I was going to make a blog or video about this, but I've decided to just make it a twitter thread (b/c lazy). This map is my best guess as to what is going to happen. The reasoning behind it is in the rest of this thread.
Generally polling for the presidency is pretty accurate. 2016 saw better than average national polls and worse than average state polls and those state errors clustered in swing states causing a large upset. The fact that the national polls were better suggests that...
...a significant proportion of the error in state polls was not due to "Shy trump voters", as that would distort national polls as well. Many pollsters plausibly argue that they under-estimated the number of white low-education voters last time and have adjusted for that...
...in their current weighting system. This gives us good reason to think that the polls will be somewhat more accurate this time compared to 2016. There is also a larger enthusiasm gap favoring Biden than there was Clinton (who, remember, won the popular vote). This gives us...
...some reason to think that there will be more surprise Biden voters than there were surprise Clinton voters. For Trump to win this time, you'd need to increase the state level errors by 40% relative to last time, or shift every poll by six points. Thus, to think that...
...Trump will win we need justification for the view that the polls are worse than last time. As I've said, I think we have justification for the opposite view.

Polls suggest Biden is winning among those who already voted by 39 points while trump is winning among...
...those who will vote on election day by 37 points. If, as is predicted, roughly 150 million people vote then early voters will account for roughly 2/3 of voters meaning trump has to win election day voters by twice the margin that Biden won early voters to break even. The...
...above polling suggests this will not happen. In terms of actual registration of voters who voted early, in the swing states this election looks like an outlier favoring democrats. Many people are trying to predict election outcomes w/target smarts predicted early vote count...
...TS tells people not to do this for good reason, in 2016 there was hardly any relation between how republican they thought the early voting of swing states was with how republican the final vote was. Their modeled data should not be used to make forecasts. That being said...
...in FL the registration based early voting looks better for Trump now than in 2016, and in general we'd expect it to look worse even given the same outcome become more dem votes will have shifted to early votes due to covid fears, so I think Trump will win FL. In GA,
...polling aggregates are being distorted by historically inaccurate polls, and most of the good and very recent polls show Trump winning, so I think he will win GA. Registration based early voting in NC is way better this time than in 2016, so I think Trump will win NC....
...all of these races are close according to the polls, and so while my predictions contradict what 538 type forecasters are predicting they don't require abnormally large polling errors to occur. Other than FL, GA, and NC, my predictions are inline with what more forecasts...
...say and are just based on the assumption that a huge polling error wont occur. I think this is what the data says will most likely happen, but there is a ton of uncertainty in this prediction, and if the data is going to be massively contradicted by reality then, well, I...
...obviously wont be able to see that by looking at the data. But I hope that is what happens. We'll see shortly, but I hope I am wrong and Trump wins re-election.
Also: some people think stuff like incumbent advantage or people saying their lives are going well favors trump, but I'm not convinced those things are strong predictors beyond what is already predicting by direct polling and early voting.
This map contains at least two errors (b/c tired): Iowa should go to Trump and NV should go to Biden. They are each worth 6 votes so this doesn't change the outcome.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Sean Last

Sean Last 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!

PDF

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 @Sean__Last

22 Oct
Re-reading through academic work arguing against genetic models of racial IQ differences is reminding me of why I came to distrust academics so strongly. The level of dishonesty and incompetence really is astounding. This shouldn't really even be called a "debate"...
...This is just a random example but imagine being as dishonest as Nisbett and denying a within family correlation between brain size and IQ by only telling your readers about Schoemenn's study w/ 72 people and ignoring the contrary literature w/1000s despite knowing it exists..
Another example: Nisbett, Harden, and Turkhimer got around dealing with the racial gap not closing by literally just denying that the racial gap had been measured in the last 14 years. Just insane.

From the outside this kinda looks like a serious...
Read 5 tweets
14 Oct
The finding that environmental variance in some traits is explained only by non-shared environments, and not at all by shared environments, is, while true, very confusing given that environments all presumably impact the same factors in the brain whether they are shared or not...
...and surely the brain doesn't "care" whether certain neurons were impacted by a shared or unshared environment, and"shared" / "unshared" seems like such an artificial distinctions it seems bizarre that they would map on so well to real vs non real environmental effects. Of...
...course, this all has an explanation, eg non-shared environments systematically impact different brain regions, but I don't know what it is in any detail, and any such explanation seems to require an explanation of its own. (Obviously, I'm not talking about traits where...
Read 4 tweets
21 Jun
(1) Self report measures of personality generally fail tests of measurement bias for age and sex group comparisons. This study should not accepted without evidence demonstrating a lack of test bias for race. Many people pretend to care about test...

journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.11…
(2) bias and other methodological concerns when discussing IQ, but such concerns are largely fraudulent attempts to avoid uncomfortable truths by people who don't really care about psychometrics at all.

Also, general personality traits do not perfectly correspond to...
(3) any of the traits Kaufman mentioned. Non self-report data on crime and impulsivity, and even self report data specifically on sexual and work behavior, affirm all the differences Kaufman is pretending this paper refuted.

When called out on his bullshit...
Read 4 tweets
26 May
How BS spreads, a case study:

-@JamesLingford cites Devlin et al as showing that the heritability of IQ is less than 60%

- Fails to note that this analysis is heavily based on children and the heritability of IQ increases with age...

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
- Devlin et al claim pre-natal influences bias twin studies of IQ

-Lingford neglects to mention that this has since been falsified by researching showing that similarity in the MZ pre-natal environment doesn't increase similarity in IQ...

link.springer.com/content/pdf/10…
-Kevin Bird shows up to cite old research with an inferior sample size as showing that there is a pre-natal bias that explained 14% and 10% of the variance in IQ similar to the estimates of Devlin

-Bird doesn't mention these estimates were for specific abilities and...
Read 4 tweets
19 May
(1/9) @nathancofnas: Obviously, the relevant question is whether Jews are marrying people at random with respect to whether their mates are Jewish. We agree that the intermarriage rates of Jews cannot be taken to prove that they are ethnocentric because Jews may have...
(2/9) non-ethnic reasons for preferring to marry fellow Jews. This is one of the reasons for which I regard marriage rates as an inferior form of evidence.

What I'm not sure you have admitted is that you obviously cannot compare the intermarriage rates across groups to...
(3/9) establish a rank order of ethnocentrism because these groups differ in size and because, as you have said, reasons other than ethnocentrism can affect intermarriage rates.
Read 9 tweets
7 May
Watching the video, a few things seem obvious.

First, there is no obvious evidence of a racial motivation. This looks like a typical example of bad reasoning that I've written about before as seen below.

#JusticeForAhmaud

Video:
Second, there was no "hunting down" of anyone. The truck is stationary and the black fellow jogs up to it.

Third, you can't tell what the black fellow was doing after he went around the truck and approached the shooter directly prior to the first shot. It is not unreasonable...
to conclude that this was probably murder, but it is always worth noting uncertainty.

Assuming this was murder, it is notable that this kind of public outrage relatively rarely follows a black-on-white murder even though they are more common.
Read 4 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!