Election Forecast, State by State

Write Up

How do you predict a general election with Donald Trump?

We can think of a few basic approaches. One of them is to assert that precedent doesn’t apply to this election and that Trump’s case is sui generis. It’s not clear where that leads you, however.

If Trump is “unpredictable,” a phrase we heard used to describe him so often during the primaries, does that mean his chances of defeating Hillary Clinton are 50/50? If that’s what you think, you have the opportunity to make a highly profitable wager. Betting markets put Trump’s chances at only 20 percent to 25 percent instead.

In fact, despite (or perhaps because of) the unusual nature of his candidacy, the conventional wisdom holds that Trump is a fairly substantial underdog. In contrast to 2012, when there were frequent arguments over how solid President Obama’s lead in the polls was, there hasn’t been much of a conflict between “data journalists” and “traditional journalists” on this question of Trump’s chances. Nor has there been one between professionals who cover the campaign and the public; most experts expect Trump to lose, but so do most voters.

But should this seeming consensus give us more confidence — or make us nervous that we’re underestimating Trump again?

Giving Trump a 20 percent or 25 percent chance of becoming president means that Clinton has a 75 percent to 80 percent chance. That might seem generous given that, under ordinary circumstances, the background conditions of this election (no incumbent running and a mediocre economy) would seem to suggest a tossup. Are Clinton’s high odds justified on the basis of the polls? Or do they require making heroic assumptions about Trump, the same ones that got everyone, emphatically including yours truly, in trouble during the primaries?

The short answer is that 20 percent or 25 percent is a pretty reasonable estimate of Trump’s chances based on the polls and other empirical evidence. In fact, that’s quite close to where FiveThirtyEight’s statistical models, which are launching today, have the race. Our polls-only model has Trump with a 19 percent chance of beating Clinton as of early Wednesday afternoon. (The forecasts will continually update as new polls are added.) Our polls-plus model, which considers economic conditions along with the polls, is more optimistic about Trump, giving him a 26 percent chance.

Still, Trump faces longer odds and a bigger polling deficit than John McCain and Mitt Romney did at the same point in their respective races. He needs to look back to 1988 for comfort, when George H.W. Bush overcame a similar deficit against Michael Dukakis to win. Our models are built from data since 1972, so the probabilities we list account for elections such as 1980, 1988 and 1992, when the polls swung fairly wildly, along with others, such as 2004 and 2012, where the polls were quite stable.

If the middling economy is one silver lining for Trump, another is his swing state polls, which don’t seem to be as bad for him as his national polls. They aren’t good by any means, either, but whereas Trump trails Clinton by 6.7 percentage points in our average of national polls, according to our polls-only model, he’s down 4.8 points in our adjusted polling average of Ohio, 5.7 points in Florida, 3.9 points in Iowa, and 2.0 points in Colorado, for instance.

Again, we don’t mean to suggest that these are great numbers for Trump; the Florida result, for example, would represent the worst loss by a Republican there since 1948. Nonetheless, and somewhat in contrast to the conventional wisdom, our model suggests that Trump is more likely to win the Electoral College while losing the popular vote than the other way around. (Though the chances of either scenario are small.)

Some of this may be because we just haven’t had all that much swing state polling; it’s possible we’ll see leads for Clinton in the mid- to high single digits as these states are polled more often. Just this morning, for example, the firm Evolving Strategies published a set of polls in swing states showing Clinton leading Trump by 10 percentage points, on average. If there are more numbers like those, the model will adjust accordingly.

But there’s another potential explanation, which is that Trump is badly underperforming in red states, presumably as a result of having failed to consolidate the Republican base. That may put some traditionally red states into play for Clinton. For instance, Arizona, Missouri, North Carolina and the 2nd Congressional District of Nebraska4 are all tossups, according to the polls-only model. (Polls-plus has Trump narrowly favored in these places.)

Some of these states could be useful to Clinton. Arizona, in particular, could help Clinton put together some winning maps based on Western or heavily Hispanic states, even if she loses much of the industrial Midwest. Others, such as Missouri, are probably more superfluous. They could potentially add to Clinton’s Electoral College margin, but they aren’t likely to be tipping-point states that make the difference between her winning and losing.

That goes doubly for states such as Texas, Utah, Kansas and Alaska, where polls have often shown a single-digit margin for Trump and have occasionally even had Clinton winning. Republicans are used to racking up huge numbers of votes in these states, bolstering their standing in the national popular vote. If Trump wins Texas by only 6 percentage points instead of 16, that will hurt his popular-vote margin without affecting his Electoral College odds much.

Is the reverse also true? Is Trump overperforming in blue states, relative to how a Republican usually does? It depends on where you look. The Northeast was Trump’s strongest region in the primaries, and he’s gotten relatively good numbers — although he still trails Clinton — in polls of New Jersey, Connecticut and Maine. (He also leads Clinton in one poll of Maine’s 2nd Congressional District, which would be worth one electoral vote.5) However, he’s losing by typical margins in New York and California, where he has vowed to compete.

Overall, the polls so far suggest a slightly less polarized electorate and a somewhat wider playing field than we’ve gotten used to in recent years. That’s a potentially refreshing change, although it may prove to be ephemeral as both Clinton and Trump have room to grow with their party bases and could gain ground in traditionally blue and red states as a result.

More background on Silver's polling data and such at the write up.

Meta, your three threads on negotiations and trade deals were merged into this thread -  due to the fact that as standalones, discussion on their individual matters would be limited.

Try and keep updates that are minor to this thread (or a new updates thread), so that we don't get a new thread every time something little happens.

I'm gonna have to ban you for failing your obligation.

An interesting read on the event as the news sinks in:

Quote

First thoughts:

– THE UNITED KINGDOM WILL LEAVE THE EUROPEAN UNION.

– The working class did it. The issue was immigration. It wouldn’t have been my choice for main issue, but I am not ashamed to have been in a broad alliance. I’ll gladly bear the next election being won by a party I don’t like in exchange for elections mattering again.

– Talking of which, who will win the next election? Which parties will fight it? When will it be? No idea.

– Shy Leavers. And I hesitate to say this, but the atmosphere of blame following the murder of Jo Cox will have been perceived by many as moral blackmail.

– The EU is holed beneath the waterline. People worldwide have seen that impossible things can happen.

– President Trump? His visit to these shores is spookily well timed.

– Prime Minister Cameron? – 2010-2016

– Don’t assume that the SNP actually wants another Scottish independence referendum. Right now a second indyref would have the same result as the first.

The US could learn a thing or two from this outcome and its reactions.

Such as?

Quote from: Icy on June 23, 2016, 11:35:03 PM

Quote from: TBlocks on June 23, 2016, 11:32:48 PM

Quote from: Icy on June 23, 2016, 11:29:46 PM

Quote from: TBlocks on June 23, 2016, 11:27:04 PM

Quote from: Icy on June 23, 2016, 11:25:13 PM

Quote from: TBlocks on June 23, 2016, 11:17:38 PM

Can someone give me the skinny on all this? It seems to be of pretty big importance and I feel left out in not knowing what's going on...

Britain voted to leave the European Union, which will sever economic and geopolitical ties, including immigration and work visas, trade deals and more.

That seems... "Ungood". I've seen lots of stuff about the pound dropping at a crazy rate. What's the general consensus?

Far-right nationalists (Think the Donald Trumps of the UK) view it as a step for the UK to regain it's national sovereignty and don't foresee much ramifications in the form of trade. EU supports and others say this is going to spell the end of the UK (Scotland and North Ireland both strongly sided with the EU, and will likely push for further independence), and will set the country back in the global economy.

No one really knows what the end results of this will be, because it's never been done.

Oh dear... That has social consequences too I'd imagine?
Might isolate themselves for a bit it seems.

Yeah. Britain is going to be a rough place to be for the next several month to a year - whether as a citizen, politician, or economist.

Not really. The pound is going to stabilize shortly and regain an upward trend and the rest of the English economy is going to stay above 2008 recession levels.

The pound stabilizing, which it will, is not the only question and concern that is going to continue hanging over Britain.

Between internal politics (Cameron's future, Scottish and Irish referendum potentials), negotiating with the EU as an independent nation (And arguably one with less standing at the negotiation table), setting up trade deals with many other nations, etc - this referendum is not the end of the road. There is still a ton of work that the Brits need to do before we can say this was successful.

Quote from: Icy on June 23, 2016, 11:29:46 PM

Quote from: TBlocks on June 23, 2016, 11:27:04 PM

Quote from: Icy on June 23, 2016, 11:25:13 PM

Quote from: TBlocks on June 23, 2016, 11:17:38 PM

Can someone give me the skinny on all this? It seems to be of pretty big importance and I feel left out in not knowing what's going on...

Britain voted to leave the European Union, which will sever economic and geopolitical ties, including immigration and work visas, trade deals and more.

That seems... "Ungood". I've seen lots of stuff about the pound dropping at a crazy rate. What's the general consensus?

Far-right nationalists (Think the Donald Trumps of the UK) view it as a step for the UK to regain it's national sovereignty and don't foresee much ramifications in the form of trade. EU supports and others say this is going to spell the end of the UK (Scotland and North Ireland both strongly sided with the EU, and will likely push for further independence), and will set the country back in the global economy.

No one really knows what the end results of this will be, because it's never been done.

Oh dear... That has social consequences too I'd imagine?
Might isolate themselves for a bit it seems.

Yeah. Britain is going to be a rough place to be for the next several month to a year - whether as a citizen, politician, or economist.

Can someone give me the skinny on all this? It seems to be of pretty big importance and I feel left out in not knowing what's going on...

Britain voted to leave the European Union, which will sever economic and geopolitical ties, including immigration and work visas, trade deals and more. This is leading to a lot of uncertainty and worry over the future of economics across the nation.

To put that uncertainty into perspective, this is the drop in the British pound - to the weakest value since 1985.

GG Britain.

You fucked up

I mean, I can tell you

Quote from: Icy on June 16, 2016, 11:37:37 AM

Is it borderline unconstitutional? No.

It's been ruled unconstitutional in court before. There's no due process or accountability; the government can just restrict anyone's ability to fly (a private service that is tantamount to unjustified discrimination). Obviously it's something that should exist, but it's a terrible system currently.

Which is why it should be reformed - a panel consisting of members from Congress, DHS, and the Justice Department (Including judges) should be able to review additions and removals from the list, including hearing appeals.

Does it need reform? Yes

Is it borderline unconstitutional? No.

So It Begins

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) has launched a talking filibuster on the Senate floor in an effort to force Republicans and Democrats to come to an agreement on legislation to deny suspected terrorists from purchasing firearms and requiring universal background checks.

The Senate is debating a spending bill that Democrats hope to offer gun amendments to, but Murphy said that the Senate should “not proceed with debate on amendments to this bill until we have figured out a way to come together on, at the very least, two simple ideas.”

I'll read a bit more in the morning once I'm not half asleep, but I will say that both sides in this argument have strong points.

Yes, we cannot jump straight to "Another tragedy happened, time to push more gun laws within a week", as some on the left have. But at the same time, we can't ignore that on top of a psychological and ideological problem (Whether it was his insecurity as a gay man or his religious influence), the issue over guns and who can own one needs to be addressed as well.

Because I don't care if it's a "secret list" with "secret requirements". If you have done enough to warrant two FBI investigations into you, you should not be able to walk into a store and purchase a gun - at least without going through a lengthy process to regain that right.

Isn't that illegal?

Quote from: Icy on June 14, 2016, 05:36:13 PM

Further updates indicate that the wife of the shooter knew of his plans at the nightclub, did not alert the authorities.

Yes, it is.

Quote from: Icy on June 13, 2016, 09:47:24 PM

Unsurprising, but the new discussion is that the shooter was seen at the club numerous times before, and allegedly messaged other gay men on dating/hookup apps.

This is unsurprising? Are you implying that he himself was closeted?

Unsurprising in that many gay men who are closeted and insecure with their sexuality have made attempts to beat down and diminish pride in others in the community - you especially see it in politicians who sponsor or support anti-LGBT legislation, despite being in the closet themselves. Of course, this rarely turns to violence like we saw over the weekend - but it does give another facet as to why the shooter drove over an hour to Orlando and this one specific club, when he could have easily picked the more popular Parliament House (another gay club in Orlando), or larger venues in the state to cause more destruction.

A former classmate (I believe it was a classmate) has also been making the rounds on the news, giving evidence to support the notion that the shooter was, in the very least, curious about other men.

But yeah, at the same time, unsurprising probably wasn't the right word.