First up, the general election forecast. This is basically a blended model of my lean-Trump and lean-Biden undecided models, with weight to the lean-Biden because there's evidence to suggest the undecideds - while fewer - will break D
Notably, in this forecast, Biden relatively easily wins the major swing states.
The most contentious states are Iowa, Ohio, Texas, and Georgia with Biden narrowly winning Iowa and Georgia and narrowly losing Iowa and Texas.
Remember, these are just probabilities, not concrete
Put another way, my forecast comes out like this.
I wouldn't be shocked if Trump held Iowa and Georgia, nor if Biden took Ohio and Texas. Beyond that, a close election in NC, PA, or FL? Not really seeing it being closer than 2-3 pts as of now
1/2
My forecast differs from @FiveThirtyEight "projected vote share" by more than 1% in the following areas, my forecast listed first:
Trump MI (44.4 vs 45.5)
Biden WI (51.5 vs 52.9)
Biden OH (48.1 vs 49.6)
Biden AZ (51.9 vs 50.8)
Trump AZ (45.4 vs 47.9)
Trump FL (46.5 vs 47.7)
2/2
Trump NC (47.2 vs 48.5)
Biden NH (55.5 vs 54.3)
Trump NH (43.0 vs 44.8)
Biden ME (56.9 vs 55.4)
Trump ME (40.4 vs 43.1)
Trump GA (47.4 vs 50)
Trump TX (49.74 vs 51.1)
Biden NV (55.5 vs 52.7)
Trump NV (42.0 vs 45.8)
They're more bullish on Trump in 9 states, on Biden in 2.
Here are my updated Senate probabilities.
A few discrepancies from 538 (my % first)
AZ: 85%D vs 78%
MN: 87%D vs 93%
ME: 70%D vs 62%
GA: 39%D vs 26%
GA-S: 36%D vs 29%
AK: 34%D vs 22%
SC: 36%D vs 23%
KY: 13% D vs 4%
MT: 41%D vs 31%
I have D control Senate at ~87%, compared to 69% for @FiveThirtyEight.
Notably, they have a very wide distribution of outcomes.
I have the most common outcome as 51 or 52 Dem seats at ~20%, followed by 53 at 17% and 50 at 13%.
Their most common outcome of 51D is just 14%
Their model suggests there's a 20% chance that the Senate DOESN'T fall within R+2 to D+5
I have that as a 4% chance. That's big.
If I were a betting man, I'd take them up on their probability of 51 and 52 Dem seats (14% and 12.6%, respectively) at roughly +600 and +700 odds
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Who's ready for an election thread and a (statistically literate) poll analysis & update?
There's an OBSESSION with "what the polls missed" in 2016. If you follow me, you'd know: the polls weren't wrong - people just read them wrong.
2/x
That's part of why @FiveThirtyEight's statistically invalid analysis of
"poll margin - election margin = poll error"
Is so damaging. Not only is it logically and statistically invalid, it leads them/the public to believe the POLLS were wrong when that's likely not true.
3/x
In 2016, Hillary had a decent lead, IF YOU ONLY LOOKED AT MARGIN
But you'll note - this is important -IN NO SWING STATE DID SHE POLL ABOVE 47%
Compare that to 2020
Biden is polling at ABOVE 49% in MI, PA, WI, NH, MN, ME, FL, NC, NV (and above 50% in the first 6 of those)
1/x The polls weren't wrong, you just read them wrong.
The spread in a poll matters some. But a 50-47 lead (+3) is FAR MORE ROBUST than a 46-40 lead (+6)
People see a poll avg at 46-40, and when the result is 47-49, they say "pOlL wAS WrONg"
From +6 to -2?!? Off by 8!!!
Nope.
2/x
If the polls were "off" by 3 or 4 but the result of the election didn't swing because of it, no one would care, except pollsters. We wouldn't be talking about it.
Here's the most important question: what do polls measure?
3/x
This seems like a silly question, but think about it. What do polls measure?
Polls measure preference and plans.
What do polls not measure?
How/if undecided voters will vote.
It seems that people are criticizing polling for not measuring things it doesn't attempt to.