of the incredibly high stakes of the election, I will differ from Paul in saying that a 1-in-7 and 1-in-4 shot of Trump winning actually are meaningfully different. Yet only one of us can be "right" I guess, so note that 538 has moved 9pts toward us over the past 2 weeks.
It shows that both (a) our predictions of a stabler race than the average elec and (b) a rosier "fundamentals" prediction for Biden — both which drew a LOT of fire from Nate earlier in the cycle — have so far been the better forecast. Emphasis on "so far!"
Yes. If Nate's 50% uncertainty intervals from Aug were so wide that they contained the outcomes for all 50 states—IE 100% coverage—then that would suggest (not "prove") that the tails were too fat and that his forecast had too much uncertainty. We'll see.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with G. Elliott Morris

G. Elliott Morris 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! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @gelliottmorris

21 Sep
Some more numbers on the Senate's rural bias:

If all Senate seats were up at the same time and we assume D pres states go D down-ballot, Dems would have to win a national landslide of ~19 points to control a supermajority. Reps would just need to win by just 2(!) for 67 seats.
If you order the states by their partisan leans, the 67th seat for Democrats falls somewhere between Mississippi (R+19) and Missouri (also R+19), whereas the 67th seat for Republicans is between Nevada (D+1) and VA (D+2).
The thing about the stupid "We're a republic, not a democracy!" comments is that republics are supposed to have indirect **representation** for voters — and under no reasonable national parameterization can you call what the Senate is doing today "representation."
Read 5 tweets
20 Sep
SCOTUS control is determined by:

(A) A president where Rs can lose the pop vote by six points & still win the electoral college


(B) A Senate under nearly permanent GOP control except in the biggest of national landslides for Ds

Call it like it is: tyranny of the minority
A republic where one party can get 47% of the two-party vote and control two and a half branches of government is no republic at all
Sorry, but statehood for DC + Puerto Rico is not the fix. That’s like putting a bandaid on after getting shot in the leg with a 12-gauge. The only real solution is to redesign America’s electoral institutions from the bottom up. (Frankly I don’t see that happening any time soon.)
Read 5 tweets
16 Sep
Here's my initial answer to the question of why Trump is losing so much ground with non-college whites:

The upshot is that "the president still harps on racial issues, *but voters are less racist and swayed less by sexism than in 2016*"

Short thread:…
I first took 318k interviews from UCLA + Democracy Fund's "Nationscape" poll to measure average levels of racism and sexism over time. Those scales avg Qs like whether voters think slavery still harms black Americans & whether there's racism against whites into a single measure.
I then compared how racism & sexism correlated to support for Trump in 2016 with how they correlate in 2020. It turns out that racism is MORE predictive of support for Trump now — IE that voters are more polarized by racial attitudes — even though RACE itself is less predictive.
Read 9 tweets
15 Sep
My avg of live phone polls over the past month has Biden performing about ~10pts better (on margin) among non-college whites than Clinton did. Online data (YouGov & UCLA Nationscape) are similar.

This shift impacts EC outcomes much more than marginal differences w/ BIPOC voters.
(NB: This is still true, though the miscalibration in coverage is less egregious, in Florida where we are seeing some real change among Latinos.)
Given these huge shifts among non-college whites (who make up ~40% of the 2020 VEP!), one thing that keeps bugging me is how some Beltway pundit types are tracking Biden's gains/losses relative to June instead of Nov 2016. Their swing to Biden alone nearly decides the election.
Read 9 tweets
7 Sep
About right
I'm not sure how much an "improving" economy will help Trump. For one thing, the most predictive measurement of growth in the past has been annual change in a variety of indicators, which is almost certain to still be negative in Nov. For another, this:…
There's also a poll sci lit Q here. We have observed almost 0 correlation between Trump's approval ratings and readings of economic growth AND consumer sentiment over the past 4 years. The hypothesis that bad economy = bad for the president might not work out this time.
Read 7 tweets
30 Aug
This is important context for people sharing the recent decline in support for Black Lives Matter or drawing inferences from Kenosha:

“Today, 43 percent say the country will become less safe if Trump is reelected. Just 32 percent say it will get safer.”…
If voters prefer Biden on safety, I’m not sure how the unrest in Wisconsin is supposed to be good for Trump. The “law and order!” messaging has been a flop all summer.
Per usual, the best strategy for Biden (and really any candidate who is up by 9 points) is probably to lay low and not doing anything the media can make a controversy out of
Read 5 tweets

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/month or $30/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!

Follow Us on Twitter!