Ed FiveThirtyEight GE Forecast

marplots said:
I can't suggest it because I have no way to gather such data and I don't have any hunches to replace the missing data.

Just to make a point though - would you be surprised if the map went even more blue than now, that Hillary picked up more states (on the same source's map) in the next couple of weeks?
Click to expand...

No we wouldn't be surprised as it's a very conservative map for her. We're not saying Trump is expected to win FL, OH, etc... for the purpose of a conservative map, we're granting him those wins. The ones that ARE granted to her, are, as far as we can tell, showing pretty solid leads for her. It's expected that she'll likely take more such as NC.
 
Last edited:
bonzombiekitty said:
No we wouldn't be surprised as it's a very conservative map for her. We're not saying Trump is expected to win FL, OH, etc... for the purpose of a conservative map, we're granting him those wins. The ones that ARE granted to her, are, as far as we can tell, showing pretty solid leads for her. It's expected that she'll likely take more such as NC.
Click to expand...

Tony Stark said:
Yep, exactly.
Click to expand...


Well, I was asking about this map as redrawn from the same source. And I want to know if the expectation is that this version will/could swing more Hillary in the next two weeks. Clearer? What say you?

ETA: And, we should also assume that whatever data they are using to draw the map changes - so it's not just some preference of the map maker, but represents some real change they capture. In other words, whatever bias they might have, that bias is stable and doesn't increase just because the election is closer.
 
Last edited:
marplots said:
Well, I was asking about this map as redrawn from the same source. And I want to know if the expectation is that this version will/could swing more Hillary in the next two weeks. Clearer? What say you?
Click to expand...

I'm the one who made that map. Others have made the same one for the same reasons. Because it is the best that Donald can realistically hope for and he still loses (if you disagree point out which additional blue state(s) he can flip). I don't expect that there will be reason for me to change it to favor Hillary even more.
 
Last edited:
Tony Stark said:
I'm the one who made that map. Others have made the same one for the same reasons. Because it is the best that Donald can realistically hope for and he still loses (if you disagree point out which additional blue state(s) he can flip). I don't expect that there will be reason for me to change it to favor Hillary even more.
Click to expand...


Oh, I misunderstood. I thought it was from one of the polling outfits. Very nice map though. Well done.
 
marplots said:
Well, I was asking about this map as redrawn from the same source.
Click to expand...
It's a custom map. The base map comes from a poll aggregator - 270towin.com. I stand slightly corrected - NH is the biggest chance of Trump winning, but i don't know of anyone that really expects him to win there; Clinton has had a consistent lead in polls there.

Wisconsin has limited polling data, and will show up as a swing state on several aggregators, but I don't know of anyone that thinks Trump has a shot at winning it. The polls that have been done there over the past month all have Clinton leading.

And I want to know if the expectation is that this version will/could swing more Hillary in the next two weeks. Clearer? What say you?
Click to expand...
The expectation that it will swing more Hillary is very high (again Clinton will probably take NC too as she has had a pretty consistent lead in polls there too). That map is giving Trump a lot of advantages and shows that Trump will have to win at least one state that will be VERY hard for him to win. And that's just looking at public polls. I've heard rumors that internal polls are showing bigger problems for Trump, but those are just rumors.

As of now Trump has to rely on two important things. Undecideds/Potential Third party voters breaking for him significantly and voter turnout. Last I heard, the former tended to be taking away from Clinton more than Trump, so if they decide to opt for a major party candidate, it's probable that they'll break for Clinton. As for the latter, all the stories I have heard indicate the Trump campaign has a terrible ground game, which has historically translated to lower turnout.

So he's got some high hurdles to cross. Not impossible. But not easy. Clinton has the wider, easier path, but she could still fall off it.
 
Last edited:
538 got Trump wrong 7 times, apologized, and said their bias is clean now. Yet it is still clear they still use "oversampled" polls and others that keep putting Democratic turnout at +8, Obama's highest popularity. Does anybody believe the democrats are as energized as they were in 2008? Oh boy. Ohh boy oh boy oh boy oh boy.

Believe what you will.
 
UWdood said:
538 got Trump wrong 7 times, apologized, and said their bias is clean now. Yet it is still clear they still use "oversampled" polls and others that keep putting Democratic turnout at +8, Obama's highest popularity. Does anybody believe the democrats are as energized as they were in 2008? Oh boy. Ohh boy oh boy oh boy oh boy.

Believe what you will.
Click to expand...

citation needed for the highlighted.
 
UWdood said:
538 got Trump wrong 7 times, apologized, and said their bias is clean now. Yet it is still clear they still use "oversampled" polls and others that keep putting Democratic turnout at +8, Obama's highest popularity. Does anybody believe the democrats are as energized as they were in 2008? Oh boy. Ohh boy oh boy oh boy oh boy.

Believe what you will.
Click to expand...
Didn't you people say the exact same thing in 2012? How did that work out for you?
 
UWdood said:
538 got Trump wrong 7 times, apologized, and said their bias is clean now. Yet it is still clear they still use "oversampled" polls and others that keep putting Democratic turnout at +8, Obama's highest popularity. Does anybody believe the democrats are as energized as they were in 2008? Oh boy. Ohh boy oh boy oh boy oh boy.

Believe what you will.
Click to expand...

538 said they were wrong about Trump mostly because Silver went into pundit mode and ignored the polls and his own models.

They use a bunch of mainstream public polls created by professionals who have an idea of how to conduct a poll.

Personally, this seems to be a significant difference on how polls are handled by both sides of the aisle. When Dems see polls turning against them they tend to think "oh crap. why are we losing?" when Reps see polls turning against them they start thinking "No way we are losing, the polls must be biased!"
 
The Good news is that Clinton's actual poll numbers are still holding up in the mid-40's. The Bad news is that Trump is starting to draw Republican voters back off Johnson, whose numbers have dropped significantly while Donald's have grown. This is why the gaps is "closing."
 
PhantomWolf said:
The Good news is that Clinton's actual poll numbers are still holding up in the mid-40's. The Bad news is that Trump is starting to draw Republican voters back off Johnson, whose numbers have dropped significantly while Donald's have grown. This is why the gaps is "closing."
Click to expand...

But has the country been gerrymandered enough to account for his imminent destruction in both the minority and women's vote?

He'll be lucky to get 5% minority and 10% women.
 
NoahFence said:
But has the country been gerrymandered enough to account for his imminent destruction in both the minority and women's vote?

He'll be lucky to get 5% minority and 10% women.
Click to expand...

Other than the constitutionally required overweighting of the Senate to small states, gerrymandering can't really have an effect on the presidential election due to nearly all states being winner-take-all. If all the states apportioned EV's like Maine and Nebraska then it could be significant.

He'll do better with women than that and perhaps with some minorities.
 
538 has Trump at about 18% right now.

For my own sanity I need to find an overconfident Clinton supporter with deep pockets. If I can find someone to give me at least 40-1 on a Trump win, and can escrow, I'd probably get about 5K down.

I figure I'm perfectly happy being out 5K if it means avoiding a Trump presidency. If there is a Trump presidency, I have at least 200K. I'll use that to finance a move to a solidly blue state as the Federal government will no longer be a check on the excesses of the more conservative states especially once Trump appoints Ted Nugent to the Supreme Court.

If I can get a decent price I always bet against what I want to happen. I'm the king of emotional hedging.
 
Suddenly said:
538 has Trump at about 18% right now.

For my own sanity I need to find an overconfident Clinton supporter with deep pockets. If I can find someone to give me at least 40-1 on a Trump win, and can escrow, I'd probably get about 5K down.

I figure I'm perfectly happy being out 5K if it means avoiding a Trump presidency. If there is a Trump presidency, I have at least 200K. I'll use that to finance a move to a solidly blue state as the Federal government will no longer be a check on the excesses of the more conservative states especially once Trump appoints Ted Nugent to the Supreme Court.

If I can get a decent price I always bet against what I want to happen. I'm the king of emotional hedging.
Click to expand...
I have also considered this concept, believe me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom