369 Comments

This, to me, is Nate Silver at his best: explaining the math and probabilities behind the information in a cogent way, in plain English. Personally, while I dislike feeling anxiety all the time: I find knowing more about it soothing. Furthermore people will ask me about it and I feel informed enough to explain it, which I do not do as well as Nate but I try. I'd rather walk into the election understanding what could happen and then understand the results than be surprised. But that's just me, for others reading about things is anxiety inducing, and I get it.

Sadly Trump winning in 2016 turned our already high stakes elections into extremely tense and dangerous. If he wins again it will remain so, I keep praying we'll end up in a spot where this is no longer the case.

Expand full comment

So here's something funny: even as a happy paying subscriber, I don't really look at the model all that often. I am obviously dimly aware of what it says (a toss-up that may lean a bit this way and that over the weeks), but I don't know what the actual numbers are right now--maybe I'll start looking at them in real depth in late October, but right now it's still late summer and the sun is still shining.

I let people like Nate--people who I think are smart and trustworthy and insightful--interpret the model and write excellent posts like this one, and I read those religiously. Honest-to-god punditry!

Expand full comment

Yeah, I haven't looked much at the model in the last month. I was very interested when the model first came out (iirc, that was right before the Biden debate) and when the Harris model first came out, but for me personally, I know the race is probably going to be very close, and digging into the details just doesn't add that much value right now imo. Like you, I'll be more interested in late October

Expand full comment

Agreed so much. I think it’s ironic that some people will post online “Nate is good as a modeler but bad as a pundit.” I think it’s reversed. Clearly his model is decent. But with more and more imitation clones out there it would be hard to know for sure whose was more accurate after the election. And for my purposes, does it make a difference if he forecasts 70/30 or 30/70? No. But as a commentator he excels mostly because, I think, he is better at math than most pundits. And I suspect his model’s strengths are more to do with him having good judgement about the subject matter than superiority in data science perse. Really it’s baffling to me that someone could have a good model at all if their SME was garbage. The one caveat is that his model might benefit from the most robust training set as well.

Expand full comment

That's a little further than I'd take it, but I'll say this: I think you can't be a great election modeler without being a competent pundit, and I think you can't be even a decent pundit without understanding election modeling on at least a whiteboard level (I don't care if you actually know how to code it).

Expand full comment

>don't really look at the model all that often.<

Likewise. I look at four or five aggregators, Nate included (obviously). And I mostly draw my conclusions about how I think the vote would go if it were held today based on the spread of those aggregators. I ignore the heck of out individual polls. I probably will look more often at the the prediction Nate's model yields once we get to the midway point in October. But for now, my sense is there's a lot of time to go, and it's still a ways in the future (which is always hard to predict).

Expand full comment

Two exceptions for "ignore the heck out of individual polls" are NYT/Sienna and Anne Selzer! I sit up and read everything about those, especially after their consistent recent successes.

Expand full comment

I do the same. Nate Silver, 538, decision desk, The economist, and the real clear politics average of six betting markets.

Once a day I update my spreadsheet and the average of all five I take to be the most accurate proxy for the current state of the race.

54.3% probability Harris wins.

Expand full comment

Trump is MASA: Make Americans Slaves Again. DEMOCRACY is on the ballot and we cannot lose. We cannot afford to fail. The world is counting on us to show the way.

Expand full comment

Dude, really? After reading this post, that's your contribution?

Expand full comment
Sep 19·edited Sep 19

It's probably giving him too much credit to assume he actually read the post.

Expand full comment

That's verbatim what Ryan Routh, the latest Trump attempted assassin, wrote in his Tweets. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 28% of Democrats surveyed believe that the nation would be better off if he was killed. TDS is the real danger to democracy.

Expand full comment

More than one “real danger” can exist at the same time!

Expand full comment

If someone says they want to set up concentration camps, become a dictator, and patrol the street with the military to suppress dissent - I think being afraid or "deranged" about such promises/goals is reasonable.

And if we want to muddy the water even further, the "Flight 93 Emergency" comparisons really started in 2016, so it might be better if you dismounted your high horse and cooled down, too.

Expand full comment

if I knew what TDS was, I'd research them and - depending on what I found - either join forces with you to push back against them, or ignore you.

Expand full comment
Sep 19·edited Sep 19

Assume you know this, but TDS is Trump Derangement Syndrome. MAGAs refer to Trump haters as TDS because, for some strange reason, TDS people fail to see the sense in Trump's nonsense.

Expand full comment

Trump Deification Syndrome.

It ties closely with psychological projection, where MAGA people accuse other people of having the thought processes common among MAGA people.

Expand full comment

Technical Data Sheet <3

Expand full comment

I thought it was Torpedo Defense System. Been reading too much naval architecture

Expand full comment

Yeah, I'm one of those who finds checking the forecast daily to be soothing. If the election is a rollercoaster ride, and if you believe (like I do) that we've roughly a 50% chance to jump the track, then I'd rather keep my eyes looking forward during the ride. Feels like the least I can do.

Expand full comment

I agree and very well said!

Expand full comment

Thank you Nate. I’m a Trump supporter, and value your neutrality with data. If you have Harris at 80% chance to win at some point, that’s just a result of polls and your model. Idk why anyone would be mad at you for just doing your job. Keep it up

Expand full comment

What is your argument for supporting trump?

Expand full comment

Do we really need to go there

Expand full comment

No, but some people can't help themselves.

Expand full comment

Cost of living + foreign policy. Wish Kamala Harris gave more interviews and gave specifics. I’m very much still open to her from now until Election Day, but i feel that she is not allowed by her campaign to go off script. I actually find her more charming and likable OFF teleprompter. There’s a long way to Election Day and if she began to get out there more and gave me her vision in detail (not just general platitudes) I would think about my vote

Expand full comment

Here: https://kamalaharris.com/issues/

Expand full comment

August: "I'm supporting Trump. I don't know what she stands for! Even her website is empty of policy!"

Today: "I'm supporting Trump. I don't know what she stands for! I'm not a chump, I'm not reading a her WEBSITE! She should give interviews!"

October: "I'm supporting Trump. I don't know what she stands for! I'm not a chump, I'm not going to sit on YouTube all day and watch her INTERVIEWS!!"

Expand full comment

This is why I am supporting Trump. I don’t want to be linked to a page that doesn’t give me any details. Her platform is the same as trumps when it comes to the website. I want to hear her discuss things off script with detail/specifics and somewhat of passion. I am actually for climate change legislation and EV rollouts with the reduction of fracking. But when she turns 180 on her core positions it’s just frustrating. I actually supported her in the 2020 primaries, and the current candidate is not that same person

Expand full comment

Trump’s flip-flopped on abortion, trade policy, marijuana legalization, TikTok, crypto. Politicians do it all the time once they know how the wind is blowing, and/or donors cut them a check and tell them what to do. This isn't necessarily directed at you, but I am tired of the low bar for him. Dozens of millions of voters never ask anything of him and never will. Meanwhile, Kamala could sit in people’s living rooms and give them three hours of undivided attention, which still wouldn't be good enough.

Expand full comment
Sep 19·edited Sep 19

As a Harris supporter myself, one of my biggest reasons for pushing for her and against Trump is Trump’s anti-democratic tendencies. Are you familiar with the false electors plot? If you aren’t, it’s worth looking into - it’s a pretty clear cut case of election fraud by Trump. And if you are, how do you square that? Is a president attempting to defraud an electorate just not a big issue for you?

Expand full comment
Sep 19·edited Sep 19

Exactly. We are one election away from becoming Venezuela. Marshal the military to stay in office, opponent flees the country. Don't think it can happen? Think again. Trump has proven he will stop at nothing.

Expand full comment

Have you watched her NABJ interview?

Frankly the modern debate format, & even big set piece interviews to some extent, are poorly structured for what you’re looking for. “If you’re explaining you’re losing” & here you are asking to be explained to. 🤷‍♂️

So you really need to go to those smaller venues.

Further, your expectation is fully at odds with supporting Trump. His “off script” is vapid, and by now it should be very clear to you that whatever Vance says is even less reliable.

Expand full comment

Dawg give me any details on Trump policy specifics. At the very least, Kamala has given an idea for what she wants to do with CTC and Businesses related tax credits. Not to mention the guy literally tried to fake electors to stop the legitimate transition of power and incited an insurrection that almost got the VP killed.

Ask yourself, why does no one from his past administration stand by him anymore? Why does Pence flatly refuse to endorse him? Its because Trump nearly got him killed, and he knows that.

Expand full comment

Yikes. As a firm never-Trump voter I will definitely _not_ be linking that web page to any persuadable voters. It is irritating and off-putting almost to the degree that Clinton's was in 2016 (for kind the exact opposite reasons, but, still).

Expand full comment

You mean the issues she ripped off from Biden and can’t explain without her emotional support Governor holding her hand. Please.

Expand full comment

Here’s a question - let’s assume that Kamala is a literal puppet of the DNC and all of her positions are spoonfed to her. She’s never had an original thought in her life. Why should I care? If the DNC’s policies are policies that I support, why should I care whether Kamala is simply a figurehead for them?

Expand full comment
Sep 19·edited Sep 19

This is literally the argument people on the right make for Trump though: He may be an asshat and say all the wacky things, but he's part of a larger R engine which represents my views on abortion, immigration, free markets or whatever. This engine will keep him in check and after 4 years the outcome will be not dissimilar to what, say, Jeb would have done.

To a large degree 2016-2020 bore this argument out.

Expand full comment

You shouldn’t. If you agree with those policies, then you have every right to vote for them. There are some people who legitimately disagree with those policies. They have no choice but to either vote for Trump or not vote at all. That is what is wrong in this country right now. People don’t accept the fact that many of us are voting on policy, not on the person. When someone posts about Trump being a dictator, or a fascist, or destroying democracy, I can make the same exact arguments about Biden, Harris, Obama.

Expand full comment

She did a pretty good interview with the NABJ recently. I feel like she actually had time to lay out her plans in more detail here. It certainly cleared some things up for me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRJciXc4UcQ

Expand full comment

The issue for me is do you judge a person by their history, the life she or he has led, and the positions she staked out. She has always been to the far left. Most Americans are somewhere in the middle. Is she’s now trying to tack to the center, explain why. Not with platitudes but with real words. The problem is she is not erudite enough to do that. So she can look great all day long. But for those of us who may look for a better alternative, she’s just another politician. I wish Biden has not run in the first place and we would have had more competitive primaries. There are some good people who have moderate views on both sides

Expand full comment

The actual far left doesn't really have any representation in US government. She's moderate left at most.

Expand full comment

If you’re going by what she says in 2024, maybe. But I still would like to hear specifics from her that she would stick by (i.e., what specific policies do you have to make us energy independent, what policies do you have to improve the economy (that doesn’t include handouts and price fixing),)

Expand full comment

Wrong.

She has been center left her whole career.

It is how she won against a progressive incumbent in SF for DA and against a center right for CA AG.

Expand full comment

She has.

The main thing people cling to are policy changes but it is a completely nonsense logic to think that the people who learn and grow - and are willing to change their minds with new information and perspectives - are somehow the bad ones. While those who entrench in their views by never growing or learning (or worse and most likely being unwilling to change when they see they're wrong) are the good ones. That is literally so obviously opposite.

A perfect example is fracking. Harris was a DA then AG in Cali. She had little to do with and little need to know much about energy, especially a source that isn't super relevant to her state. Then she became VP and had to learn A LOT about energy and how that one effects other states. When she did this, she realized her stance on banning it was a mistake so she changed it. HOW IN THE FUCK IS THAT A BAD THING? You would have to be dumb to not see that it isn't and it is actually great that she is willing to adjust with new information.

Expand full comment

What specifics have you heard from Trump that you like regarding cost of living + foreign policy?

Expand full comment

Not a Trump fan, but in terms of foreign policy the fact that he has independence from the bipartisan blob is very good thing. I don't know whether this implies a better foreign policy, but the blob's foreign policy, I believe, is crap and Harris has done nothing to demonstrate she'll break from it.

Expand full comment

'Independence from the bipartisan blob is a very good thing' is pretty much the worst type of foreign policy you can have. Not communicating a consistent bipartisan foreign policy makes long term planning among allies really difficult, and the fact the US could be in that position once again does not bode well for Europe.

I honestly dont really think you lot have thought about what 'Foreign Policy' actually is or what makes it effective. Just being random and chaotic does not mean its a 'very good thing.'

Expand full comment

The ease of long-term planning for our allies should be extremely low on the typical American’s list of priorities.

Expand full comment
Sep 19·edited Sep 19

So, because I have issues with the Blob, you conclude that I haven't thought about what 'Foreign Policy' actually is? That's a very strange conclusion to draw. I certainly hope your ego can take the fact that some people who disagree with you can also have thought a lot about the issue on which they disagree with you.

Expand full comment

Also, why on earth would you conclude that independence from the blob implies "random and chaotic"? I would like the US to abide by international norms and laws. That's pretty unrandom and unchaotic. It's the blob which violates international norms and laws. I don't think you've actual thought about what 'Foreign Policy' actually is or what makes it effective.

Expand full comment

That doesn't make sense to me. Maybe in 2016, but nowadays he's the leader of the Republican Party. His family controls the RNC directly. He's in no way independent from the organization he leads.

Expand full comment

I'm talking about his independence from the blob, not the Republican party.

https://www.fpri.org/article/2023/04/the-beliefs-of-the-blob/

Expand full comment

I am genuinely curious, too, - especially for specifics during Trump's admin (2017-2020) - & hope that J schmoo responds.

Expand full comment

I understand why, in a vacuum, this is a concern. But in the reality of Harris vs Trump, don't you think Trump is guilty of all the same things? Trump hardly ever goes into hostile environments for interviews and famously stopped giving press conferences while president. His positions on many key policies has changed drastically over time, and he doesn't have clear policy positions stated either (i.e. he just gave his "concepts of a plan" answer on Obamacare).

I do understand that in reality we probably "know" where Trump stands on more issues even if he hasn't told us explicitly, but do you care to explain why the concern over Harris' lack of a sufficiently detailed policy platform when that's not something you can find for Trump either?

Expand full comment

Myself, I want to know if the person will protect and defend the Constitution, if they will serve the people's interests over their own, whether they will propose and fight for policies that benefit all Americans, not just those with substantial advantage already, and if their words and actions can be a role model for the nation, including the children.

IMO, a President’s job (like a CEO’s) is to present a vision for the future that resonates with the people. Then they, along w a phalanx of advisors and legislators in both houses, work out the details and the float more detailed proposals.

I think policies that haven’t been fleshed out through such a process are destined to fail.

So, in my view, it’s not only impossible, but undesirable to ask any one person, including a Presidential candidate, to lay out policies in excessive detail.

What I want to know is what these candidates care most deeply about; who they will stand for, at all times; and whether they are capable of inspiring skilled people to help them flesh out the policies, get them implemented, and move us toward the future they’re proposing.

Expand full comment

I mean for foreign policy Trump only talks about dictators and loving Putin, so that is straight up nonsense. For cost of living, the current real wage from last quarter is actually better than ANY point of Trump's presidency. Not to mention that literally anybody with economics education (that is what my degree was) will tell you that tariffs are AWFUL for cost of living and are just a super regressive tax targeting the poor. Lastly, Trump has given zero policy detail other than P2025 but if he does support that (which we know he does and is lying) that is BAD policy he is detailing.

Hopefully you can think about what I said and why he isn't actually better on your 2 main issues, and how he has given LESS policy specifics than Harris (or has scary bad policy specifics), on top of all the other issues with him that are really bad like literally spreading election misinformation that resulted in a violent insurrection while HE TRIED to steal a a fair election.

I think I've laid out really well why your biggest concerns are actually better with Harris and why Trump's other stuff should be basically disqualifying, so if you choose to go with Trump at least be honest that it isn't cost of living or policy details and just admit which hateful/fascist stance he has appeals to you. Don't cowardly hide behind false claims of his economics prowess (again, anyone wanting high, across the board tariffs is AWFUL at understanding the economy and that is a FACT) and just take the mask off or if you are being genuine then be ok with having been wrong about Trump and go ahead and join us on the sane side where we welcome anyone making that cross with open arms, we know how hard it can be to admit being wrong and change, so we applaud those that do.

Expand full comment

I’m hopeful you will continue to listen and remain open. She truly is the real deal. America is counting on the handful of people like you who are ready to listen!

Expand full comment

Sock puppet warning bells.

"Supported [Harris] in 2020" "Trump supporter" now.

Try to sound reasonable and then throw formula Fox News shade.

Expand full comment

Indeed: there's an excellent argument that studying Nate's work is the best way to analyze the results of the election: if the actual results are highly different from Nate's analysis, that increases the chance that this is from nefarious actors (or systematic poll bias) and thus makes those hypotheses more plausible than if the election goes closer to the middle of Nate's predicted outcomes.

(I'm a neutral, I'm a Biden and Vance supporter...)

Expand full comment

Biden/Vance? 😵‍💫

Expand full comment

Biden/Vance 2028!

Expand full comment

Truly the ticket from hell, regardless of your political lean.

Expand full comment

I remember in 2004 my uncle saying how much he liked George W Bush, but if Hillary Clinton would have run, he would have supported her instead. I don't know how many other people there are that liked both of those two people as candidates, but with millions of people out there, some of them are going to have combinations of preferences that you and I find weird and incomprehensible!

Expand full comment

Yeah, but if we had ranked choice voting, at least during the election process and possibly beyond as in the victor[s]) we could have our cake & eat it, too.

Expand full comment

What a disgusting traitor you are! You are supporting a evil man that staged a failed coup d'etat. I wish nothing but pain and misery for you and your family for the rest of your miserable days.

Expand full comment

I am 100% anti-Trump but stuff like this isn't helpful. Try and help people see the light, not attack them personally. I am 100% for attacking their indefensible beliefs and opinions but I always think we should leave the door open for them to realize what those beliefs make them (a fascist) and let them have a chance to choose to be different and join the anti-Trump side.

Expand full comment

The sheer arrogance you have to tell me how to deal with an unprecedented evil is gob smacking. Do you really think that there is more than a 0% chance that I hadn't considered this and I would be so swayed by your pearl clutching self aggrandizement that I would behave in a way you find better. For better or worse (and it's assuredly both) I have completely given up on these people. I don't want to build bridges and reach them -- that is how disgusting traitors move the Overton window in undemocratic ways. I want to break this scumbag and drive him into a pit of despair, I don't want to be his friend. I can appreciate your attempts at out reach, but I have foreclosed my position on this and it's not going to change based on you.

Expand full comment

"Nothing but pain and misery for you and your family". A little excessive don't you think, brining a person's family into it?

Expand full comment

I will let randomness fool me if I want to. You’re not the boss of me. Vikings 2-0 baby!

Expand full comment

Hang in there, Nate. The vast majority of your subscribers understand probabilities; maybe we should comment more often to that effect, to give a truer picture than the self-selected ravings of the extremists on either side.

Expand full comment

I'm kinda starting to think this as well.

Reviewers and commenters tend to be those with strong enough opinions to bother writing their thoughts and thus the extremes, but... I REALLY like that Nate's out here and doing this.

Maybe that's a strong enough sentiment to just dash out a first-thoughts comment on his posts moving forward?

My first thoughts are usually on the order of, "Man, Nate, good points! Thanks for clarifying that thing! Engaging writing as usual! Good luck with the [insert event you told us about]!"

Worth a try? Maybe see ya next post?

Expand full comment

I always assumed clicking the "Like" button on the post expressed this sentiment.

Expand full comment

It's definitely a tricky thing in online forums. I might agree with everything Nate has to say but not have much to expand on. I don't want to see a hundred top-level comments all saying "This!".

Hard to align efficient use of forum space with the psychological tendency to evaluate the proportion of pro and anti comments as the actual proportion of pro and anti readers.

Expand full comment

I support this and will strive to walk the walk

Expand full comment

Let's try it out!

Expand full comment

Oh look, it's Sisyphus again, rolling a big ball of electionwatchers up the hill of statistical/probability literacy. Good luck this time buddy!

Expand full comment

Wow - I read your posts, Nate, not the comments, so I had no idea you were taking this much flak. Don't blame you for needing to blow off som steam, but... just keep a level head and keep it up! You're doing a fantastic job, and most of your readers probably agree - or why would they read you, anyway? I remain a huge fan.

Expand full comment

Liberal Twitter has been awful to Nate. The absurd thing is, if he REALLY were in the tank for Trump, he'd surely want to skew the polls to make it look like Trump were badly losing, right? Overconfidence among Democrats is what you WANT if you hope Trump prevails.

I'm a Harris supporter, and I'm tickled pink the country's most prominent poll analyst *isn't* pulling his punches about the very real possibility that she could lose. Because she could! So Democrats need to get to the polls.

Expand full comment

I remember some guy once saying "don't boo, vote".

Expand full comment

This. People like to blame the messenger - but that doesn't change reality. It's the nonsensical idea that if you believe something hard enough it'll happen that way - ultimately a superstition that people don't realize they hold to (or embrace and just believe they aren't thinking something hard enough). It's best for people to see reality as it is and do something about it, not complain that the person doing their best to quantify reality isn't showing you what you want to see.

If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.

Expand full comment

Actually I subscribe to read Nate but mostly to read the comments. Fascinating insight to how & what others are thinking.

Expand full comment

It's unfortunate that so few people understand probability and statistics. This even shows up in material from people who should know better, like the difference between a rate of change and a change in an absolute level, like the number of people think that because the inflation rate is decreasing means that prices are decreasing—which of course it does not.

Expand full comment

As a consultant, I’ve generally come to the conclusion that people are either idiots or willfully ignorant when asked to correctly interpret data and trends. Folks dont deal with ambiguity well and often simply are overwhelmed when trends and numbers, no matter how simple, are put in front of them.

Just look at how many people will use numbers completely out of context to justify their argument; numbers which have no baseline for comparison. It’s the old guy complaining that coffee used to be 10 cents a cup, completely ignoring that he was paid $2 an hour at the time.

Expand full comment

There are certainly idiots and willfully ignorant people out there - but intelligence is also really varied. My wife speaks three languages, can accurately diagnose a number of physical and mental problems simply by watching someone walk, and can name every muscle in the body and how it impacts a person's movement - but doesn't understand data, trends, statistics, or much complex math. There are many varieties of intelligence, and many really valuable ones that don't overlap with math. That's a big problem in a society that's increasingly math driven - which is something we need to address both with education and better explanation when talking to people.

But we should also remember that it was only a couple hundred years ago when the vast majority of humanity didn't need to know much beyond the practical aspects of farming. Those were very complicated in a practical, hands-on sense and required an innate understanding of the uncertainties involving weather, but didn't remotely require the math we have today. People are adapting and society is still slowly adapting - we don't shift as quickly as people often assume.

Expand full comment

Exactly. Calling people who don't understand statistics/probability "idiots" is over-simplifying and insulting. From my experience, it clearly is something that many people honestly have trouble understanding, even people who are intelligent in other ways. Maybe they weren't taught it well as a child, or maybe it just needs to be explained well as an adult, or maybe their brains will always struggle to understand it. In any case, it doesn't mean that they're idiots.

Expand full comment

This post is why I subscribe. I'm an engineer, so I have a background in statistics and like seeing the information the model provides knowing its uses and limits. It's interesting to peer in to what's going on and see how it changes heading towards Election Day. But it is incredibly common to see people treat statistics as "fact" rather than "likelihood" and ignore error bars and forget that low probability events do happen - so it's definitely something to remind people of. Most probably will ignore it - but, like innumeracy in general, you keep trying and reminding people that numbers don't always mean what they think they mean. Not providing the data doesn't mean people won't be wrong - just that they'll be wrong with lower quality data and without the correctives you try to provide.

Expand full comment

Yep. For me, Nate has had 2 big prediction wins, and one was in 2016 shortly before the election when he made 4 or 5 different posts like today's where he emphasized that Trump could easily win despite the model probability being way below 50%.

Expand full comment

If you had a 1 in 5 chance of getting hit by a bus if you crossed the road, no one would cross roads - damn the probability, it's a horrible idea. But if Trump has a 1 in 5 chance of winning an election, people seem to think that he can't possibly win. Many of them despite being willing to bet (cash) on longer odds on all manner of things. Especially the lottery.

Expand full comment

Many never forgave him for Hillary losing. Or for those happy Trump won he was also wrong for precisely the reason he’s writing about today. Trying to convince someone that a person with a 90% chance of winning leaves you wide open for criticism. That’s why I enjoy articles like today so much. I only come to read good news about Harris but stick around to read every comment.

Expand full comment

Exactly. Instead of being happy they'd hit a longshot, Trump voters in 2016 were all "I find your lack of faith disturbing." #RIPJamesEarlJones

Expand full comment

His snake chart was right on the money in 2016.

Expand full comment

Funny: I live in Milwaukee and feel the same way about Chicago.

Expand full comment

I live in Chicago & feel it's fantastic to double are options for entertainment---> when you miss out on tickets to a Chicago concert stop, you can always try Milwaukee.

Expand full comment

Well ... I lived in Milwaukee for many years. Contrary to Nate's prediction, I'm not going to unsubscribe. I also lived in Chicago for many years. Nate is correct, it's a bit of pain to visit Milwaukee from Chicago, and the marginal value in the visit isn't that great because there are many similarities. But when living in Milwaukee, I found the same was true about visiting Chicago. Sure, Chicago has, say, bigger and better museums, but the lines are longer and the Uber ride across town and the hotel are a lot more expensive in Chicago. It all kind of balances out -- with minimal net upside either way. And, as Nate mentions, the decay time for the memory is about a year before one starts planning the next trip.

However, some months back Nate mentioned his affinity for Kansas City. He got this right too. I grew up in the KC area and still visit often, traveling both from Chicago and Milwaukee. KC has an excellent and varied food scene (with the best Que in the world!) good sports scene, new airport, great museums. And the lines aren't that long, and Uber rides and hotels are affordable. No memory cleansing is required before planning the next trip.

Expand full comment

At some point I would like Nate to do a write up about 538’s new, new model (the one they relaunched with Harris). This model has consistently put Harris’s chances much higher. For instance, right now it has the race outside of the toss up range - 64-36 Harris. I want to know what inputs are causing such a difference, especially after they acknowledged their first model was flawed.

Expand full comment

I would as well. I will note that Silver’s projection is colored (according to him, written in previous posts) by secondary indicators that he calls the “fundamentals,” such as the state of the economy (unemployment, interest rates, and so forth.) Silver has said that these will fall away as the election nears, making the Nov. 5 projection entry dependent on the polls. At present, he has also written, the fundamentals favor Trump. As a result his model’s forecast is bullish on Trump. My guess is that the 538 forecast is predicated entirely on polling and not colored by “fundamentals“ or less colored by them.

Expand full comment

Agree with this. I'd also add that 538 put out a "What if" tool. Obviously I know Nate + Eli don't have the time/resources to put a tool together, but an occasional comparison of conditional probabilities would be interesting

Expand full comment

Glad to be part of this (generally) well-behaved group, and sorry to hear about flak on Twitter, Nate- but honestly, do you expect anything better there? Twitter is designed for those kinds of comments. Looking forward to your analysis as to why the polls feel all over the place lately. Nate Cohn’s take on why Trump and Harris are tied nationally and Harris is up 4 in PA didn’t quite clarify things for me.

Expand full comment

There's a bunch of it on this app too. It's mostly just people not understanding how probabilistic modeling works (e.g. Nate stinks because he picked this race wrong and I got it right!!111), but it is a little sad how many people here (people who's work I generally enjoy reading!) have talked themselves into "Nate bad" since he's not selling hopium.

Expand full comment

I love the Serenity Prayer quote at the end. This prayer has gotten me through a lot of anxious situations. In fact, one of the best personal benefits of Trump winning (yes, benefit), was forcing me to look for a philosophy of life that would help me through dark times. That philosophy was stoicism. Yeah, I’m a stoicism bro. But hear me out, it has really helped me to focus on what I control. I don’t control the polls or the outcome of the election. But I do control my actions and some of my thoughts. I can be a good father, husband, friend and worker. Politically, I can control who I donate money to, whether I phone bank or write postcards. I do control how I talk to friends and family, using my tiny platform or circle of influence to help the promote the candidate or issue I care about.

One weird benefit that happened to me after the Biden-Trump debate was more serenity. I was devastated. I felt that same sinking feeling of dread that I felt after TFG got elected in 2016. So, I disconnected from reading and watching the news. I stopped X. I didn’t read my political blogs (sorry Nate). I just hung out in the present. I focused on what I could change. I enjoyed nature, my family and friends and worked on my health. I read good books. I cooked. Though the sinking feeling remained, it shrunk in size and power. I felt a lot more at peace. This taught me to be elective about how I consumed news and information. Anyway, life is wild. A lot of times, it’s hard and cruel. But it’s also beautiful and amazing.

So, if you are anxious about democracy, the climate, reproductive rights or the death of science, do what you can. Look at your circle of influence. Worry less and do more.

And I hope the universe or God can grant you the serenity to accept the things you cannot change, courage to change the things you can, and wisdom to know the difference.

Expand full comment

Thank you! A repeat of another four-year nightmare of Trump and the horrific collateral damage which will ensue - because the second time around will be so much worse - doesn't bear thinking about. I, too, have been worrying about how I will get through that mentally - again. Came to the conclusion, in my own way as you have, that I best concentrate on my own little world - the things I can control - and let go of the things I can't. Thank you.

Expand full comment

In reality you could probably bail on X completely, lose 5% of your income but be 100% happier.

Expand full comment
Sep 19·edited Sep 19

Best comment on here. Nate should estimate the actual numbers, or maybe just do it.

Expand full comment
founding

Nate, you and I could not be much less alike. I'm old, you are not. I'm a Republican, you are not. I could go on, but that is probably enough to set the tone. I have followed your predictions since your FiveThirtyEight days and I was delighted to be an early subscriber to the Silver Bulletin. I will go to the polls and vote on Election Day with complete confidence that my vote doesn't matter a damn. (I live in Connecticut. At least it isn't Milwaukee.) But, I will also assume that your final "guess" on the election will be right, despite knowing full well that it is only a sophisticated analysis of the unknowable. And, if you are "wrong," I will continue to follow your predictive work as long as you keep doing it. Hopefully four years from now your scars will have healed. I for one, am a very happy subscriber and I still will be a happy subscriber on November 6th. And, finally, I loved your note.

Expand full comment

Okay, but who’s gonna win?

Expand full comment

I prefer living in reality. The future is uncertain. Thanks for your efforts to quantify that uncertainty.

Expand full comment