2016 Electoral Math -- Hillary Begins Her Debate Bounce
It's time to take a look at the presidential race once again, and I have to begin with a program note. Up until now, I've been writing these columns every two weeks, but from now until the election, they'll appear each Monday like clockwork, since the race is about to head into the homestretch.
In the past two weeks, the presidential race has certainly had some ups and downs. Hillary Clinton saw the end of her slide in the polls, and the beginning of the bounce she earned by her first debate performance. Donald Trump has seen his numbers fall, which is likely only going to get worse as the impact of his unusual debate performance (and everything that happened in the week thereafter) begins to be reflected in more and more state polls.
The overall chart of the race for Electoral Votes (EV) looks better for Clinton than last time around, but I would caution that this chart doesn't show the underlying strengths (which we'll get to in a moment). As always, Clinton (blue) starts from the bottom, Trump (red) starts from the top, and whichever line crosses the middle (the 270 EV needed to win) would win the election if it were held today and all the polling was accurate.
[Click on any of theses images to see larger-scale versions.]
This is a significantly better-looking chart than last time around, for Clinton. Last time the percentage split of EV was 51 percent Clinton, 48 percent Trump (with one percent tied). This time around it's a clear 60/40 split in Clinton's favor. Not only has she halted her slide in the polls, but she's begun a rather impressive bounce -- one that started before the debate happened, it's worth mentioning.
Clinton flipped four states from Trump in the past two weeks: Colorado, Florida, Nevada, and New Mexico. Florida and Nevada still seem balanced between the two candidates pretty closely, but Clinton is looking a lot better in Colorado. Trump didn't flip a single state from Clinton's column this time around -- the momentum was all on her side.
There is one caveat to all this good news for Clinton, however. Partly, the shifts this period happened because the site I use for polling data (Electoral-Vote.com) decided to drop using Ipsos internet polls, which it determined were wildly off from more-scientific polling results. This meant Trump lost a lot of states previously considered very strong for him -- based only on Ipsos polling. One in particular was pretty laughable, as Ipsos showed Trump with a double-digit lead in New Mexico, when the state is quite likely to be comfortably in Clinton's column. This change happened on the first day of the two-week period this column covers, and can be more plainly seen in the next chart, which looks deeper at Donald Trump's relative strength. Here is Trump's chart, broken down into the Strong, Weak, and Barely categories used at Electoral-Vote.com.
[Definition of terms: "Strong" means 10 percent or better in the polls,
"Weak" means five percent or better, and "Barely" is under five percent.]
As noted, the past two weeks started with a realignment of the polling data, which moved three states (one of them big) out of the Strong Trump category -- Indiana, Mississippi, and Texas. But even after this realignment, Trump continued to lose states from his Strong category, as Missouri and South Carolina weakened (South Carolina fell all the way to Barely Trump). Iowa also slid from Weak Trump to Barely Trump, meaning Trump saw bad news in six states this period. He only got good news in one state, as Alabama moved up to from Weak Trump to Strong Trump. Georgia wavered from Weak Trump to Barely Trump, but returned to Weak Trump in the end.
By the numbers, Trump began the period with 157 EV in the Strong category. He then hit his personal best here -- 161 EV -- on the first day, but then the realignment sent him all the way back down to 106 EV. His Strong numbers continued to slide for the rest of the period, winding up at only 87 EV -- down a whopping 70 EV for the period.
Trump's Weak numbers took up some of this slack, but not all of it. Trump began with 34 EV in the Weak column, which eventually rose to 78 EV. Trump's Barely numbers contracted, however, from 67 EV to only 50 EV.
All told, Trump started the period with the highest overall EV total he's seen yet -- an impressive 258 EV. That, as I noted last time, was a higher total than Mitt Romney ever saw in 2012. This time around, however, Trump has seen that number erode significantly, falling to 215 EV now, a loss of 43 EV.
As always, the number that most interests me is the "Strong Plus Weak" line, because this is the real measurement of which states a candidate can truly count on (and not worry about) on Election Day. Trump also started this period at a high point in Strong Plus Weak, at 191 EV. But by the end, Trump saw this important metric fall back to only 165 EV -- which is over 100 EV away from the goal line.
Now let's take a look at Hillary Clinton's chart.
As you can see, although the overall news for Clinton is almost universally good this time around, it's not nearly as good as it could be. Just looking at the top line on the chart is the best news, but the breakdowns are less positive (although now headed in the right direction, at least). Overall, Clinton rose from 274 EV -- only four above the winning number -- to a much-more-comfortable 323 EV. Clinton managed this by picking up four states, including Florida's haul of 29 EV.
Clinton's Strong number, though, was much more subdued. Clinton started the period with 152 EV in the Strong category, rose to 171 EV right away, but then fell back to an all-time low (for her) of only 132 EV in the Strong category. This only started rising today, as the state-level polling which shows the results of the debate started to come in. But she ended the period in the Strong category right where she began it, at 152 EV.
The news was a little better for Clinton in the Weak category, as it mostly picked up the slack from states that slipped out of Strong, and added a few states as well. Clinton started at 73 EV in the Weak column, which rose to 110 EV, before falling back to 79 EV. Clinton's real growth was in the Barely category, which went up from 49 EV to a peak of 111 EV, and now stands at 92 EV. Of course, what Clinton really needs to do is start shifting Barely states to Weak, and Weak states to Strong. If the reactions to the debate (and all of the other unhinged behavior from Trump) start to show up in more and more state polls, this is quite likely what is about to happen in the next week or so.
Clinton's Strong Plus Weak number also bottomed out during this period, starting at 225 EV and then falling to its all-time low of only 206 EV, before recovering up to 242 EV. This slid a bit in the past few days, and now stands at 231 EV. This is 39 EV away from victory. Compared to Trump, though, Clinton's in a much more solid spot (Trump has only 165 EV in Strong Plus Weak, and needs 105 EV to hit the magic 270 EV needed to win).
My Picks
As regular readers of this column know, I don't strictly stick to just raw poll numbers when making my own predictions. Gut feeling has to be taken into account, which allows me to ignore polls I think are wildly off the mark (like that New Mexico poll, last time around).
I've detailed my picks below, and then at the end of the column is a full list complete with all states and their Electoral College totals. But it's much easier to see graphically, so let's take a look at this week's map (with, as always, a hat tip to the folks at 270toWin, where you can make a map of your own picks to share).
Likely States -- Clinton
Safe Clinton (14 states, 188 EV)
No change from last time around. All of Clinton's 14 Safe states stayed put.
Probable Clinton (7 states, 55 EV)
There was a lot of activity in this category, as three states moved in and one (plus a fraction) moved out. First, let's deal with that fraction. There are two states which do not award Electoral College votes unanimously: Maine and Nebraska. In these states, the overall state winner wins two EV (the senators), but whomever wins in each congressional (House) district wins that district's EV. This can lead to split voting, which now appears probable in Maine. Donald Trump is doing well in the more rural district in the state (there are only two), so it's looking like three of Maine's EV are Probable Clinton, but one of them has to be at least considered Leans Trump at this point. Other than the backwoods of Maine, the news was mostly good for Clinton. Pennsylvania now has to be considered only Leans Clinton, but Michigan, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin all moved up from Leans Clinton to Probable Clinton this time around. All of this movement (Maine included) meant a net gain of 9 EV for the Probable Clinton category.
Likely States -- Trump
Safe Trump (17 states, 104 EV)
Trump added one state to his Safe list this time around, as Alabama showed some stronger polling. With Alabama, Trump now has 17 states in the Safe category, and adds 9 EV to his total here.
Probable Trump (4 states, 67 EV)
Like Clinton, Trump saw several states move in and out of his Probable category this week, with mixed results. Alabama moved up to Safe, as previously mentioned. South Carolina moved down to Leans Trump, but Georgia moved up from Leans Trump to replace it. Georgia seems firmer for Trump at this point, but I could easily see it slipping back later. Alaska, Missouri, and Texas remained Probable this time around. So Trump lost one Probable state overall, but only lost 2 EV in the Probable category.
Tossup States
Leans Clinton (2 states, 29 EV)
This entire category shifted in a big way this time, and almost all of the news was good for Clinton. All three previous Leans Clinton states (Michigan, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin) moved up to Probable Clinton, and Colorado moved up to Leans Clinton from Too Close To Call. The only bad news was Pennsylvania slipping to Leans Clinton from Probable Clinton, at least for now. The Leans Clinton overall totals didn't change much, down one state but only down a single EV from last time.
Leans Trump (3 states plus one district, 27 EV)
Trump saw less movement in the Leans category, losing one state (Georgia) up to Probable Trump, which was replaced by South Carolina moving down from Probable Trump. Also added in was the Maine district with its single EV. Arizona and Iowa remained unchanged, here. Overall, Trump lost 6 EV in this category.
Too Close To Call (4 states, 68 EV)
The Too Close To Call category stayed remarkably stable this time around, with only Colorado moving up to Leans Clinton. The other four tossup states (Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, and Ohio) remain unchanged. Now, an argument could be made that Ohio really belongs in the Leans Trump category, and a similar argument could be made for Florida and North Carolina being Leans Clinton, but for now I'm keeping them here, as the polls have been so volatile in all of them.
Final Tally
Hillary Clinton improved a bit this time around, as she now has 21 states that she will likely win (her Safe and Probable states combined). She added 9 EV to her total, which now stands at 243 EV she can count on. This leaves her 27 EV shy of victory.
Donald Trump also improved a bit in his likely states, adding one state to his list of 21, for a total of 171 EV -- up 7 EV from last time. Of course, this still leaves him 99 EV away from victory, so he's still got a long hill to climb. The gap between the states Trump can count on and those Clinton can count on grew by 2 EV, to stand at 72 EV difference between the two.
There are nine states that are tossups this time around, down two from last time. The good news for Clinton is that once again, she can win if she just wins all her likely states plus the ones in the Leans Clinton category. Right now there are two states leaning towards Clinton, with 29 EV between them. This adds up to 272 EV for Clinton without even worrying about the Too Close To Call states. This is notable because last time around, she had slipped below the 270 EV winning threshold here.
Trump has three states leaning his direction, for a total of 27 EV. Add this to Trump's likely states and you only get 198 EV. This doesn't bode well for him, because to win he'd have to sweep all the tossup states and manage to wrest either Colorado or Pennsylvania from Clinton. That's a pretty tall order, to put it mildly.
Four states remain too close to make any sort of confident predictions, totaling a whopping 68 EV between them. Things are looking good for Trump in Ohio, but things are looking better for Clinton in Nevada, North Carolina, and in the biggest battleground prize, Florida.
Overall, things are looking up for Clinton in individual polls, but the underlying dynamic hasn't shifted all that much. Clinton has many paths to victory, and can afford to lose battleground states. Trump has only one real path to victory, and that is to absolutely run the table of all states where the polling is even close. Clinton hasn't put this race away yet, but if the reactions to the debate (and Trump's tweeting, and Trump's taxes, etc.) continue to tilt in her direction, she could get a lot closer in the next week.
[Electoral Vote Data:]
(State electoral votes are in parenthesis following each state's name. Washington D.C. is counted as a state, for a total of 51.)
Hillary Clinton Likely Easy Wins -- 21 States -- 243 Electoral Votes:
Safe States -- 14 States -- 188 Electoral Votes
California (55), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (20), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (11), Minnesota (10), New Jersey (14), New York (29), Oregon (7), Vermont (3), Washington (12), Washington D.C. (3)
Probable States -- 7 States -- 55 Electoral Votes
Maine (3), Michigan (16), New Hampshire (4), New Mexico (5), Rhode Island (4), Virginia (13), Wisconsin (10)
Donald Trump Likely Easy Wins -- 21 States -- 171 Electoral Votes:
Safe States -- 17 States -- 104 Electoral Votes
Alabama (9), Arkansas (6), Idaho (4), Indiana (11), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (8), Mississippi (6), Montana (3), Nebraska (5), North Dakota (3), Oklahoma (7), South Dakota (3), Tennessee (11), Utah (6), West Virginia (5), Wyoming (3)
Probable States -- 4 States -- 67 Electoral Votes
Alaska (3), Georgia (16), Missouri (10), Texas (38)
Tossup States -- 9 States -- 124 Electoral Votes:
Tossup States Leaning Clinton -- 2 States -- 29 Electoral Votes
Colorado (9), Pennsylvania (20)
Tossup States Leaning Trump -- 3 States (plus one district) -- 27 Electoral Votes
Arizona (11), Iowa (6), Maine (1), South Carolina (9)
Too Close To Call -- 4 States -- 68 Electoral Votes
Florida (29), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), Ohio (18)
Polling data weaknesses:
Unlike in 2008 and 2012, polling data does now exist for all 51 states (adding in Washington D.C.). The following list is of states where the polling data is rather suspect, since the only polls which have been conducted were all conducted only on the internet. This list shrank by nine states this time, leaving only 11 states without more accurate polling.
Internet-only polling, with dates last polled -- 11 States
Alabama (9/1), Alaska (9/1), Delaware (9/1), Hawaii (9/1), Kentucky (9/1), Mississippi (9/1), Montana (9/1), South Dakota (9/1), Tennessee (9/1), Washington D.C. (5/31), West Virginia (9/1)
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
I see the map a little differently. PA and CO one shade darker blue, NC light blue, OH light pink.
There is a new odds maker in town: HuffPo. I give them a thumbs uo for detailing ther methodology, which seems sound (similar to NYT).
I think the news cycle has changed in a big way. Trum Taxes and Charities are just the opening salvos.. More to follow.. The media that made Trump is starting to turn on him. Clintom is sitting on a pile of money to hammer ithe message home: Trump is no populist.
I have to wonder what the guys on Trump's Secret Service detail are thinkig. "I'm suppossed to take a bullet for a guy who won't even help pay my salary?"
One more thing. The gap between Trump and Clinton has widened by 30 probability percentage points since the debate. The trend shows no sign of letting up. It is hard to believe that Trump is not having a "significant emotional moment" regarding his chances.
Huffpollster is the go to place if you want the latest polls. I use the raw state polling data for my model.
Clinton 313 Trump 225 EV. Chance of a Trump win: 12%..
Clinton leads by 6.1% in the national.
TheStig [1] -
I almost made all the shifts you suggest, but am awaiting further polling. I did see a poll from CO that put Clinton up by 11, but didn't see it before I wrote this. If I had, I probably would have considered it for Probably Clinton.
But from here on in, it'll be weekly, so I'll have a chance to shift things every Monday.
apophis [3] -
I like Pollster, and liked them even before HuffPost bought them. And I do check their state charts before writing this, but I've used Electoral-Vote.com from the beginning, so I'm not going to change now. I like the simple layout at their site, their daily wrapups, and their presentation of the data with a daily map.
-CW
Oh, one more thing -- I've freed up a few comments from the filter. Sorry for the delay, everyone...
-CW
In March Ted Cruz claimed that the media were holding back on Trump but they would bring out the knives in the September to November timeframe.
He posited that it was because they wanted Trump to win the primary because he'd be easier for Hillary to beat than himself.
I agree with his first point but not the reason. I think if the media is really that 'organized' the more likely reason is because Trump would sell more inches and pixels than Cruz, and now that Trump has done his work for them it is time to flush him and get the final payout.
CRUZ: Donald may be the only person on the face of the planet that Hillary Clinton can beat.
And all of the attacks on Donald that the media is not talking about now, you better believe, come September, October, November, if he were the nominee, every day on the nightly news would be taking Donald apart. And the stakes are too high for us to risk that.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-the-nation-transcripts-march-6-2016-trump-cruz-clinton-priebus/
Of course the even more conspiracy minded think the whole Trump campaign is a Clinton conspiracy
"Why am I not 50 points ahead of this guy!!"
-Hillary Clinton
No one (except Liz, of course) wants to address that.. :D
Michale
Assange is speaking in Berlin as I type this.. Hopefully, what he has on Hillary will end her campaign...
Because, it looks like Trump ain't gonna be able to put Hillary away on his "merits"... :^/
Michale
It is hard to believe that Trump is not having a "significant emotional moment" regarding his chances.
Oh, he's having a moment, alright. And, it's the kind that comes with a big sigh of relief.
what's he doing in Berlin!?
Because, it looks like Trump ain't gonna be able to put Hillary away on his "merits"... :^/
Just as Hillary can't put Trump away on HER merits...
Michale
"Why am I not 50 points ahead of this guy!!"
-Hillary Clinton
Well, she would be if someone had given her my campaign advice ...
Well, she would be if someone had given her my campaign advice ...
Word.....
Michale
what's he doing in Berlin!?
He's appearing via video link.. He was going to announce from the balcony of the Ecuadorian Embassy, but they received intel that there would be an assassination attempt...
Maybe Hillary's suggested drone strike was put into play...
Michale
Oh, he's having a moment, alright. And, it's the kind that comes with a big sigh of relief.
Exactly...
It's nice to have someone who actually gets it... But be careful.. You saw what happened to Don when he agreed with me... :^/ The WPG tore him a new one.. :^(
Michale
I'm not sure that we actually agree, Michale ...
But be careful.. You saw what happened to Don when he agreed with me... :^/ The WPG tore him a new one.. :^(
Let them try! :)
I'm not sure that we actually agree, Michale ...
More or less.. You agree that Hillary is running a crappy campaign and because of that, Trump might very well be our next President..
Let them try! :)
Heh.. I would like to see that.. No, that's not right. I shouldn't wish such pain and suffering... ON THEM!!! :D heh
Michale
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/10/03/17/391049A400000578-3819237-image-a-57_1475510483561.jpg
Hillary's State Dept staff investigated legal and *NONLEGAL* means to take out Assange...
Hillary herself said, "Can't we just drone this guy!?" The members of the meeting laughed as if it was a joke, but that died pretty quick when Hillary continued to speak in a serious manner..
"He's just walking around freely unafraid of any reprisals. He's a soft target..."
THAT is the person ya'all want as President? THAT is the person you want to give the nuclear launch codes to!?? Because, as ya'all have stated.. A president can unilaterally launch a nuclear strike completely and unequivocally on their own without ANY help from anyone...
Ya'all THINK that Trump is unstable..
We have bona-fide PROOF that Hillary wanted to launch a drone strike on an innocent person...
But Hillary has a '-D' after her name so that is ALL that is needed... :^/
Michale
Ya see, that is the one salient point that ya'all refuse to admit..
Hillary's support is 1000% unequivocally ideological...
Trump's support is 1000% grass roots patriotic American...
As ya'all have proven, those whose ideology is first and foremost, they support Hillary...
Those who are AMERICANS first and foremost.... THEY support Trump...
It's ESTABLISHMENT/STATUS QUO vs CHANGE/SHAKE UP....
And THAT is why Trump will win...
That and the fact that Hillary's past is going to catch up to her in a big and devastating way.... :D
Michale
That and the fact that Hillary's past is going to catch up to her in a big and devastating way.... :D
Eventually...... :^/
"When I was growing up we had a quick-sand box... I was an only child... Eventually..."
-Michael Wright
:D
Michale
Hillary's support is 1000% unequivocally ideological...
Trump's support is 1000% grass roots patriotic American...
@michale,
now that's just silly.
my view:
hillary's support is 20% hardcore partisans who would vote for ANY democrat, 20% feminist or activist ideologues who are voting for her gender or because obama said so, 20% pragmatists who are ignoring ideology and scandals and just flat out think she'll do a better job as president, and 40% people who think donald is such an ignoramus there's no other alternative.
donald's support is 20% alt-right bigots who mistakenly think he'll bring back segregation and would never vote for a woman, 20% reality-tv junkies who buy into his celebrity, 30% conservatives who have such a visceral hate for hillary that they'd vote for absolutely anybody to keep her out of the white house, and 30% who are so fed up with the political establishment that they're willing to risk global annihilation if it means sending a non-politician to the white house.
that's my view.
@CW,
as for the electoral map, i think it's about time to paint ohio pink, and colorado in my view is still very much grey. if i were donald i'd be on the offense right now in colorado, florida, north carolina and nevada. those are the states he needs to sweep and currently isn't.
JL
now that's just silly.
Perhaps.... But it's close enough to reality to be accurate...
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/09/30/ftp410/#comment-86025
Could you weigh in on that.. I don't want to leave an inaccurate quote hanging...
Michale
and 30% who are so fed up with the political establishment that they're willing to risk global annihilation if it means sending a non-politician to the white house.
I would say that THAT number is closer to 60%, even 80%....
I know that for me, personally, I am one of those....
I don't particularly like Trump and I do cringe at some of the more moronic things he says..
But this country's direction MUST change and Trump is the ONLY one who has a good shot of doing that...
Michale
, 30% conservatives who have such a visceral hate for hillary that they'd vote for absolutely anybody to keep her out of the white house,
And I would say that THAT number is more like 10% or less.. Most conservatives hate Trump more than they hate Hillary.. Why?? Because Trump is the ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT and they ARE the Establishment..
Michale
Note to others..
This is how reasonable and rational people disagree....
Michale
Heh.. I would like to see that.. No, that's not right. I shouldn't wish such pain and suffering... ON THEM!!! :D heh
My bark is worse than my bite. :)
My bark is worse than my bite. :)
heh :D
Michale
More or less.. You agree that Hillary is running a crappy campaign and because of that, Trump might very well be our next President..
True.
More or less.. You agree that Hillary is running a crappy campaign and because of that, Trump might very well be our next President..
True.
And there are those who vehemently and violently deny that....
Michale
They could be in for a very rude awakening.
One of the things Gary Hart is talking more about lately is the realignment of political parties and what it all means.
It has all of the ingredients for a really fascinating discussion.
What did you think of his piece to linked to in another thread, Michale?
Liz-11
"Oh, he's having a moment, alright. And, it's the kind that comes with a big sigh of relief."
I take your point on that. Part of him is relieved, I don't think he ever thought he would come this far.
There is the ego thing too....he's looking the chump, he lost a debate, he lost control of the news cycle and ego trumps everything else.
But, he can easily blame all of the negative stuff on a rigged system, etc. He gets the best of both worlds, so to speak ...
And, Trump has the uncanny ability of turning what should be a negative and devastating blow to his campaign into something that not only turns on his die hard supporters but earns him a few new ones, too.
Why do think so many of the "mainstream" Republicans, currently serving in public office, support him so vigorously? Do they think that once he is elected they can act to create and direct an agenda for him to follow? Would he let them do this?
I've spent the early morning drinking coffee and getting state probabilities from the NYT Upshot Presidential Election Page. I do that to get populate my electoral college simulation model, and I do it by hand. This takes 50% longer these days, since the NYT has gone from 4 sets of data to 6. I'm sure I could write a program to automate this (Tampermonkey would work) but I'm not fluent in this kind of programming. There's also something to be gained by visually inspecting a data set one element at a time.
I always run a simple computational model on each new data set, a Rank ordered model which assumes a high degree of overall correlation in state voting behaviors. It is often, very close to the probability of winning the election given by the owners:operators of the data sets, and it takes next to no time to do the computation When it's wrong the rank, it tends to be overly conservative.. but not today!
NYT Times probability of Clinton Victory: 78%
Stig rank ordered model probability:77%
538 probability of Clinton Victory: 72%
Stig rank ordered model probability: 73%
PredictWise probability of Clinton Victory: 80%
Stig rank ordered model probability:89%
Princeton Electoral Commish:90%
Stig rank ordered model probability:69%
Daily Kos: 72%
Stig: 72%
HuffPO:82%
Stig:92%
I'll run the sim later today. I recently upgraded from Excel 2003 to Excel 2016. Much faster, due to a bug in the random number generator of 2003 that had to be worked around.
TS,
What sort of event - domestically or internationally - in the next 30 days might impact all of those probabilities so as to make them practically meaningless?
One of the things Gary Hart is talking more about lately is the realignment of political parties and what it all means.
It has all of the ingredients for a really fascinating discussion.
I completely agree...
But such a discussion is ONLY possible from a position of complete Party agnosticity...
There are few.... VERY FEW... Weigantians who can attain such agnosticity...
Michale
But, he can easily blame all of the negative stuff on a rigged system, etc. He gets the best of both worlds, so to speak ...
And there is definitely validity to that blame..
The Leftist MSM has blatantly STATED that they see their job as stopping Trump from attaining the Presidency...
Journalistic ethics be damned...
Michale
NYT Times probability of Clinton Victory: 78%
Stig rank ordered model probability:77%
538 probability of Clinton Victory: 72%
Stig rank ordered model probability: 73%
PredictWise probability of Clinton Victory: 80%
Stig rank ordered model probability:89%
Princeton Electoral Commish:90%
Stig rank ordered model probability:69%
Daily Kos: 72%
Stig: 72%
HuffPO:82%
Stig:92%
And you don't find it the LEAST bit bigoted that you *ONLY* use Left Wingery information, TS???
You see, that is exactly my point..
Ya'all (NEN) have completely jettisoned *ANY SEMBLANCE* of fairness, balance and reality and have totally and hysterically embraced utter bigotry....
Michale
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ct7DR1_WgAEmJzs.jpg
Maybe if ya'all are lucky, my house will be transported to Oz and ya'all will have the rest of the year, Michale-Free... :D
heh
Michale
There are few.... VERY FEW... Weigantians who can attain such agnosticity...
Well then, I guess that discussion can only occur between the few of us. :)
Well then, I guess that discussion can only occur between the few of us. :)
Yep... As CW is fond of saying.... Weigantia is all about quality, not quantity... :D
Michale
What sort of event - domestically or internationally - in the next 30 days might impact all of those probabilities so as to make them practically meaningless?
1. Illness of either candidate
2. Russia shoots down one of our planes over Syria (they have just announced they have deployed ground-to-air missiles in the region)
3. Leak of Trump's tax records show he gave nothing in charity for two decades
4. Bill or Donald gets caught with their pants down a la "Monkey Business"
5. Terrorist attack in U.S.
6. Liz is right and Trump drops out
7. Somebody follows Trump's "second amendment solution" advice (and fails we hope)
8. Kaine falls ill and Hillary replaces him with Sarah Palin ;)
This takes 50% longer these days, since the NYT has gone from 4 sets of data to 6. I'm sure I could write a program to automate this (Tampermonkey would work)
Of course it would... It's gonna work as far as totally decimating CW.COM annual fund-raising....
Not that any of the wussies using the crutch care about anything but their own selfish desires....
Michale
Liz -39
That is a very thoughtful (in the sense of thought provoking) question.
Let me start by saying that none of the 6 models, or my reinterpretation of the 6 models, excludes either candidate from a reasonably high chance of becoming president given factors we know now, and even given the eight factors that might possibly occur as envisioned by neilm. Election forecasts are not cast in stone, the closer you get to election day, the better the forecasts tend become. It's like shooting at targets, the closer you are, the better you get, and anybody is likely to be pretty good if they are withing spitting distance of the target.
If Trump drops out, the odds dramatically shift in Clinton's favor - but what are the odds of Trump dropping out at this late date, or an even later date? Terrorist attack? That's harder to judge, how bad, how close to the election, where it happens, all these factor in.
Forecast odds are basically a measure of belief. You can use them to wager, or underwrite insurance, which is really the same thing.
I was a risk assessment monkey for many years. I found the discipline useful for policy planning and intellectually challenging. Every 4 years I like to dust off the old neurons and have a go at it - one more time.
WASHINGTON — Bill Clinton threw Bernie Sanders under the bus in an impromptu response to a heckler at Ohio University on Tuesday as he defended his controversial 1994 crime bill.
Trying to woo young voters in a key swing state, Clinton was interrupted by a protester shouting he cannot vote for someone who sends thousands of people to prison.
“Hillary didn’t vote for the ’94 crime bill even though Sen. Sanders did,” the former president shot back, as a heckler was removed from the rally.
If Camp Clinton continues to diss and attack Bernie and Bernie supporters, they are going to stay home by the millions....
Michale
My results are in from running the six data sets of the NYT upshot thru my model. A total of 55,000 trials were performed for each data set. My model allows me to partition random variance into two components, a State Random Component that applies uniquely to one state (or D.C.) and a National Random Component is applied equally to all States and DC. This a fairly well accepted random driven model of the Electoral College, conventional wisdom has it that National Random Component is about 50% of total random variance.
My model should always give an almost identical probability as the rank ordered computation (see post 38) when National Variance is set to 100% The model passed this sanity test for all 6 data sets.
Trump always does worst when the National Component is set to zero: this gives him the least chance of running the swing states. Trump does not do best with 100% National Variance, something in between gives him his best shot, usually, something very roughly in the range of 50% is optimal.
My model bounds the predicted probability of the following prognosticators: NYT, 538, Predict Wise, PEC and Daily Kos, using 60, 50, 80 and 20% National Variance, respectively. My model does not capture the HuffPO 82% prediction: No amount of national variance does the trick, my model predicts Clinton's chances are 8-18% higher than HuffPo's 82% chance of a Clinton victory (using the HuffPO state data of course).
Seemingly small changes in the electoral map can have a dramatic impact on a candidate's overall chances. It all comes down to genuinely competitive states, and there aren't many. Very small amounts of National Variance have a BIG impact on Clinton's odds. Wisconsin is currently a tipping point. Her odds in WI give you a good idea of her odds in general.
My model bounds the predicted probability of the following prognosticators: NYT, 538, Predict Wise, PEC and Daily Kos, using 60, 50, 80 and 20% National Variance, respectively.
All Left Wingery sources...
If you want ANY credibility at all, TS... Try using sources that are not lockstep with your Party slavery...
I'm just sayin'....
Michale
Michale [22] -
Um...
Hillary's support is 1000% unequivocally ideological...
Trump's support is 1000% grass roots patriotic American...
So what you're saying is "my ideology = grass roots patriotic American, but the other side's is just 'ideology'."
OK, got it. Like a kung-fu film: "my dragon-style will crush your monkey-style!"
Heh. I'm sure you've got an appropriate movie quote for that one... maybe from "Drunken Master" with Jackie Chan?
nypoet22 [24] -
I won't quibble with your percentages, but I think you've largely got the group dynamic breakdown nailed. Although I might add in 10% on both sides that are "voting for the balance of the Supreme Court, but don't really like their own candidate."
After today's polls, I've already moved Ohio into the pink. But I disagree about CO -- one poll just showed Clinton up 11 points there.
LizM and Michale -
Wait... you guys are in agreement? The Cubs are favored to win the World Series? Trump is a candidate for president?
[Insert snarky "signs of the apocalypse" joke here]
Heh. Actually, I would put it differently.
"Hillary Clinton is a weak candidate with an excellent campaign behind her..."
Hillary's not very good at campaigning. That's not even in question. But her campaign is actually pretty excellent in many regards -- witness the seamless rollout of the Marchado video last week, after the debate. And witness her ground game efforts everywhere.
Hillary's campaign is what might just save her from her weaknesses at giving a stump speech. Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but that's the way I see it.
LizM [37] -
Some of them do think they'll be able to pass their stuff and have Pres. Trump sign it (Paul Ryan, for example). But most of them are just terrified of a backlash from Trump supporters in their own state or district, that's what I think.
TheStig [38] -
I enter the data by hand, myself, onto an Excel spreadsheet. I find it keeps me aware of what is going on in each state on a daily basis.
Michale [42] -
Don't worry, there's always the LA Times, who seems to be running "unskewed polls" to wildly overstate GOP chances. They just showed Trump up by 5 points! So be happy, the unskewed poll universe is still there to take comfort in (all other polls showed Clinton up by 4-6 points).
neilm [46] -
That's a pretty good list. Last one was funny!
What would I add? Hmmm...
* Either candidate punching the other in the face during a debate.
* Economic meltdown a la 2008.
* Clinton appears on SNL, nails it (even the opening line).
This could be a fun game for all to play...
:-)
Michale [47] -
Um, what? What was that about fundraising? I'm confused...
-CW
Pretty amazing: "Joe Biden campaigns for Hillary Clinton in Sarasota, Florida. While on stage, he brings up Donald Trump's controversial PTSD comments."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS0nZt1Rtps
CW,
So what you're saying is "my ideology = grass roots patriotic American, but the other side's is just 'ideology'."
It's not what *I* am saying... It's what YA'ALL have been saying...
Ya'all have gone on and on about how much Republicans hate Trump...
Yet, Trump enjoys tens of millions of supporters....
If it's not ideology, as ya'all have aptly proven, then what IS drawing Trump supporters???
Patriotism... Make America Great Again...
It's the ONLY logical answer...
LizM and Michale -
Wait... you guys are in agreement? The Cubs are favored to win the World Series? Trump is a candidate for president?
It's been happening more and more often.. :D
Michale [47] -
Um, what? What was that about fundraising? I'm confused...
I am glad you asked..
As you know, my donations are based on my comment count @.50 per comment...
When I reach 700 comments, 800 comments, 1000 comments..... such comment counts don't happen in a vacuum..... That kind of comment count is predicated on stimulation from the WPG...
If there are a bunch of wussies who use a crutch (IE filter) to eliminate my comments, then the stimulus for my large comment count disappears...
What these crutch'ed wussies don't get is that it's donations that keep CW.COM ad-free and much more enjoyable for all...
They would rather be spineless and selfish and make everyone suffer...
I just can't see how I can reach a comment count that is my norm, if I don't have any stimulation from the WPG....
That's what I mean by CW.COM suffering from their wussiness...
You know me.. I'll do my best.... But I am only human.... ish... :D
Michale
TS+Liz
48
If Trump drops out (unlikely), the Repubs would probably be able to run a different candidate... and that could be very bad for Clinton's odds.
nypoet seems to think 40% of Hillary's support comes from the "Not Trump" crowd... and I would have to agree.
Any "not as bad as Trump" alternative could well mean Repubs winning the presidency.
Repubs may lose a few of the deluded types who think Trump isn't part of the establishment, but with so much of the effort by Hillary's campaign focused on why not to vote for Trump (which as I mentioned a few days ago is killing the Dems chances down ticket), it's hard to imagine an equally effective strategy against a different candidate.
A
Chaz [53]
Trump got taken out of context on this one, but given his stupidity (e.g. the Purple Heart incident) I can understand why Joe would think it was a true reflection of Trump's intent.
However it reminds me again what a great VP Joe has been.
Note to everybody, I'm going to repost the link, it is worth watching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS0nZt1Rtps
Obama DOJ drops charges against alleged provider of Libyan weapons
Arms dealer had threatened to expose Hillary Clinton’s talks about arming anti-Qadhafi rebels.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/marc-turi-libyan-rebels-hillary-clinton-229115#ixzz4M9zIdJ8g
Protect Clinton at all costs...
No matter HOW many lives are ruined...
Michale
BigAl???
Have a ball.... :D
Michale
The Orange One asked Anderson Cooper this question:
"Why is it that every single year, I'm audited, whereas other people that are very rich people are never audited?"
. . . and now we know why. Monkey business. Be careful what you ask for Donald.
Michale,
If Camp Clinton continues to diss and attack Bernie and Bernie supporters, they are going to stay home by the millions....
With a simple substitution of the appropriate nouns, here you have demonstrated the capacity to understand why other posters might choose to simply block your posts with Charlie Brown's totally functional Tamper Monkey gadget. :)
Troll
The illegal regime change war in Libya that destroyed a country that didn't attack us or pose any threat to us is not only a war crime, it is in a long line of war crimes the US has committed with bipartisan support.
Silence is consent. and the Repubs in Congress are equally guilty in tolerating the Obama admins blatant violation of the UN authorized no fly zone with Hillary cheerleading all the way.
In many ways, the Repubs idiotic focus on Benghazi is directly to blame for preventing a debate on the true crimes that were committed. If the Republican Party had a shred of credibility or morality they would have used the endless hearings and wasted millions to expose them.
(see the British government report that exposed many of the lies we were told)
There is currently a massive PR campaign pushing for a no fly zone in Syria. Hillary is a full throated supporter.
After the bait and switch that Obama and Hillary used to illegally effect regime change in Libya, there is a zero percent chance that the UN Security Council will vote to support a no fly zone in Syria.
Therefore, all the supporters of a no fly zone in Syria, the neocons and the neoliberals including Hillary are either dishonest or delusional... or... and this is a BIG or... they want to implement one without UN authorization.
Doing so would require a direct military confrontation with Russia, so they are talking about potentially risking WWIII... all to protect foreign "rebels" who are proxies in our illegal regime change war to oust Assad... "rebels" who are dominated by al Qaida and Wahhabi Sunni militants with identical ideology.
Risking WWIII in order to protect our enemy... the people who attacked us on 9/11?
Are Dems going to wake up to the fact that neolibcons are a plague on our country and our planet?
Are Repuns going to wake up to the fact that Trump is fully embracing neolibcon policies?
In addition to BOTH Trump and Hillary supporting this policy, you all may want to check out the whackadoodle comments from McCain and Petraeus... and while you're at it, check out Obama's comments for reasons to oppose it.
In any case, whoever wins in November will need to be confronted by an organized opposition from Americans in both parties if they seek to actually implement such a foolish policy with dire consequences.
This is not a right and left issue, it's a right and wrong issue,
A
Michale [54] -
Oh, OK. At least I know what you're talking about now.
But seriously, I read all the comments, isn't that the most important thing?
Heh -- couldn't resist...
:-)
-CW
With a simple substitution of the appropriate nouns, here you have demonstrated the capacity to understand why other posters might choose to simply block your posts with Charlie Brown's totally functional Tamper Monkey gadget. :)
TRANSLATION:
I cannot address your points in a logical and rational manner so I will simply make a immature personal attack thereby conceding my impotence and your intellectual superiority...
Thank you. Your concession of my superiority is appreciated albeit irrelevant...
Michale
But seriously, I read all the comments, isn't that the most important thing?
Heh -- couldn't resist...
Of course... But READING don't put bacon on the griddle if ya know what I mean.. :D
Michale
here you have demonstrated the capacity to understand why other posters might choose to simply block your posts with Charlie Brown's totally functional Tamper Monkey gadget. :)
And by doing so, screwing over each and every member of Weigantia..
Of course, that doesn't bother them whatsoever.. As long as they are happy, to hell with everyone else..
How Left Wingery of them... :^/
Michale
Michale,
TRANSLATION:
I cannot address your points in a logical and rational manner so I will simply make a immature personal attack thereby conceding my impotence and your intellectual superiority...
Ummm, no... that was English. Do you have a problem with English or did you just need something to translate?
Ty syuda chasto prikhodish'? Mne ne interesno. Ostav' menya v
pokoye.
Translate that.
Anyhoo, if you're done yanking your own chain, please note that this bit of spew you're calling a "TRANSLATION" contains some actual instructive psychological projection.
BONUS: You could unintentionally accidentally get some insight into yourself with that TRANSLATION/NOT TRANSLATION nugget... and you have yourself to thank for it.
Thank you. Your concession of my superiority is appreciated albeit irrelevant...
You thanked yourself and then you noted your irrelevance. Wow! I think you've truly had a breakthrough here.
Pa`ka, da `zavtra.
Kick [66],
"Do you have a problem with English"
There is definitely a reading comprehension issue.
CW- As of Wed. I see Ohio drifting into the too close to call category. I don't give that category lightly. Of course, like midwest weather, If you don"t like the Ohio political forecast, just wait a day or two - it will probably change.