Entry 355: Just Vote, Gonna Be Okay, Da Da Doo-Doo-Mmm

Just vote, gonna be okay, da da doo-doo-mmm

Just vote, mark that ballot babe, da da doo-doo-mmm

Just vote, gonna be okay, v-v-v-vote

Vote, vote, just, j-j-just vote

The 2016 presidential vote is happening on Tuesday, and I'm trying really hard to channel my inner Lady Gaga, only instead of being inebriated in a club whose name I can't remember, I'm anxious in a land of election news I can't make sense of -- a place where sanity has little standing, facts matter not a whit, and we are a missed 38-yard field goal away from having President Pussygrabber become a reality.  

And that, unfortunately, might be underestimating Trump's chances.  My boy Nate Silver is even more bullish on the Great Orange Groper, giving him a 35% chance of winning, roughly double that of the New York Times' Upshot, linked above.  (Note: both forecasts are frequently updated, so their respective odds might have changed a little, but I doubt either will move drastically this close to the election.)  The difference, as I understand it, is that the FiveThirtyEight model responds more aggressively to poll fluctuations than does the Upshot's model.  The most recent polls are relatively favorable to Trump -- due perhaps to natural tightening as the election draws nigh, perhaps to the (utterly bullshit) resurgence of Hillary's emails into the news (I tend to think it's mostly the former, actually) -- and so this is reflected more strongly in the FiveThirtyEight model than the Upshot model.  Also, FiveThirtyEight -- because they weigh poll fluctuations more heavily and because of the large presence of undecided and third party voters -- see the race as inherently more volatile than Upshot.  This leads them to be more bullish on Trump, but also more bullish on a Clinton landslide.  That is, they are more open to the possibility the polls are significantly off in either direction.

Which model do I personally think is more accurate?  I lean toward FiveThirtyEight, because Nate Silver has a good track record with me.  He's gone 100 for 100 in calling states the past two presidential elections, and I've relied heavily on his college basketball forecasting in my annual office March Madness pool, and I've done quite well in it.  Not trusting him now would feel like cherry-picking, i.e., believing him only when he tells me what I want to hear.  Either way, this will be a very interesting experiment as FiveThirtyEight and the Upshot are quite far apart on several swing states (see below), so there should be a conclusive forecast "winner" this election.

Florida: 538, Trump 52%; Upshot, Clinton 69%

Ohio: 538, Trump 68%; Upshot, Trump 53%

North Carolina: 538, Trump 52%; Upshot, Clinton 71%

Nevada: 538, Trump 49%; Upshot, Clinton 66%

New Hampshire: 538, Clinton 62%; Upshot, Clinton 75%

One more thing I will say about FiveThirtyEight is that I've found their election coverage this past week kind of annoying.  Reading the headlines and the tenor of the articles, you might get the impression that Trump is the two-to-one favorite, not Clinton.  I understand that they want to emphasize that, in their view, many people aren't giving Trump enough of a chance, and that they have to write something new each day.  (If everyday they ran the same article with the headline "Clinton is still the clear favorite, but Trump could possibly win," it would be an accurate reflection of reality, but it probably wouldn't attract many readers.)  But it's starting to come off as overly-contrarian, sensationalistic, and click bait-y (for a data-journalism website, anyway), which isn't super surprising being that they are now owned by ESPN.  You can find some examples of what I mean here, here, and here.

But I think it is very important to not confuse FiveThirtyEight's election coverage with their election forecasting model.  Despite what many people commenting on their articles have charged, I don't believe that they have monkeyed with their model to make the election seem closer than it really is.  I think it's basically the same model that predicted with great accuracy that Obama would win handily in 2008 and 2012.

As you can gather, I've been spending way too much time analyzing this election.  One reason is that I appreciate the math that goes into the polling and modeling; another reason is that the stakes are so damn high this election.  I personally have much more emotional capital invested in this election than I have in any other election.  If Trump wins, I will be devastated in a way that I wasn't when Bush won in 2004 (in 2000 I was out of the country, so I mostly missed that whole kerfuffle), and that I wouldn't have been if either McCain or Romney had won in 2008 or 2012, respectively.  It goes beyond policy (although a Trump presidency would be a policy disaster); it goes beyond existential fear of my country (we survived a literal civil war; we will survive a Trump presidency); it's something more personal: If Trump wins, I will, for the first time in my life, be ashamed to be an American.  That's not something I ever want to feel.

Well, that's about all I have to say for now.  I'll catch you all on the flip side of November 8.  But before I go, I ask -- nay, demand -- that you vote (and not for Trump).  Also, I leave you with this bit of encouragement.  Sam Wang isn't some lefty crackpot.  He's a smart dude, and he could very well be right.  Let's hope he is.  We shall all find out soon.

Until next time...