With The Conversation keeping this site’s regular US correspondent busy, a quick post of my own on the US election campaign, and a forum for the discussion thereof. The big news from my perspective is that, after all the noteworthy forecasters closed for refurbishment following Joe Biden’s withdrawal, Nate Silver has lifted the lid on his Harris-versus-Trump model.
The model launches with a 61.3% win probability for Trump and 38.1% for Harris, the balance presumably reflecting the possibility that one candidate or the other doesn’t survive until November. These numbers suggest a model with a judiciously wide zone of uncertainty around projections that superficially look very encouraging for Trump. Silver’s model records an essentially dead head on the national popular vote, and doesn’t credit Harris with a better than even chance unless she lands at least two points clear. State-level projections find Trump more likely than not to flip Wisconsin (just), Michigan and Pennsylvania (a little further ahead), Nevada (a little further again) and Arizona and Georgia (both about as strong for Trump as North Carolina, which he carried in 2020).
The Economist’s model is still on ice, but its page explaining its methodology is well worth reading. Its charts comparing the predictiveness of its poll-based and “fundamentals” models going back to 1948 are particularly interesting in finding that the latter have the superior record – certainly at predicting the result 150 days out, but even unto election day itself. However, one of its parameters does not seem to me to be quite as fundamental as all that, being a poll-based measure of presidential approval.
The question of polls-versus-fundamentals was the focus of a critique by Nate Silver of the new model developed by FiveThirtyEight, the enterprise formerly synonymous with Silver but now bought out, LucasFilm style, by Disney. Its new incarnation is overseen by G. Elliott Morris, of whom Silver says he is “not a fan”. This was producing remarkably bullish results for Biden up until it was put on ice, which evidently wasn’t persuading too many senior Democrats. As well as criticising a lack of transparency, Silver observes that the model seems to be overwhelmingly favouring fundamentals, despite its supporting data suggesting that fundamentals should in fact be viewed as less predictive than polls. Its thesis, Silver argues, is that – as of July 21 – “Joe Biden is a reasonably clear favorite to win the popular vote because he’s an incumbent, and it’s too early to really update that assumption based on the polling or anything else”.
Relax Boerwar, Trump won’t win 😀
The polls soon to follow the betting as I’ve reported 🙂
Using today’s polling averages on Nates Silver’s site, and ignoring any MOE or variation in outcome (scientific I know ;-)) this is what the electoral college would look like today, Trump 287/Harris 251. If the Dems flip PA then Harris wins 270 to 268.
https://www.natesilver.net/p/nate-silver-2024-president-election-polls-model
”
Mostly Interestedsays:
Thursday, August 1, 2024 at 2:37 pm
Using today’s polling averages on Nates Silver’s site, and ignoring any MOE or variation in outcome (scientific I know ;-)) this is what the electoral college would look like today, Trump 287/Harris 251. If the Dems flip PA then Harris wins 270 to 268.
https://www.natesilver.net/p/nate-silver-2024-president-election-polls-model
”
That is close. The gap has shrunken quite a bit. Democrats will put a lot of resources to win blue wall i.e. Wisconson, Pensylvania and Michigan in addition to New Mexico and Nevada from now onwards.
> Bitcoin convention
how much would you not like to go out to dinner with anyone who attended that
evads @ #288 Thursday, August 1st, 2024 – 1:48 pm
The Trump campaign, and Donald Trump himself, is behaving like he’s fighting the campaign they fought in the Primaries. It’s throwing red meat to the base. But that’s not how you win the general election.
Ven @ #303 Thursday, August 1st, 2024 – 2:43 pm
It’s also without any VP Running Mate yet.
Could someone explain to me how the Electoral College votes are allocated when there’s a 3rd party candidate who’s on the ballot in some states but not others? Is the only effect they have on eating into the vote of the other candidates?
Centre:
I think you will find that it is actually the opposite.
Bookies and gamblers do not possess some special insights the rest of us do not. They follow the polls and the vibe and historical precedent and their own gut instincts like every other pundit.
C@tmomma @ #308 Thursday, August 1st, 2024 – 2:58 pm
In all states and DC (bar 2) it is FPTP/winner take all. How many states 3rd party candidates make the ballot on does not alter this fact.
So you are correct in that the 3rd party candidates only effect ís eating into the vote of the major party candidates where they are on the ballot.
C@t and Isle of Rocks,
If a third party candidate were to win a state, he or she would get that state’s Electoral College votes. Theoretically.
It doesn’t matter how many states that candidate runs in.
3rd party candidates can cause runoffs in some cases if neither major party gets 50%+1. Like the 2020 Senate race in Georgia.
I don’t think this applies to presidential races
Good point. In the 2oth century this was usually segregationists in the South (1948, 1960, 1968) or progressives (1912,1924). Hasn’t happened in the 21st century.
I’ll also note that Maine and Alaska use optional preferential voting, so this would dilute the thrid party spolier effect in those states.
Ante Meridian @ #310 Thursday, August 1st, 2024 – 3:18 pm
”
C@tmommasays:
Thursday, August 1, 2024 at 2:58 pm
Could someone explain to me how the Electoral College votes are allocated when there’s a 3rd party candidate who’s on the ballot in some states but not others? Is the only effect they have on eating into the vote of the other candidates?
”
The simple rule: FPTP. It doesn’t matter how many candidates are on the ballot. For eg. Florida may have as many as 7 candidates and NC may have only 2 candidates on the ballot. Winner takes all the electoral college votes of the state.
C@t:
Electoral college votes are apportioned on a winner-takes-all basis, so all of a state’s electoral votes go to whoever wins the popular vote in that state. It doesn’t matter how much any of the candidates that didn’t won the popular vote get.
Asha
The momentum behind Harris is backed by real money. People from the right sources who bet with real money are more likely to anticipate what participants in a survey answer.
Open your eyes and be observant – That’s what you will find!
”
Isle of Rockssays:
Thursday, August 1, 2024 at 3:38 pm
Good point. In the 2oth century this was usually segregationists in the South (1948, 1960, 1968) or progressives (1912,1924). Hasn’t happened in the 21st century.
I’ll also note that Maine and Alaska use optional preferential voting, so this would dilute the thrid party spolier effect in those states.
Ante Meridian @ #310 Thursday, August 1st, 2024 – 3:18 pm
C@t and Isle of Rocks,
If a third party candidate were to win a state, he or she would get that state’s Electoral College votes. Theoretically.
It doesn’t matter how many states that candidate runs in.
”
Third party candidate George Wallace won 5 southern states and 46 electoral college votes.
Furthermore, if a third party candidate did achieve the miracle of winning a state’s electoral votes through some miracle, it would only matter if neither of the major party candidates were able to win a majority in the electoral college.
In that scenario, I believe it’s the House of Representatives that decides who becomes the President and the Senate decides the Vice President… which, given the gerrymanders in the House and the malapportionment in the Senate, would be likely to favour the Republicans.
Makes one very thankful for our own electoral system.
Asha
Another thing:
People informed who bet with real money are not going to wait for a poll of any real substance. You move to get your price!
Send me a payment with your credit card and I’ll show you how it works 🙂
Trump’s first try at pivoting to Harris blows up in his face
The former president suggested Harris only recently “became” Black.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/31/donald-trump-kamala-harris-race-attacks-00172149
“But at least one Republican was incensed by the comments.
“Nobody’s helping the voters out here by talking about the substance of the issue which we should be focusing on,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).
While Murkowski has long soured on Trump’s candidacy, she chastised the GOP ticket’s cultural commentary, including Sen. JD Vance’s remarks that women who don’t reproduce are “childless cat ladies.
“We’re getting spun up about cats and children. And now how somebody looks,” she said. “Does it make any difference how much Polish ancestry versus Irish versus whatever else it is that I have in me? Why are we talking about this?”
”
“The interview, which began an hour late, was supposed to go for an hour. But it abruptly ended after 34 minutes, which moderator Kadia Goba of Semafor said was at the behest of Trump’s campaign.”
“But by that point, the damage had been done.
“Looking forward to the editorials calling for @realDonaldTrump to get out of the race following today’s performance,” Ben LaBolt, the White House communications director, posted from his personal account on X.
Anthony Scaramucci, the venture capitalist and former Trump ally who served as his White House communications director for 11 days, posted: “Whoever told him to do this interview should be fired.”
Republican strategist Shermichael Singleton, who appeared on CNN moments after Trump walked off the stage in Chicago, was even more blunt: “You need to be careful with this crap,” he warned. “As far as every Black person in America is concerned, she is Black. … To question the vice president’s ethnicity — I can’t even say what I really want to say about this.”
He added: “I think a lot of Black people will watch this appearance and then they will point to the former president and they will point to the Republican Party and say this is why we will never give you all the majority of our support.””
Asha,
Delegates to the Electoral College may be elected to represent a particular candidate, but they still have to go through the formality of voting. Thus if a third party candidate were to get enough delegates to rob both main party candidates of a majority, he or she could act as kingmaker by instructing his/her delegates how to vote. Or the delegates could decide for themselves, possibly extracting a price for their individual votes.
So it wouldn’t necessarily go to the HoR and Senate to decide.
Centre:
Yes, but those big money gamblers are basing their bets on the same factors that everyone else bases their predictions on – their own judgements on how they think things will go in the election, informed by a combination of the polling and events on the campaign trail and their gut instinct and historical precedent. It’s not like they have some special insider information that the major media networks or the Trump and Harris campaigns don’t even have access to.
Of course there was going to be a move to Harris in the markets after Biden dropped out – it was a huge game changer that nearly everyone who wasn’t a totally one-eyed partisan agreed had made the election winnable for the Democrats again. Just as the betting markets were obviously going to form up in Trump’s favour after the first debate, as anybody with half a brain could easily see how disastrous it was for the Biden campaign. It doesn’t mean that those making the bets possess some special insights the rest of us don’t, they are just reacting to the available information like everyone else does.
And whereas opinion polling can sometimes be a bit slow to catch up with the current state of play, the betting markets can sometimes be much too sensitive to “events.” (Which is partly why political betting can be hugely lucrative for those who know how to play the odds.) Take Albo’s big gaffe in the 2022 election. Huge amounts of money flowed to the Coalition immediately after that, only for the odds to soon drift back to Labor’s favour once it became clear that it hadn’t had much of an impact on the polling. Likewise, during the 2020 US Election count – once it became clear that Trump had overperformed the polls but before the more Democrat-heavy urban areas of the key swing states had been counted – the odds suddenly moved strongly in Trump’s favour, only to move back to Biden once the blue shift became apparent. (I’m still kicking myself for not putting a large bet on Biden when that was going down, but I had at least learnt my lesson by the time of Albo’s gaffe.) And, of course, there’s Scomo’s 2019 miracle, where the betting markets made all the same mistakes as the opinion polls, mainly because they were being informed by the opinion polls.
Political betting markets are simply a reflection of how bookies and gamblers think elections are likely to go. They aren’t worthless as an indicator, but they shouldn’t be taken as gospel either. Kevin Bonham did a great article a while back debunking the myth that betting markets are more reliable than opinion polling – the reality is quite the opposite.
Centre:
Ha, I have made decent money from political betting myself. I’m well aware of how it works, and how the disparity between the odds and how things actually end up going down can be played to one’s advantage.
It is true that the markets move faster than the polls, but that doesn’t mean they can be used to predict how the polls are going to move. They are measuring different things.
Betting markets are an indicator of how those betting think things will go. Opinion polls are an indicator of how voters are actually intending to vote. The gamblers can sometimes be incorrect in their assessments. The voters can sometimes change their minds or be polled incorrectly.
There are faithless elector laws in many states (33). In 14 states these laws void any vote cast by electoral college electors for a candidate different to the one they pledged to vote for at the election and replace the elector with a faithful elector.
Also the electoral college is a single round of voting, so there is no scope to vote as promised in the first roudn and then move afterwards
There is some scope for third party horesetrading but in some states this is not possible.
Ante Meridian @ #320 Thursday, August 1st, 2024 – 4:17 pm
Also, political betting markets are pretty shallow in comparison to, say, sports betting, and as such can sometimes be vulnerable to a few whales chucking in huge amounts of money.
Asha, you have not made a bad post at 4.22 pm.
I remember debating Kevin Bonham here on this site many years ago – when nobody had a clue about betting!
The betting, like the polls, will NOT get it right ALL the time. Nobody should seriously expect that to be the case.
In my opinion, betting is more accurate than the polls for the reasons I have outlined in my posts above!
Also, probabilities derived from a betting market will always be more accurate than probabilities derived from polling because the former are always afforded the luxury of taking the polling into account.
The real skill is to know when to move, and when to call it!
I’ve already backed Kamala at $2.40 and if she can get to 47% betting probability, I’ll officially call it 🙂
Asha
When are you going to call it? I already have!
Beat you to it, you slowed down by polls 😀
Catch ya later 🙂
Oh just before I do go…
Asha at 4.33 pm, that is a bad post.
Gonski…
Centre:
As I do not possess powers of divination, I will call the US election at some point after November 5th, when enough votes have come in to indicate that either Harris or Trump has won a majority in the electoral college.
Anyone who thinks they can accurately predict a race between two candidates with only a percentage point or two between them in the polls – especially a race where one candidate is both a former president and a convicted criminal and the other candidate has taken over as the presumptive nominee at the eleventh hour after the previous nominee dropped out – is deluding themselves. We are in the very definition of unprecedented times right now.
Trump’s not as dumb as people – still, after 9 years – think he is.
I mean, dumb politically – he may be all sorts of other definitions of dumb and worse (before posters jump in and quote the above without the rest of my post).
Yes, he’s made some dumb mistakes politically and been wrong-footed a number of times. But his instincts for what resonates with ‘middle America’ are keen and strong.
And his performance at the NABJ is another example of this. Suggestions it was a disaster for him are wide of the mark. Or even that it will only play to his hardened base, though it is admittedly true that his success has always been dependent on high turnout among the electorate who don’t normally vote much from rural areas.
It’s also about this:
He knows he won’t get above a low threshold of BAME voters, especially black. So he just needs to peal away a few more % to make a difference. Polls already showed he had been making steady if small inroads with black males up to when Biden dropped out.
And regarding the impact of his comments on his national audience of all colours: questioning Harris’s authenticity in their minds on the matter of colour is actually quite powerful, however coarse it sounds to many of us.
Because many will say “I don’t like Trump but he has a point – she’s probably just another self-serving politician who is a chameleon to get votes”.
That goes to the heart of trust of a politician on everything, not just the thing they’re getting called out on.
Now obviously it’s met with repulsion on sites like PB and hardened Trump-haters. But that’s not who he needs to sow doubts in the minds of, and thus blunt the enthusiasm that has met Harris so far.
Not to mention that he’s succeeding in bringing himself back into the headlines again – another key plank of his strategy when saying controversial things that, after 9 years and more, gets missed by his opponents again and again who keep giving him the oxygen. It’s largely how he became the nominee in the first place when he kept saying shocking things through 2015 and into 2016 and asphyxiated (politically) his better GOP colleagues.
@C@tmomma
“Also, Kamala Harris was Black from the day she was born because of who her father was. She was also Indian from the day she was born, because of who her mother is.”
Thanks for the clarification, but you’re preaching (the very obvious) to the converted. 🙂
AFAIK Donald Trump doesn’t stalk PB. . .
@Socrates
“Asking whether Harris is Black or Indian is like asking her which parent she wants to disown? ”
That would actually be a very good and succinct riposte for Harris to use publicly: “Donald, do you want me to reject my Jamaican father or my Indian mother?”
“So when you went to Scotland and talked a lot about being Scottish, that meant you weren’t American any more I suppose?”
Needs to be responded to with humour and grace by Harris herself to make DJT seem desperate/ridiculous rather than give it more oxygen of the wrong kind.
@MelbourneMammoth
“And much as the Left might not like to admit, but the MEDIAN white voter has plenty of antipathy toward non-white people in general and they don’t need to pretend they don’t have that at the ballot box.”
I completely disagree with this characterisation of white voters in the USA. As my post higher up says, it’s about several things, especially trust in Harris and her authenticity, but that’s nothing to do with antipathy to non-white people.
A bit troubling that you think that tbh. . .
https://www.pollbludger.net/2024/07/31/us-presidential-election-minus-14-weeks/comment-page-6/#comment-4339968
It’s not really like that in America (though women seem to struggle for the Presidency). You forgotten Barack Obama already?
Centre:
I put some money on Kamala not long after the 2020 election, when the odds were well over $10, and again soon after June’s debate. The odds have now tightened to the extent that it doesn’t seem worth it to bet any further.
Robert Kennedy Jr
Polls have consistently shown he takes approximately equal votes from Dems and GOP.
That’s not to say it’s equal in every state, though I don’t recall any major differences at state level either.
Stances like his anti-vax one, and other conspiracy theories, are for the far right for whom Trump is too mainstream 🙂 . OTOH, he’s a Kennedy and an environmentalist amongst some progressive traits, so continues to take some votes from his old party – not sure how the change to Harris as candidate affects this.
“Amy Coney Barrett has started showing a bit of independence of thought from the rest of the right wing of the court. She’s still way over on that side, but it might be worth watching her over the comings years.”
What people often overlook are these two things:
1. The SCOTUS makes judgements based on the rule of law and the constitution. More often than given credit for, all 9 Justices are mostly faithful to this regardless of which side of politics they hail from.
2. As a consequence of the above, >90% of rulings are unanimous or perhaps 8-1, sometimes on quite momentous things. But these don’t make good news fodder so don’t get reported in the way that split judgements do.
Regarding the conservative justices, Barrett and – even more so – Gorsuch are what are known as ‘constitutionalists’ to a fault, and consequently make judgements at times that surprise people from the other side of politics who see things very black and white.
Alito used to be considered a revered constitutionalist, and probably proudly claims the mantle still, but perhaps is wanting to make more of a splash in his closing years!
Ironically, it’s the Trump appointees that portray more even-handedness and (IMO, this isn’t meant to be controversial) humanity out of the conservative justices – I think he must have been advised well on those picks. Barrett and Gorsuch are star picks in terms of their ability and sincerity, not quite so sure on Kavanaugh re the latter trait.
This term, 3 cases were 9-0 or 8-1.
9 were 6-3.
15 all up.
And that doesnt cover the 6-3 big ticket items of 2023, like Student Loans, Religion/Gay rights, Affirmative Action, EPA.
USA presidential elections. We have already had two black swan events. Anyone predicting now is at a minimum assuming there will not be a third.
1. The SCOTUS makes judgements based on the rule of law and the constitution. More often than given credit for, all 9 Justices are mostly faithful to this regardless of which side of politics they hail from.
Not true in substance with reference to this term and last’s rulings from the SCOTUS. Stare decisis has been thrown out the window with Precedent. Also, new interpretations of the Constitution have been written.
“Also, Kamala Harris was Black from the day she was born because of who her father was. She was also Indian from the day she was born, because of who her mother is.”
Her mother has been dead 15 years.
Donald Harris is very much alive at 86.
Harris has to be very careful using her father to claim Blacki authenticity, he’s called her out before.
I heard that, because Amy Coney Barrett is a staunch Catholic, and not an Evangelical, that has led to her thinking going in a different direction to some of the other Conservative Justices.
“USA presidential elections. We have already had two black swan events. Anyone predicting now is at a minimum assuming there will not be a third.”
Yes, and black swan events aren’t as rare as they might be perceived. Just days before the election before last (2016), the Comey dirt files derailed Hillary Clinton who was coasting along and would have otherwise won the election comfortably.
I bet there are some skeletons hiding in KaMAla Harris’ closet.
Badthinker, I’m really hoping it’s just an honest typo otherwise I don’t think the use of the term ‘Blacki’ is acceptable in this day and age.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FciQeRGYFlw
You reckon she might have raped somebody, mammoth?
Badthinker @ #341 Thursday, August 1st, 2024 – 6:27 pm
Provide a reference to that outlandish claim about Kamala Harris’ father, Badthinker. If you can’t, then we’ll know you have simply picked it up from one of those wackadoodle RW media ecosphere sites you inhabit and therefore it will be considered to be just another lie about Kamala Harris that you are trying to spread.
evads @ #344 Thursday, August 1st, 2024 – 6:31 pm
Likely not. Just as old Melbourne Mammoth has dropped Trump’s pronunciation of Kamala Harris’ name into the typing in his latest pathetic attempt to take the shine off her on behalf of his poster boy, Donald Trump, in the MAGA world’s usual non-serious and derogatory way.
BTSays @ #331 Thursday, August 1st, 2024 – 5:24 pm
No, but his pusillanimous toadies do. 😀
(hat tip, Monty Python)
I really cannot fathom how Harris’ mum or dad being alive or not is supposed to have even the slightest relevance to her background. You don’t lose that stuff when your parents die!