ADVERTISEMENT

Nate Silver: Harris is gaining in post debate polls

Colonoscopy

HB Legend
Feb 20, 2022
13,154
13,958
113
52
Saint Louis, Mo
Hello readers,

I’m going to employ a little trick that I use from time to time when I’m really crunched for time: writing up some observations as a series of bullet points. But the headline is that the bold prediction I made after last week’s debate looks to be coming true: Kamala Harris is moving up in the polls enough that the model is converging back toward 50/50 in the Electoral College.

Who’s ahead in the polls?
An updating average of 2024 presidential general election polls, accounting for each poll’s quality, sample size and recency. Click the buttons to see the polling average in different contests Nat. AZ FL GA MI MN NV NH NC PA TX VA WI

  1. Harris is pretty clearly getting a bounce in national polls. She’s now up by 2.9 points in our polling average, as compared with 2.2 points on the day of the debate (and 2.0 points on the day after the debate, when there wasn’t yet any post-debate polling included in the averages).
  2. Arguably — arguably! — this is even a little conservative. Among the most recent polls that conducted some interviewing on Sunday or Monday, Harris has a larger lead: 4.6 points. So it’s possible that Harris is benefiting not just from the debate but also from the favorable news coverage that it’s brought her. However, these are a favorable set of polls for Harris (they have Democratic-leaning house effects), and the model is generally pretty smart about how to weigh recency versus other factors, so I wouldn’t get carried away with this.

  3. It’s also always worth keeping in mind that the election isn’t being held today. The headline of the weekend was another assassination attempt against Donald Trump. This one didn’t get very far, fortunately. I don’t want to speculate about its impact on the polls, if any, but the news cycle turns over quickly. And the fundamentals of the race still probably favor Trump.
  4. We’re really lacking for high-quality state polls, and to the extent there have been some, they’ve been more mixed for Harris. She got a high-quality poll showing her ahead by 3 points in Pennsylvania, for instance, but another one showing her behind 2 points there. Although the model somewhat tries to anticipate movement in state polls based on its trendline adjustment, it can be slightly conservative about this. State polls are really what matter the most to the model in the end.
  5. Because there’s not a lot of recent state data, the model is still relying heavily on pre-debate state polls, in some cases including polls that were conducted shortly after the DNC. In our forecast, these polls were subject to our much-disputed convention bounce adjustment, so this is still having some effect on our Nov. 5 projection until more recent data replaces them.
  6. It’s also worth remembering that the cohort of polls Harris was getting just before the debate were generally pretty mediocre for her. Trump was gaining on her in most swing states even without applying the convention bounce adjustment, and high-quality national polls like NYT/Siena showed a tied national race, which implied that Harris was an underdog in the electoral college. This data is still working its way out of the system, too.
  7. There’s now almost a 25 percent chance that Harris wins the popular vote while losing the Electoral College (and only a 0.2 percent chance of the other way around). This gap has continued to grow. And it can make poll-reading really counterintuitive. You’ll see lots of headlines saying that Harris is leading — but our elections aren’t determined by the popular vote. In 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 2.1 points and lost the Electoral College. In 2020, Joe Biden won by nearly 4.5 points but barely emerged victorious in tipping-point states like Wisconsin. So if Harris is ahead by 3-ish points — in between Clinton and Biden — you can see why the model thinks of the race as a tossup.
  8. It’s very easy to cherry-pick data without really meaning to — if you’re a Democrat, for instance, by ignoring a high-quality poll from AtlasIntel that showed Trump ahead nationally. It’s important to include even apparent outlier polls in the average; that’s what averages are for.
  9. In fact, after Labor Day, many political partisans totally lose their minds, especially on Twitter and other social media platforms. So, it’s even more important to trust the process.
  10. One quick non-polling comment: I’d be wary of any conclusion that Trump and JD Vance passing along conspiratorial claims about Haitian immigrants is some sort of savvy political strategy, such as by putting immigrantion back in the news. Trump and Vance have made a lot of mistakes in the campaign, and Trump often doesn't react well when he’s losing ground in the polls.
  11. Silver Bulletin is now including polls like this one from Monmouth University in our polling averages and forecasts. For the past couple of election cycles, Monmouth has been doing something rather strange. For instance, they’ll ask whether people are considering voting for Harris, and then ask a second question about whether people are considering voting for Trump. Our guess is that they’re doing this to duck accountability and avoid compromising their strong pollster rating, since by some extremely literal-minded standard, they aren’t technically asking which candidate voters would prefer. But given that very few Americans are considering voting for both Harris and Trump, that the topline numbers resemble horse race polls (in their recent survey, 48 percent of voters are considering Harris and 43 percent are considering Trump — the +5 margin is similar to other recent national polls) and that we don’t want to incentivize Monmouth’s manipulative strategy, we’re now treating these as though they’re horse race polls, and they’ll affect Monmouth’s pollster rating going forward.
 
Jesus, Silver. The fundamentals absolutely do not favor Trump. His forecast is the only one that thinks this. Dude is so bought he's Musking himself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GOHOX69 and HROT
Imagine still having a post-DNC adjustment.

His ‘newsletter’ always feels like an inner monologue on why he arbitrarily sets data
 
Well... yeah. The point is to talk about the modeling.

What models are you following that nailed the last two elections?

I feel like I'm reading a bit of ass-talking here.
Nate may have had a grasp years ago, but dude is lost now. A lot of his modeling is still based on polls from a month ago. And then there's his endless bitching about post convention bumps, which likely has no bearing now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GOHOX69
Nate may have had a grasp years ago, but dude is lost now. A lot of his modeling is still based on polls from a month ago. And then there's his endless bitching about post convention bumps, which likely has no bearing now.
Come On What GIF by MOODMAN
 
Great response. Read his methodology. He's still factoring in polls from over a month ago.
Wouldn't you want some sort of rolling average that's continually updated with new data while old falls off?

And then you have considerations like temporal window size and weighting of data items within. Maybe older polls carry less weight but still contain some value in producing coherent models of this nature.

I don't know what exactly he's doing and I haven't exactly spent much time thinking about model creation for this sort of thing.

But somehow I figure he has a bit of theory behind this that you're oblivious to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Uniformed_ReRe
Imagine still having a post-DNC adjustment.

His ‘newsletter’ always feels like an inner monologue on why he arbitrarily sets data

I think the post-DNC adjustment will gradually fade as the polls taken shortly after the DNC are replaced with newer polls. The adjustment probably doesn't apply to more recent polls.
 
Wouldn't you want some sort of rolling average that's continually updated with new data while old falls off?

And then you have considerations like temporal window size and weighting of data items within. Maybe older polls carry less weight but still contain some value in producing coherent models of this nature.

I don't know what exactly he's doing and I haven't exactly spent much time thinking about model creation for this sort of thing.

But somehow I figure he has a bit of theory behind this that you're oblivious to.
How far back do you go? Weeks ago is irrelevant.
 
Wouldn't you want some sort of rolling average that's continually updated with new data while old falls off?

And then you have considerations like temporal window size and weighting of data items within. Maybe older polls carry less weight but still contain some value in producing coherent models of this nature.

I don't know what exactly he's doing and I haven't exactly spent much time thinking about model creation for this sort of thing.

But somehow I figure he has a bit of theory behind this that you're oblivious to.

He was almost alone among legit pollsters who recognized that Trump had a good chance of winning the Electoral College (around 30 percent) back in 2016. The Left gave him sh*t for that. Now the Right gives him shit because, even though he was more accurate than most, he still gave Hillary better odds.

Sometimes it's tough being a nerd with integrity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Colonoscopy
How far back do you go? Weeks ago is irrelevant.
That's a good question. I'm not sure how far back. But wouldn't it be that you want to go back at least a decent bit to try and capture something more fundamental about the candidates popularity.

Obviously if you go far enough back and you'll be capturing irrelevant data because something fundamentally changed the candidates popularity and the dynamics of the race changed.

But...

Not enough time and you're just bouncing around with the latest blip in the news cycle. (and you don't have much of a model at all)
 
How far back do you go? Weeks ago is irrelevant.

I think it works like this: when XYZ College releases a new poll, it replaces the previous poll from XYZ college in the rolling average. It takes a few weeks to work through a cycle because pollsters have different release schedules.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kelsers
Wouldn't you want some sort of rolling average that's continually updated with new data while old falls off?

And then you have considerations like temporal window size and weighting of data items within. Maybe older polls carry less weight but still contain some value in producing coherent models of this nature.

I don't know what exactly he's doing and I haven't exactly spent much time thinking about model creation for this sort of thing.

But somehow I figure he has a bit of theory behind this that you're oblivious to.
Silver is independent now and being bankrolled by Republicans. Which is why he's probably bending over backwards to give Trump every benefit of the doubt here.

Harris is beating Trump in the national polls, beating him in the state polls, has an ever growing favorability rating, and has a ceiling over 50%, none of which is true for Trump. So why is all of that taking a backseat to convention bumps?

I get that we don't have as many quality polls as we had in the past. But why is Silver still relying so heavily on polls weeks old if not a month old? To me, I'm frustrated that he's putting so much stock in a model that may work well for stock elections but he seems unwilling to admit that this election is anything but stock and is unwilling to adapt his model to this reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HawkNester
I think the post-DNC adjustment will gradually fade as the polls taken shortly after the DNC are replaced with newer polls. The adjustment probably doesn't apply to more recent polls.
Why is there any adjustment at all right now? Convention is ancient history. Shouldn't that part of his model have been factored out by now?
 
He was almost alone among legit pollsters who recognized that Trump had a good chance of winning the Electoral College (around 30 percent) back in 2016. The Left gave him sh*t for that. Now the Right gives him shit because, even though he was more accurate than most, he still gave Hillary better odds.

Sometimes it's tough being a nerd with integrity.
He works for Peter Thiel now. A staunch Trump supporter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Colonoscopy
JD Vance is Thiel’s project. Thiel is the likely reason Vance was even selected
I think Thiel's slant is that west is suffering from liberalism run amok -- that we appeal to it and little else -- and we've turned into selfish, pleasure thinking amoral (well, maybe not quite that bad) people who live pointless lives. And we're becoming less happy because of it.

This is a criticism I've seen repeated by conservative intellectuals. I think there was some buy in from Vance and that's probably why Thiel took an interest in him.

Probably some truth there, but I really don't think it's a problem that can be (or should be) solve by government.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT