Nate Silver

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

I think I'm making a more subtle point here, which is that a 15% vs. a 35% probability isn't highly actionable in the context of the 2020 presidential election in particular, i.e. it probably won't/shouldn't change your behavior, nor how you *feel* about the election. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@jbarro Yeah, especially since it's those folks who are more likely to not ultimately have their vote counted. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@jbarro I'm not sure I buy that conditional on not having voted yet, a Democrat who says they're going to vote on Election Day is less likely to do so than a Republican. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@jbarro I mean I think the way to do it is just to use weighted turnout probabilities where "already voted" gets a slightly higher weight (though not 100% since people can lie and ballots can be spoiled) but you also get the long tail of unlikely voters. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

OTOH, some people who are deemed to be likely voters *don't* vote. So the upside case for Dems is if 100% (or more like 98% since there's some ballot spoilage) of the already-voted "likely voters" vote whereas say only 85-90% of election-day likely voters actually follow thru. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

A bit less contrived: some "unlikely voters" actually do turn out to vote. So if you screen out a bunch of Republican unlikely voters, but you don't screen out as many of the Dem unlikely voters because they've already voted, you could underestimate the GOP vote share. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

For instance, if you had a fixed estimate of turnout (as X% of registered voters) and you put people who had already voted first in the queue, then mostly GOP election day voters might get crowded out. That's a weird way to do a likely voter model but some pollsters might do it. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

I think there's *probably* more upside risk than downside risk for Democrats here (i.e. that turnout will be bluer than likely voter models project) but I can also imagine scenarios where it leads pollsters to underestimate the R vote instead. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

It's definitely a source of uncertainty and different ways that pollsters are handling early and mail voting vis-a-vis likely voter models probably explains some of the differences we're seeing between polls right now. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@poniewozik Probably closer to 60-65% I'd guess. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@darth It's hard to know. A fair number of the changes to state laws are supposed to be temporary. If the election goes smoothly, I think it will become more permanent. If not—or if Trump wins, in which case Dems may blame mail voting, fairly or not—maybe not. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@darth My personal confidence level is no higher and no lower than the forecast. I think we mostly make fairly conservative assumptions; on the other hand, there's a lot that's new/different/uncertain about this election, including the widespread use of mail voting. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

On the other hand, a 10 or 15% chance is *really* different than 0%, both mathematically (1 in 8 is a lot different than 1 in ∞) and practically. So if people's takeaway is that Trump still has a meaningful chance, that's the right takeaway. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Are people overcompensating in the other direction? Probably a bit. But here's the thing. Unless you're interested in gambling/investing or forecast calibration, I'd argue that say a 10 or 15% chance of Trump winning isn't that different from say a 35% chance in practical terms. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

If there hadn't been a (not actually all that large!) polling error in 2016, you can imagine the conventional wisdom being *incredibly* certain right now that Trump was going to lose, even more so than four years ago. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Clippy is Fivey Fox's father. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

@joe_sheehan LOL. We're expecting turnout of around 65% of the voting- eligible population, which would be the highest since 1908. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

FYI, if you scroll down to the bottom of our forecast, you can find a link to download TONS of additional data that we don't show on the interactive. That includes these turnout estimates, joint probabilities of winning POTUS + Congress... and much more. https://t.co/ajG88SznSA https://t.co/oiH1YDTQmT — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

I'd note to pollsters that our pollster rating algorithm detects herding and it will result in a lower rating when it's confident that's what's going on. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Plausible! Also, especially after the debate, we're going to start to get a lot of "final" polls, which is when the herding really starts to kick in. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Maybe it helps rev up Trump's base a bit and gives him a higher floor, but Trump can't win if the Dem base is also revved up and independents are voting for Biden by 15 points. He needs to focus on persuadable voters to have a shot here. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Sorry, forgot the link. https://t.co/Ovh3Bmhpb6 — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

No indication at all of a decline in Joe Biden's favorability ratings, which is what Trump presumably would be hoping for if the Hunter Biden stuff was working. https://t.co/CSYlKWosPO — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

FWIW, the turnout estimates don't affect the probabilities in our model—they're just sort of a side project—but we thought it was worth putting a little extra work into them as we've seen people citing the numbers here and there. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

We've also increased our estimate based on academic research showing expanded voting options (e.g. no-excuse absentee voting) tends to increase turnout, as well as new @ElectProject estimates of the voting-eligible population, which is higher than what we'd used previously. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

The primary ingredient in our turnout estimate is polls that ask people whether they're more or less enthusiastic about voting than usual, and those polls are showing record levels of enthusiasm. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Based on an update we'll be releasing later today, we're now projecting total turnout in the presidential race to be 154 million, with an 80th percentile range between 144 million and 165 million. In 2016, turnout was 137 million, by comparison. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Yeah, me too. I'm going to get the vaccine as soon as I'm able to given whatever criteria NY State sets up. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Alternatively, I suppose, it could be that lots of Republicans will never return their mail ballots at all. If that signifies an "enthusiasm gap" favoring Democrats, that's bad news for Republican candidates up and down the ballot, obviously. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

This gap has actually expanded slightly. Returned mail ballots are D+30, while mail ballots **requested but not yet returned** are D+14. The mail ballots that come in late in the process—which in many states, means they'll be counted later—may not be especially blue. — PolitiTweet.org