Nate’s been pretty open that most of this effect is baked in volatility, and it’s not unreasonable. Sure, this year looks really stable, but there’s such a small sample size of elections that it would be improper to assume that this will necessarily continue to be so stable through the election without more elections from which one can infer whether conditions figure to be stable throughout, volatile throughout, or mixed periods of stability and volatility.
If nothing else, it would most definitely be improper to conclude that the state of the race is more or less immutable at this point. The debates can and do move poll numbers in meaningful fashions, so it would be pretty foolhardy to assume that the status quo now will reflect the state of polling after them. Big news stories, such as Buttery Males, can move them too, which is why every week where something bad about Trump is dominating the news is a win.
Thanks for your elaboration. I’m aware of those reasons but I take a little bit of a different perspective: try to imagine a world where Trump wins the popular vote (assuming a normal level of rigging). It’s hard and requires exotic scenarios. And that’s supposed to happen 11% of the time?
So he wins ~22% of the fine, and half of those wins means he wins the popular vote? That’s not right.
Nate’s model probably assumes a normal amount of swinging over time rather than the lower amount this year. If Hillary were up 7 one month out, saying Trump has a 10% chance of winning the popular vote would be fine.
John King: Wolf, this race could take days to sort out as legal challenges mount in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Arizona. North Carolina remains too close to call and this appears certain to be headed to the courts.
Wolf Blitzer: I’m told we’re ready to make a stunning call. At this time CNN projects that the great state of Texas and its 38 electoral votes belong to… Vice President Joe Biden, giving him 277 electoral votes and the Presidency of these United States.
