2) NOT POLITICAL ADVICE. NOT INVESTMENT ADVICE.
Conversation
4) There are lots of approaches here.
You can read polls, as 538 does; they end up at 13%: projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-
1
5
5) You can look at the economy, as The Economist does, and end at 9%: projects.economist.com/us-2020-foreca
2
5
6) Or you can look at what prediction markets say--which have Trump around 33%.
electionbettingodds.com
[Disclosure: FTX owns electionbettingodds.com; the odds there come in part from FTX's market at ftx.com/trade/TRUMP]
1
2
9
8) First off, 's model seems suspect to me.
They use a fundamentals model.
Their description (projects.economist.com/us-2020-foreca) beings "A common criticism of fundamentals models is that they are extremely easy to 'over-fit'..."
1
5
10) 's is way more up-front. It _does_ have a ton of factors in it, but uses much more data and many more data points.
It also is based heavily on polls, rather than fundamentals.
Historically, it's done quite well compared to others.
1
8
12) That might make up something like 5% difference between them, but I doubt it's 13% vs 33%.
And note--prediction markets get to read 538; 538 doesn't model based on FTX.
Prediction markets are at 33% *after adjusting down* for 538's information. Otherwise they might be 40%.
22) Both sides are doubling down, e.g. twitter.com/NateSilver538/
If is right that 's COVID strategy sucks, then Trump very likely loses.
But the public secretly liking it more than they let on is an example of a possible systematic bias.
Quote Tweet
Trump doubling down on a series of extremely unpopular messages about COVID—after having caught COVID, and at a time when COVID cases are rising again nationally—is about the worst possible closing pitch, and one has to wonder about how downballot GOP candidates feel about it.
Show this thread
8
12

