Nevada, from what I'm reading at least, is one of the few states where early voting actually tends (more than others at least) to translate into the
actual general voting trends within the state in the final outcome. That said... this was yet another day that saw the 538 probabilities turn on a
knife's edge in Nevada. Throughout the day it was at times giving both Clinton and Trump the edge, back and forth repeatedly.
We're starting to see signs of early voting in Florida that might be favorable to her as well... yet there again, it's really too close to
What's more interesting to me is that while the probabilities haven't changed much on 538 for these states, nevertheless RCP's latest polling averages
suggest much closer than anticipated races in both New Hampshire and, of all places, Pennsylvania. (Even Georgia, but historical and other factors
lean heavily in Trump's favor there regardless.)
In short, I really am still not confident enough to make any sort of prediction personally. If she retains New Hampshire and PA, then there's very
little for Trump in the way of a path even if he wins both Florida and Nevada, unless we see some sort of upset in Colorado, which seems improbable -
but not entirely out of the realm of conceivability. Whereas if he wins New Hampshire and does more well than expected in PA (whether he wins it or
not,) and also snags Florida, then she essentially must
win Nevada because he's beating polls at that point, and that's when we'll see if this
early voting news is actually indicative of the outcome there.
Basically, I feel like the heightened unpredictability Silver keeps referring to, due to the much higher number of undecideds even this late in the
game, is being borne out in these unusually tight races and flipping repeatedly between them. We could see a Clinton landslide, a super close race
where she barely wins, or a much higher than polled Trump turnout that defeats her. Or even a tie, although I regard that as the least likely of all
outcomes. It's remarkable given all that has happened in both sides' campaigns, that it's still as open as it is.
I really won't feel like I can tell what's happening with any degree of confidence until election day and seeing states getting called for them. She
definitely has a higher apparent probability of victory, but... it's not high enough to say it would be a dramatic shock if he won instead. He fell
ever so slightly from 35% chance back to 34% or so today. But that's still greater than 1 in 3, which aren't horrible odds. (This is all assuming you
believe Silver's models are as authoritative as they appear to be. Note that the one major error they made, was Trump's primary victory. They have
tried to correct for that in their tweaked models, which is why his chances appear so high despite conventional wisdom saying otherwise. So now the
question is... will he have an even more
unpredictable victory now? Will this be America's Brexit shock? We shall see.)
edit on 11/7/2016 by AceWombat04 because: (no reason given)
ETA: And he just fell back to 33.2% chance of victory, as his tightening in New Hampshire appears to be eroding, and she appears to be getting a
slight national bounce now. Again, it's so fluid I can't begin to predict.
edit on 11/7/2016 by AceWombat04 because: Edit