• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

so uh, how long is the model factoring in a convention bounce? It’s been three weeks now.

probably a pretty good argument to be made that these models made 10 years ago based on a regular election schedule is pretty useless in this weird July 21st switcheroo year.
 


i feel like we should note a few things here.

1. 60-40 is actually really close and pretty much a tossup.

2. Nate has admitted he's using the same "convention bounce" code as he has for years and years now. So if you feel that this year's race and convention are different than in previous elections (for obvious reasons), then there's good reason not to worry about his convention bounce metric (and I'm guessing without that convention bounce penalty Kamala would be in the lead in his projections). The good thing about this is that whatever convention bounce input he's factoring in should dissappear soon enough.

3. For whatever reason, of all the polling averages, Nate's swing state polling averages are the worst for Harris. Collectively, swingstates are +1.3 for Harris in Nate's model. Next worst is RCP at +1.6.

a. Nate D +1.3​
b. RCP D +1.6​
c. 538 D +4.2​
d. Split D +4.2​
e. 270 D +4.5​
f. DDHQ D +4.9​
g. VHub D +5.4​
h. Race D +5.8​
Nate has been pretty vocal about being the "toss it into the average" guy, with most any pollster being included (though apparently weighted). So if you're a poll quality type guy then there's a decent reason to believe that Nate's swingstate poll averages are lower than they should be.​

So basically, Nate's model is as pessimistic as any model could be at this point, and even then it's still pretty much calling the race a tossup. So if you think his poll inputs aren't great and/or if his convention bounce metric is probably misleading his model, then there's good reason to think Kamala is in a good position.
 
Back
Top