It's funny, on Nate Silver, Galen Druke and Clare Malone's new podcast Still Counting (check it out! It's classic 538 again) Galen asked Nate this same question and he said the race rankers have no balls. They would rather gradually shift their rankings over time so that the final result shows Dems winning a blue wave than actually call it beforehand. Because no one cares what they say 2 months before. But if they accurately predict the outcome a week before, that's a feather in their cap. Granted they have different incentives than modelers. But it's funny to hear almost the same thing here as well
Your 'model' is based primarily on poling. This is unfortunate since poling data is inherently flawed for several reasons but mainly due to significant non-response bias. Non-response rates in public opinion poling range from high to ridiculously high - in excess of 90%. Thus 'conclusions' based on poling are always unreliable. Yet, here at The Argument data from your own poling is frequently cited. Why should we pay attention?
That's what weighting is for. Everyone has to calculate how they're weighting their samples.
And that neglects that 2018 and 2022 polling was incredibly accurate. Assuming that Trump is having an effect on bringing out low propensity voters in 2016 and 2024 and that 2020 was just screwed up for lots of reasons including Trump and the pandemic, there's no reason to think that 2026 is suddenly going to be a bad year for polling. Even in 2024 and 2016, the polls were largely in the margin of error. General election polls are usually +- 3 or 4 points. So is the generic ballot.
It's funny, on Nate Silver, Galen Druke and Clare Malone's new podcast Still Counting (check it out! It's classic 538 again) Galen asked Nate this same question and he said the race rankers have no balls. They would rather gradually shift their rankings over time so that the final result shows Dems winning a blue wave than actually call it beforehand. Because no one cares what they say 2 months before. But if they accurately predict the outcome a week before, that's a feather in their cap. Granted they have different incentives than modelers. But it's funny to hear almost the same thing here as well
Your 'model' is based primarily on poling. This is unfortunate since poling data is inherently flawed for several reasons but mainly due to significant non-response bias. Non-response rates in public opinion poling range from high to ridiculously high - in excess of 90%. Thus 'conclusions' based on poling are always unreliable. Yet, here at The Argument data from your own poling is frequently cited. Why should we pay attention?
That's what weighting is for. Everyone has to calculate how they're weighting their samples.
And that neglects that 2018 and 2022 polling was incredibly accurate. Assuming that Trump is having an effect on bringing out low propensity voters in 2016 and 2024 and that 2020 was just screwed up for lots of reasons including Trump and the pandemic, there's no reason to think that 2026 is suddenly going to be a bad year for polling. Even in 2024 and 2016, the polls were largely in the margin of error. General election polls are usually +- 3 or 4 points. So is the generic ballot.