 |
 |
It’s been some years since you’ve seen one of these election analyses here at HA. Given that Biden and Trump will almost certainly be the nominees of their parties, and given that there are more than 300 state head-to-head polls released, it is time to start these up again.
These analyses use state head-to-head polls and mimic the electoral college process as well as following the rules of each state on how electors are awarded in the state. Most states (and D.C.) use the rule “winner takes all,” but Maine and Nebraska allocates two electors to the state victor and the rest go by the vote of each congressional district.
There are a few states that have no polling yet. These are D.C. (not a state, but it gets three electors anyway), Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming. Clearly, these are not swing states. I’ve simply averaged the result from the past 4 elections and always award electors from the state that way. The results are exactly what you would expect–Illinois goes to Biden, South Dakota goes to Trump, etc. Interestingly, Nebraska’s 2nd CD just barely went for Obama in 2008, but NE-2 will be assigned to Trump in these analyses until we get polling that allows the state to be rolled into the simulations.
New polls come out almost daily, so I’ll post new analyses when I have time to collect polls, conduct the analyses, and post results.
So, how do these analyses work? I am using a statistical method called Monte Carlo analysis to, essentially, conduct mock elections in each state. The outcome of each state election is a probabilistic outcome that reflects the number of people polled recently in the state and the fraction of polled individuals saying they would vote for each candidate. Currently, I consider the last two months of polling as “current”, but that window will shrink as the pace of polling picks up. I usually do 100,000 mock elections to simulate what would happen if the election was held now. The FAQ has the details, although I need to update the FAQ for this election cycle.
Note that I do not claim these analyses predict the election outcome. Rather they reflect what we would expect for an election held now. It serves as something like the score in a basketball game. The half-time score only tells you who is leading. A lopsided score may give you an inkling of who will win, but it is just the half-time score. Watching a basketball game is far more interesting when you are allowed to know the score. Likewise, knowing the “score” in an election contest is much more interesting. In developing these analyses, I have tried to be scrupulously unbiased. If all the polls were to be flipped, Trump’s results would look like Biden’s, and Biden’s Trump’s.
Okay, so what would the outcome be if the election was held today? After 100,000 simulated elections, Biden wins every simulated election. Biden received (on average) 359 electoral votes to Trump’s 179 electoral votes. In an election held now, Biden would have a greater than 99.9% probability of winning and Trump would have a less than 0.01% probability of winning.
The long term trends in this race can be seen from a series of elections simulated every seven days using polls from 06-May-2019 to 06-May-2020, and including polls from the preceding two months. When the purple line is above the dashed line, it means Biden is expected to win. The red and green lines provide “confidence intervals”. For example, at each time point, there was a 95% chance that any simulated election fell between the green lines. If the lower green line dips down to touch the dashed line, it means Trump would have a 2.5% chance of winning.
Here is a plot showing the distribution of electoral votes [FAQ] that resulted from the 100,000 simulated elections for the analysis done today (essentially, a vertical slice from the previous graph at today’s date):
[There is much more, including state-by-state analyses below the fold….]
Ten most probable electoral vote outcomes for Biden (full distribution here):
- 352 electoral votes with a 6.23% probability
- 355 electoral votes with a 3.87% probability
- 358 electoral votes with a 3.59% probability
- 334 electoral votes with a 3.47% probability
- 351 electoral votes with a 3.22% probability
- 368 electoral votes with a 2.84% probability
- 361 electoral votes with a 2.67% probability
- 390 electoral votes with a 2.28% probability
- 337 electoral votes with a 2.22% probability
- 340 electoral votes with a 2.21% probability
After 100,000 simulations:
- Biden wins greater than 99.9%, Trump wins less than 0.01%.
- Average (SE) EC votes for Biden: 358.9 (22.7)
- Average (SE) EC votes for Trump: 179.1 (22.7)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for Biden: 355 (319, 408)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for Trump: 183 (130, 219)
Each column of this table shows the electoral vote total aggregated by different criteria for the probability of winning a state (Safe=100%, Strong=90%+, Leans=60%+, Weak=50%+):
| Threshold | Safe | + Strong | + Leans | + Weak |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Safe Biden | 171 | |||
| Strong Biden | 156 | 327 | ||
| Leans Biden | 25 | 25 | 352 | |
| Weak Biden | 0 | 0 | 0 | 352 |
| Weak Trump | 0 | 0 | 0 | 186 |
| Leans Trump | 66 | 66 | 186 | |
| Strong Trump | 63 | 120 | ||
| Safe Trump | 57 |
This table summarizes results by state. Click on the poll count to see the individual polls included for the state.
| 1 | 1 | EC | # | Total | % | % | Biden | Trump | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | 2 | Votes | polls | Votes | Biden | Trump | % wins | % wins | |
| AL | 9 | 2* | 1085 | 39.4 | 60.6 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| AK | 3 | 1* | 272 | 47.1 | 52.9 | 24.8 | 75.2 | ||
| AZ | 11 | 4 | 4624 | 52.0 | 48.0 | 97.5 | 2.5 | ||
| AR | 6 | 1* | 604 | 38.4 | 61.6 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| CA | 55 | 1 | 924 | 69.8 | 30.2 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| CO | 9 | 2 | 881 | 60.4 | 39.6 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| CT | 7 | 1 | 814 | 58.1 | 41.9 | 99.9 | 0.1 | ||
| DE | 3 | 1* | 394 | 58.1 | 41.9 | 99.0 | 1.0 | ||
| DC | 3 | 0* | (100) | (0) | |||||
| FL | 29 | 7 | 13529 | 51.0 | 49.0 | 95.2 | 4.9 | ||
| GA | 16 | 2 | 1501 | 49.1 | 50.9 | 31.0 | 69.0 | ||
| HI | 4 | 0 | (100) | (0) | |||||
| ID | 4 | 0 | (0) | (100) | |||||
| IL | 20 | 0 | (100) | (0) | |||||
| IN | 11 | 1 | 929 | 42.8 | 57.2 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| IA | 6 | 1 | 1149 | 48.9 | 51.1 | 30.7 | 69.3 | ||
| KS | 6 | 1 | 1442 | 43.5 | 56.5 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| KY | 8 | 2* | 1260 | 41.3 | 58.7 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| LA | 8 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| ME | 2 | 1* | 819 | 55.3 | 44.7 | 98.3 | 1.7 | ||
| ME1 | 1 | 1* | 459 | 60.3 | 39.7 | 99.9 | 0.1 | ||
| ME2 | 1 | 1* | 438 | 51.6 | 48.4 | 69.1 | 30.9 | ||
| MD | 10 | 1* | 682 | 63.2 | 36.8 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| MA | 11 | 1* | 761 | 69.0 | 31.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| MI | 16 | 15 | 10776 | 52.7 | 47.3 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| MN | 10 | 1* | 704 | 56.8 | 43.2 | 99.4 | 0.6 | ||
| MS | 6 | 1 | 442 | 43.7 | 56.3 | 2.8 | 97.2 | ||
| MO | 10 | 2* | 1636 | 44.9 | 55.1 | 0.2 | 99.8 | ||
| MT | 3 | 1 | 390 | 46.7 | 53.3 | 17.9 | 82.1 | ||
| NE | 2 | 0 | (0) | (100) | |||||
| NE1 | 1 | 0 | (0) | (100) | |||||
| NE2 | 1 | 0 | (0) | (100) | |||||
| NE3 | 1 | 0 | (0) | (100) | |||||
| NV | 6 | 1 | 717 | 52.2 | 47.8 | 79.3 | 20.7 | ||
| NH | 4 | 1 | 750 | 54.5 | 45.5 | 95.6 | 4.4 | ||
| NJ | 14 | 1 | 584 | 58.7 | 41.3 | 99.9 | 0.1 | ||
| NM | 5 | 1 | 929 | 56.5 | 43.5 | 99.8 | 0.2 | ||
| NY | 29 | 2 | 1270 | 66.9 | 33.1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| NC | 15 | 7 | 6037 | 51.3 | 48.7 | 91.8 | 8.2 | ||
| ND | 3 | 1* | 372 | 40.9 | 59.1 | 0.7 | 99.3 | ||
| OH | 18 | 3 | 3241 | 50.4 | 49.6 | 65.1 | 34.9 | ||
| OK | 7 | 1 | 450 | 36.7 | 63.3 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| OR | 7 | 0 | (100) | (0) | |||||
| PA | 20 | 10 | 6805 | 52.1 | 47.9 | 99.2 | 0.8 | ||
| RI | 4 | 0 | (100) | (0) | |||||
| SC | 9 | 1* | 984 | 46.7 | 53.3 | 7.9 | 92.1 | ||
| SD | 3 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| TN | 11 | 1* | 588 | 41.5 | 58.5 | 0.2 | 99.8 | ||
| TX | 38 | 3 | 3082 | 49.2 | 50.8 | 26.8 | 73.2 | ||
| UT | 6 | 2 | 1958 | 43.6 | 56.4 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| VT | 3 | 0 | (100) | (0) | |||||
| VA | 13 | 1 | 747 | 55.4 | 44.6 | 97.9 | 2.1 | ||
| WA | 12 | 1 | 530 | 57.2 | 42.8 | 99.0 | 1.0 | ||
| WV | 5 | 1* | 495 | 33.3 | 66.7 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| WI | 10 | 10 | 7235 | 51.2 | 48.8 | 93.6 | 6.4 | ||
| WY | 3 | 0 | (0) | (100) |
* An older poll was used (i.e. no recent polls exist).
Details of the methods are given in the FAQ.
The most recent analysis in this match-up can be found from this page.
[Deleted–off topic]
Biden should get 539 electoral votes, but he won’t, because a substantial portion of the American public doesn’t have any sense.
For photos of actual real-life Americans with no sense, see:
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/what-are-we-doing-doctors-are-fed-conspiracies-ravaging-ers-n1201446
HA poll analysis October 20, 2016:
The Chardonnay Lady 2.0:
> 99.9% probability of winning
Mean of 338 electoral votes
The future 45th president of the United States of America:
< 0.01% probability of winning
Mean of 200 electoral vote
You are running out of time.
[Hopefully this is a more on-topic post. I would hate to suffer another deletion.]
HA poll analysis October 27, 2016:
The Chardonnay Lady 2.0:
> 99.9% probability of winning
Mean of 333 electoral votes
The future 45th president of the United States of America:
< 0.01% probability of winning
Mean of 205 electoral votes
You are running out of time.
@godwinha @3
Yawn…
Super Bowl XLIX, 2015, end of third quarter:
Seattle Seahawks: 24
New England Patriots: 14
———–
[Hopefully this is a more on-topic post. I would hate to suffer another deletion.]
Be super-careful about posting ANYTHING off-topic in these non-open threads. If you show an inability to understand how to remain on-topic or are unable to abide by the policy, I’ll be giving you “time-outs” from this blog.
Darryl @ 5:
How many oddsmakers had the Seahawks a 99.9-to-0.01 favorite to win with 15 minutes to go that year?
And were the Hawks so far ahead that they had their publicists announce that they’d be running the wishbone offense
12:35 & 12:41 p.m. ET: The Clinton campaign talks up trip to Arizona.
for the last five minutes of the game?
@godwinha @6,
Your first question is irrelevant, and only demonstrates your misunderstanding of what was being done. I recommend you read the FAQ, although I’m not sure your intellect is quite up to the task. But, who knows, it might help you avoid further mis-analogy.
A little more relevant is this question: what would be the chances of a Seahawk victory if the game was about to be terminated a bit into the 4th quarter (although this isn’t a perfect analogy either, just more relevant).
Your second question is simply a bad analogy, and doesn’t merit additional comment.
@5 Oh, I think @3 is on-topic, all right. In fact, it’s direct confrontation with your article. You don’t have to read between the lines very much to figure out what he’s bloviating: The polls will be wrong in 2020, too, so your entire analysis is wrong. Please leave @3 up so we can rub his face in it on Nov. 4, 2020.
Roger @8,
Yeah…@3 is on topic enough, although I almost deleted @6 because of the mostly off-topic “wishbone offense” comment.
Like FAUX News, Bob seems convinced that Sec. Clinton is running for President, and it is driving him absolutely bonkers….
Darryl @ 9
I’m increasingly worried that Democrats are doubling down on a bad 2016 choice. It’s a poll with a lot of problems but the Civiqs/dKos poll just released suggests some pretty serious popularity issues for The Cognitively Challenged One.
That’s on top of Morning Consult poll released earlier this week in which too many younger (< 45 years) Democrats for comfort want Biden thrown over the side.
What concerns me is that it's not just you that will have to live with another four years of Trump if Democrat primary stupidity is permitted to repeat itself. I'll have to, as well.
I think that more bad news about Biden will emerge as time passes. I think that Harris or Klobuchar would be an improvement. Hell, I hate her but I think that Warren would be an improvement.
I find it hard to believe, Darryl, that having to throw your full support behind Joe Biden doesn't drive you just a little bit bonkers.
Pick a better nominee. You'll sleep better.
Hells bells.. It was very interesting when little maxwipe (pos rapey mcdimfuk’s co-rape fantasy league partner in crime) said it wanted to vote for Biden.
No I didn’t buy it.
@godwinha,
Wow! Bravo! BRAVO! That’s some “first-rate” concern-trolling, Bob!!!
The polls are what they are. I don’t pay much attention to national polls, because we don’t elect president by popular vote. But, if I do pay attention, I avoid picking particular polls. Rather, I examine the collection of recent polls.
So, that Civiqs poll you reference is a national poll that shows Biden leading Trump, 47% to 44%. The Morning Consult poll has Biden leading Trump 46% to 42%.
A much better view comes by looking at, say, RealClearPolitics. There you can see that Trump has not held a lead for the last 38 consecutive national polls, going all the way back to mid-Feb, although he leads in very few national polls for the past 24 months. Thus, if we wanted to know the answer to, “if the election was held today, who would win the popular vote?”, the answer would be “almost certainly Biden.”
In contrast, my analyses are designed to address a different question: “if the election was held today, who would be elected president.” See the difference? Currently, the answer is that Biden would have a high probability of winning a general election held today.
One year ago there were very few polls, but the analysis only gave Biden about a 55% chance of winning against Trump if the election had been held then, as can be seen from studying this figure:
“I find it hard to believe, Darryl, that having to throw your full support behind Joe Biden doesn’t drive you just a little bit bonkers.”
Being in touch with reality isn’t really your strong suit, is it Bob?
“Pick a better nominee. You’ll sleep better.”
What does “pick a better nominee” mean? The next President is going to be either the nominee of the Democratic party or the Republican party. I’ll take the Democratic nominee. I’m quite certain that the alternative is not a “better nominee.”
“Pick a better nominee. You’ll sleep better.”
Where to begin. No, better to say nothing.
@12 “What does ‘pick a better nominee’ mean?”
I think it means he doesn’t relish voting for Trump again.
Can’t say that I blame him.
No worries – eventually COVID-19 will delete you.
@12 go get him Darryl – show him who’s boss and more intelligent to ever be a real Doctor (I bet you even excel at sports).
This is where Bob doesn’t get it.
With Biden comes a VP and a Cabinet, and Congress (hopefully one with a Dem majority). One with brains and that have a desire to help Americans better themselves, and not the Fake fuckers that we have now that only care about one thing their money and fear of going extinct.
There is nothing more that he would like to do, as we have all turned this into (except me – I am smarter than y’all), than to turn this into a sporting event – the Yankees versus the Red Sox. Take your sports and shove them up your ass.
This is about a party and policies – Dem versus Repuke. It’s that simple. Fuck The Hump, Fuck the Repukes! Vote for whomever and whatever is the Dem Candidate – it’s exactly what the Repukes do and exactly why they don’t believe in Climate Change and COVID-19 – not because they don’t think its real, but because it’s their disposition to not believe it is real.
It’s a lot harder for Bob to tell people that Dem policies suck than to find some fault with the candidate. He’s a one trick homo.
Darryl – Bob is so concerned for you. I mean the last four years haven’t been that bad. What’s he concerned about? I mean – how about that stock market!
Share with us your concerns Bob!
In November, it’ll be about 50/50 between Trump and Biden.
@19 You wish.
@17 You’re making it way more complicated than a response needs to be.
Biden vs. Trump. Hmmm. That’s a real head-scratcher.
Now do Mother Teresa vs. Ted Bundy.
See how simple it is?
Shorter racist incel: “why won’t Democrats pick tulsi?”
Primary Democratic voters have generally chosen Biden as the better nominee.
You don’t think that the racist incel is hoping the Democrats choose a weaker nominee so the impeached miserable failure has an better chance than zero?
Darryl, I’m not going to pretend I comprehend the results of the complete analysis, but it’s interesting.
As a scheduler, there up is a software program called Avcumen by Deltek (spelling), that does a similar analysis of schedules. It runs numerous calculations with varying duration and comes up with probability of completed projects on time or on a specific date.
WTF?! @24,
That seems like a great application for Monte Carlo analysis. Scheduling can have lots of dependencies that are difficult to model directly. So it is easier to simulate the process. We’ve come a long way from simple Gantt charts !
[Off Topic — take it to an Open Thread]
25,
There are jury consultants who use Monte Carlo for modeling jury selection and challenge. Don’t know anyone who has used them. But it does seem like a more scientific way of modeling jury composition resulting from strikes. Some jury consultants can come across a little bit Don Draper, if you ask me. It’s a metric shit ton of money just to have some guy give you the same pool ratings you’ve seen before. Interestingly, Monte Carlo analysis has also been put forward as a scientific means of challenging the widely held assumption that peremptory strikes when used properly remove bias from a jury.