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]
Conversation
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
16) 2012 was a pretty 'standard', boring election. Incumbent with average popularity, slightly unpopular challenger, decent economy.
2016 was weird: a candidate unlike what we'd seen before. Almost everyone was off by a bunch there--a few % of the popular vote.
Replying to
17) How much wackier is 2020 than 2016?
IDK -- probably a lot more.
I sort of think that volatility here should be something like 9x the baseline and 3x 2016.
So, idk, I think my model would be a fair bit less certain than 538 etc.'s, in ways that aren't reflected by polling.
1
11
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

