For those of you that are closing in on a state of panic because of recent “bad poll” numbers for Hillary Clinton and as you search the internet for reassurance from Nate Silver, but none is provided (for a reason we will get to in a moment) I present to you Sam Wang of the Princeton Election Consortium.
As Electoral-Vote.com has pointed out, sites such as FiveThirtyEight are under economic pressure to attract traffic. And there is nothing to attract eyeballs like a crazy Presidential race.
Nate Silver built this current model to generate views, to keep people talking and to keep people worrying. He built in the volatility! In fact he’s capitalizing on the volatility of his model today.
Clinton’s Lead Keeps Shrinking.
The funny thing about that title and one of the things that prompted this story is that as anyone following the race (including Silver) would know, Clinton’s lead has both shrunk AND expanded in the last several months. So he’s basically playing a little word game with his title.
What does he say inside the article?
While the race has tightened, be wary of claims that the election is too close to call — that isn’t where the preponderance of the evidence lies, at least for the moment.
In swing states, the race ranges from showing Trump up by 1 point in Iowa to a Clinton lead of about 6 points in her best states, such as Virginia. That’s a reasonably good position for Clinton, but it isn’t quite as safe as it might sound. That’s because the swing states tend to rise and fall together.
So the converse is also true and that fact could be VERY DEVASTATING for Trump. But of course the reality of an electoral college blow out is not very good for business, so Silver only hypes up the idea of a CLOSE race. However it is just as likely that Clinton wins in a landslide, but that won’t bring in the “hits” that Nate is seeking.
Back to Sam Wang.
Just to remind everyone, variations in this year’s race are quite narrow, consistent with the last 20 years of partisan polarization. Polarization has made both the GOP and Democratic nominees unacceptable to nearly all supporters of the other party. In addition, Donald Trump is radioactive to about one-fifth of his own party. So this year’s race is melodramatic – but stable. In 2016, the Princeton Election Consortium’s state poll-based aggregate has varied between 310 and 350 EV for Hillary Clinton.
Everything else is just noise.
Donate, volunteer, work for Democrats up and down the ballot.
You may now resume your regularly scheduled panic.
UPDATE
Tuesday, Sep 6, 2016 · 7:34:26 PM +00:00 · wtpvideo
Let’s game out Nate’s little “Now Cast” experiment with a look at battleground polling from 2016 (Pollster) and actual results from 2012.
PA 2012 Obama +5 — 2016 Clinton +6
Ohio 2012 Obama +2 — 2016 Clinton +2
FL 2012 Obama +1 — 2016 Clinton +4
NH 2012 Obama +6 — 2016 Clinton +6
CO 2012 Obama +4 — 2016 Clinton +7
MI 2012 Obama +9 — 2016 Clinton +7
WI 2012 Obama +7 — 2016 Clinton +6
VA 2012 Obama +3 — 2016 Clinton +9
NC 2012 Romney +3 — 2016 Clinton +3
IA 2012 Obama +6 — 2016 Clinton +1
NV 2012 Obama +6 — 2016 Trump +1
And we’re not even talking about Georgia or Arizona (both are just Trump +2)
After all those numbers which frankly look much better overall for Clinton currently than the final numbers for Obama, how can the “Now Cast” only give Clinton a 67% chance of winning? Her current battleground numbers are better than Obama’s final numbers!
Anyone still think Nate isn’t “gaming” his model to get more views?