General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOn the strength of new polling Joe ticks up to 77% at 538
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/Amishman
(5,556 posts)One of the interviews Nate gave mentioned that his model includes time until election as a moderating measure. A 10% lead six weeks out raises win probability much less than the same six days out.
Claustrum
(4,845 posts)due to the fact that most presidential race tightens as it gets closer to election day. I think Nate said that if the model is only based on polling, Biden would have had 90% of winning while the chance at the time was around 70%.
Amishman
(5,556 posts)The model would be behaving the same way if the polls were switched.
I'm a huge nerd and data geek, I have a very favorable view of Silver's methodology.
Claustrum
(4,845 posts)He wasn't wrong in 2016. It is just that people took 70% chance of winning as if Hillary was a sure win. But it wasn't. If lottery has a 1-in-3 chance of winning, I would buy it in a heart beat. But real lottery chance is 1-in-a million.
When people believe that Trump had no chance lands more toward their emotion or their belief that Trump's actions and words are so bad that no one would vote for him. Of course, I would prefer to be on the 2-in-3 chance side, but that doesn't mean I would be winning for sure.
Thekaspervote
(32,757 posts)Demsrule86
(68,555 posts)BComplex
(8,049 posts)He just doesn't have the votes here.
Thekaspervote
(32,757 posts)BComplex
(8,049 posts)and when that happens, republicans lose. Plus, there are a few people in my very red area that are making noises like they're thinking Biden might not be so bad after all.