538: Biden has a 35% chance of winning the Democratic nomination.

[crazytown]

What Decades Of Primary Polls Tell Us About The 2020 Democratic Presidential Race

Biden remains the favorite to win the Democratic nomination. That said, his grasp on the lead is tenuous.

(snip) ... according to our analysis, someone polling around where Biden was in the second half of the year has roughly a 35 percent chance of claiming the Democratic nomination. A 1-in-3 chance isn’t great, but this is still better than, say, Bernie Sanders’s or Elizabeth Warren’s chances. They essentially tied for second, with an unadjusted polling average around 16 percent in the second half of the year, which historically has meant a 10 percent chance of winning.

(snip) Early national polls conducted in the year before the first nominating contests do have predictive value, but remember there isn’t one national primary. Instead, parties choose presidential nominees via state-by-state elections over the course of a few months. And that sequential nature of the primary makes it hard for national polls to capture all the dynamics of the race — a candidate falling short of expectations in Iowa or unexpectedly winning both Iowa and New Hampshire can swiftly alter the playing field for the remaining primaries.

But having examined all the national polls from the last six months of 2019, the bottom line is that, at this point, Biden remains the favorite to win the Democratic nomination. That said, his grasp on the lead is tenuous. For instance, when thinking about Biden’s odds, it’s important to remember that the historical data suggests that the rest of the Democratic field combined has a larger chance of winning than Biden does on his own — 44 percent for all of the other candidates still in the race compared with Biden’s 35 percent shot. And this uncertainty around Biden as the front-runner lines up with what else we know about the race — Biden, Buttigieg and Sanders are fighting for the lead in Iowa while Biden and Sanders are neck-and-neck in New Hampshire, and Biden raised less money than either Sanders or Buttigieg in the final quarter of 2019. So as we jump into the new year and brace ourselves for the first two nominating contests, remember that Biden has the best chance of winning his party’s nomination, but it’s also quite possible that someone else will be facing off against President Trump this November.


https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-decades-of-primary-polls-tell-us-about-the-2020-democratic-presidential-race/

[Demsrule86]

1. So what is Warren's chance?

[LongtimeAZDem]

3. Looks like 10-12% by the chart

[pfeiffer]

4. Yeah...and another question:

Right now there's a 3-way tie in Iowa...so all Iowa will be about is not who wins, but HOW MANY DELEGATES the top 3 vote-getters receive, right? Because I personally see NO ONE "winning" Iowa...just 2-3 candidates finishing within 1% of each other.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

87. I'd need a caucusologist to confirm this

It's like ranked choice voting, with everyone whose candidate falls below 15% having to move to another pick. So obviously a bunch go out in round 1 - Tulsi, Yang (most likely) Steyer, Delaney. Do those votes flow to Biden? Warren? Sanders? Mayor Pete? How will Klobuchar (neighboring state) do?

I still kind of like Warren to win Iowa only because she seems to be a lot of people's 2nd choice.

[Demsrule86]

2. Sorry...I missed the answer...

"What Decades Of Primary Polls Tell Us About The 2020 Democratic Presidential Race

Biden remains the favorite to win the Democratic nomination. That said, his grasp on the lead is tenuous.

(snip) ... according to our analysis, someone polling around where Biden was in the second half of the year has roughly a 35 percent chance of claiming the Democratic nomination. A 1-in-3 chance isn’t great, but this is still better than, say, Bernie Sanders’s or Elizabeth Warren’s chances. They essentially tied for second, with an unadjusted polling average around 16 percent in the second half of the year, which historically has meant a 10 percent chance of winning."

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

7. I agree, as you say, Joe's grasp on the lead is tenuous... Hillary could jump in the race tomorrow

and immediately steal the lead from Joe. And, if Bernie and Elizabeth team up, along with their supporters, that team would be formidable and would also take the lead away from Joe the next day. Watch for it, cuz it's comin'!!


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[Demsrule86]

12. 10% to 35%...I'll take it. Warren is less than that because she may lose Iowa.

And for her and Sanders, Iowa is important.

[TwilightZone]

13. Sanders and Warren aren't going to team up in the primaries.

That's not how any of this works.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

88. I'm not so sure you are right.

If it's not looking good for either Bernie or Warren by - say Super Tuesday - I could see the weaker of the two "dropping out" to accept the Veep position of the other. It's not a lock that either would keep all of their voters, but it'd be a formidable team. I could see them bringing in a lot of money, and I could see them really lighting it up at rallies. It could really foul Biden up out West.

[Demsrule86]

14. Hillary? Seriously...

The voting begins in less than a month...by Super Tuesday Biden will have a big... possibly overwhelming lead.

[Thekaspervote]

16. If Joe's lead is tenuous bernies is non existent. Get real!!

[boomer_wv]

66. And

if a frog had wings they wouldn't bump their ass when they hop...


How about we deal in reality. Hillary isn't going to jump into the race and likely wouldn't be able to gain much support this year regardless. In case you hadn't noticed, the filing deadline for close to 30 states had already passed.

Bernie and Warren wasn't going to "team up". Much more likely that she is going to start going after him because she needs his votes.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

70. I wasnt suggestin Hillary WOULD jump in the race. Just that IF she did, she'd be the frontrunner...

that's all I'm sayin. Just another way of sayin' Joe's lead is tenuous at best.


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[Demsrule86]

73. No she wouldn't.Hillary supporters never thought Hillary should run again after 2016

Last edited Tue Jan 7, 2020, 01:24 AM - Edit history (1)

We thought no one from 2016 should run. If we have division in the party,Trump could win.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

90. "Hillary supporters never thought Hillary should run again"? That's an interesting statement...

mostly cuz you're the FIRST person on DU that I've seen say that. I've heard Hillary supporters say that they thought she WOULDN'T choose to run again, even though Hillary herself kept hinting that she MIGHT do so... but, I hadn't seen where her supporters affirmatively said that they never thought that Hillary SHOULD run again.

To the contrary, many said they would be ELATED - perhaps not YOU - if she did and would gladly vote for her, which led to my initial comment that Hillary would likely be the front-runner overnight IF she ran. Again, no one I saw were discouraging Hillary from considering another run... only those claiming, incorrectly, that she WASN'T considering it.

Not that it really matters... apparently Hillary has chosen not to run again for a third time, like Joe, which, I think is a good decision on her part, as she would lose, badly, to Bernie this time around. As for Bernie, it's his turn - like Joe and Hillary before him - to run a second time to get the Democratic nomination. That is his right and I'm glad he exercised it!!

And no, a second run by BERNIE, which is forward-looking, is NOT the source of any division in the Party... Bernie's bringing more people INTO the Party, mostly younger, FUTURE voters, more than any other candidate ever before... that will serve to unite us, and encourage folks to show up at the polls in droves, when he wins the nomination. It's a backwards-looking, "return to normalcy," incremental change campaign, like Joe's third primary run, that is far more likely to lead to divisiveness within the Party.

Of course, we should avoid that at all costs... and, at the end of the day, we MUST unite and "vote blue, no matter who"!!


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[Demsrule86]

92. That nonsense...in fact you and I discussed it at length...and we both came to the conclusion that

neither Sanders nor Clinton should run in 20...you have since changed your mind obviously...but I think we were right and am sorry Sanders is in the race...It is just divisive. There was a raging debate whether Hillary or Bernie should run again.

At first, I thought Sanders would be better in a general...if Biden faltered than the others. But I have since changed my mind and will support him in a general but not the primary. I do not believe that Sanders can win a general.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

94. Nonsense?! Show me where I EVER said Bernie should NOT run in 2020. That's completely untrue!!

While we may disagree from time to time, I took pleasure in having intellectually honest conversations with you and I certainly never thought you were one to put words in someone's mouth... guess I was wrong.

If, however, you can show me where I said that Bernie should not run in 2020, I'd be happy to apologize... but, I know you can't, so, I'll just say BYE, it was nice knowin' ya.




Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[boomer_wv]

83. And again

try dealing in reality.

[The Valley Below]

5. LOL.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

6. Thats certainly not an overwhelming vote of confidence for a former VP whos sposedly the frontrunner

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[redstateblues]

8. Looks like he is way ahead of your guy who has been running for four years

[NurseJackie]

10. Bazinga!

Sometimes "name recognition" works against a candidate (no matter how popular he or she is with his or her followers).

[TexasTowelie]

25. +1

[NYMinute]

81. bwaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha nt

[beastie boy]

9. He IS the frontrunner. Nothing supposed about it. Other than that, define "overwhelming".

The odds of him winning the nomination are more than double of his closest challenger. Would you settle for "pretty damn impressive vote of confidence"?

[TwilightZone]

24. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the term "front-runner"

It means the person in the lead. It's really not that complicated.

[RandySF]

35. Greater than 1/3 in a multi-candidate field.

[Bradical79]

43. Statisticaly, it's actually a pretty good spot at this point

It just means it's hardly a done deal at this point.

[NYMinute]

71. It is just because there are so many candidates

If there is only 1 candidate, the odds are 100%
If there are two candidates, the odds are 50% +/- some based upon polls

If there are N candidates, the odds are 100/N +/- based on poll numbers

Since there are 11 candidates running, the base odds are 9.9% -- so 35% is a very good number.

Math is your friend!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

72. Well, if math is your friend, Biden has tanked & had to exit early in every primary he's run in...

while Bernie has climbed in the sole primary he ran in. So, yes, math is VERY friendly... to BERNIE!!


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[NYMinute]

80. bwaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha nt

[Hortensis]

11. BUT, someone is actually 100% going to be the nominee.

So, who's that?

Touch of reality: We just can't know that truth before we arrive at it. But we can know these figures are just guesses and will turn out to be all wrong. Or, maybe one will be like a broken clock, accidentally right.

[Sloumeau]

15. crazytown, thank you so much for posting this! :)

This is good news for Joe Biden!

[bluewater]

17. Biden supporters are misinterpreting this!

This is the point 538 is making:

"Biden remains the favorite to win the Democratic nomination. That said, his grasp on the lead is tenuous. For instance, when thinking about Biden’s odds, it’s important to remember that the historical data suggests that the rest of the Democratic field combined has a larger chance of winning than Biden does on his own — 44 percent for all of the other candidates still in the race compared with Biden’s 35 percent shot. /b]."

So that's 44% someone else gets the nomination to 35% chance Biden does.

That's why Biden is considered a fragile front runner.

[crazytown]

18. I highlighted said passage,

they must have missed it

[bluewater]

19. Added my own question... where did the missing 21% go?

If Biden has a 35% chance of getting the nomination,

And the rest of the field still in has a 44% chance....

That adds up to only 79%.

Who has the missing 21%?

[crazytown]

20. An accounting for a 2020 late entry?

Hillary? Michelle? - both have been polled. Who knows.

[bluewater]

21. Thanks, that makes sense.

[TwilightZone]

23. No, you're the one misinterpreting the article.

Your assertion that the point of the article is that Biden is considered a fragile front-runner is clearly contradicted by the article itself.

"In fact, Biden’s steady polling average over the year echoes what happened with three previous front-runners: Ronald Reagan in 1979, Bob Dole in 1995 and Al Gore in 1999, all of whom were leading the field in the second half of the calendar year before the election. All three had an unadjusted polling average of 30 percent or more in the first half of the year and were within 3 percentage points of their original number in the second half of the year (Reagan went from 34 to 37 percent; Dole, 46 to 44 percent; Gore, 54 to 55 percent). So the fact that Biden’s polling average has been pretty stable isn’t unprecedented — or even a bad sign. While only Reagan won the general election, all three went on to win their party’s nomination."

[bluewater]

26. Um, no. Consider re-reading this excerpt again...

Biden remains the favorite to win the Democratic nomination. That said, his grasp on the lead is tenuous. For instance, when thinking about Biden’s odds, it’s important to remember that the historical data suggests that the rest of the Democratic field combined has a larger chance of winning than Biden does on his own — 44 percent for all of the other candidates still in the race compared with Biden’s 35 percent shot.

But ok, so 538 described his lead as tenuous, not fragile.

[BannonsLiver]

38. It's also contradicted by the past 9-10 months

During which he has led nationally. I always get a kick of folks who miss the big things in their effort to create narratives. Kind of pitiful actually.

[bluewater]

44. 538 is missing the big things? Ok......

Biden remains the favorite to win the Democratic nomination. That said, his grasp on the lead is tenuous. For instance, when thinking about Biden’s odds, it’s important to remember that the historical data suggests that the rest of the Democratic field combined has a larger chance of winning than Biden does on his own — 44 percent for all of the other candidates still in the race compared with Biden’s 35 percent shot.

But OK, I guess 538 is missing the big things in their effort to create narratives.

Who knew?

[Sloumeau]

27. Sorry, but there is something about statistics that you are missing.

Let us say that there were only ever 4 people running for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. Now, let us say that all four of them were pretty much unknown at the start, so in the beginning, each was polling at 25%. 4 people x 25% = 100% of the people polled. If over time, one of them got more popular, and he was polling at 30%, while the others were at 25%, 25%, and 20%, the person polling at 30% would have the best individual chance to win. The odds of one of the three others winning would be 70% in total, but only 25%, 25%, or 20% individually. The guy at 30% would be the leading candidate, and he would have the best individual chance of winning, but the odds of one of the other people winning overall would be greater than his winning individually at this point, even though their odds each individually would be worse.

To call the 30% candidate a weak candidate is misleading. In reality, he is doing above average, where average would be 25%. But if we call the guy with 30% weak, what do we call the other candidates? Really weak? Super weak? Incredibly weak?

Weak just isn't a good term in this instance. Biden is polling at around 30% because there are so many candidates. As candidates drop out, we will see who gains, and that is super important. However, calling anyone who is leading in the polls, and has the best statistical chance of winning "weak", when the reason he is polling as he is is just because there are a lot of candidates is misleading. In reality, he is the strongest of all of the candidates.

I'll put it to you another way. Let's say you go to Baskin Robbins for Ice Cream, and let's say that they have a total of 31 flavors to choose from. Let's say that for 25 of the flavors, they are chosen by customers about 3% of the time. The other six flavors, Chocolate, Vanilla, Strawberry, Rocky Road, Mint, and Coffee, are each chosen roughly 5%, 4%, 4%, 4%, 4%, and 4% of the time, respectively. Any time a customer comes in, the odds of him choosing chocolate as a flavor are 5%, and of choosing something else is 95%. Does that make chocolate a weak flavor? Nope, it is actually the strongest of all of the flavors because it is chosen the most. it just has a lot of competition.

Now, let's say that Baskin Robbins has an ice cream shortage, and it has plenty of backstock for the 6 main flavors but it runs out of everything else. So suddenly Chocolate is selling 25% of the time, and the other five are each selling 15% of the time. Did chocolate suddenly become a stronger flavor? Nope, it just had less competition.

Let's say that tomorrow, for some inexplicable reason, everyone but Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden dropped out of the race, and suddenly Joe Biden was polling at 48% and Bernie Sanders was polling at 47%. Did they suddenly become much stronger candidates? Nope, their competition just disappeared.

I've seen people say about Bernie Sanders, "You were polling at 45% in 2016, and now you are only at 20%. You are doing terribly". Nope, Bernie is in second place like last time, he just has more competition. Having 10 people running for an office is not the same as when you only have two people running for an office. Especially when you eliminate winner takes all states and when you severely restrict super delegates. It tends to even things out a lot more for all of the candidates. Compared to 2016, the number of candidates are different, the primary rules are different, and the debate rules are different. It is all designed to try and even things out among the candidates, and that is exactly what happened. Yet, I would not call any of them weak. Anything could still happen.

[crazytown]

29. I'll go with 538 understanding of statistics.

Everything in the OP was a quote from their site. I suspect they understand probability theory better than you or me.

[Sloumeau]

42. Baloney. I got A's in statistics in college and A's in calculus.

I studied computer science in college, and I have no problem understanding the mickey mouse math that Nate Silver does on his fivethirtyeight.com website. I could do the math that he does while half asleep, in fact, I've done a lot of complex math half asleep before. Not only that, but I could automate the math with a computer program and be out drinking with my buddies while he was still crunching numbers. Or i could write an App in Excel and have it do it automatically for me.

Probability is one of the easiest parts of mathematics. My brother who is an electrical engineer could do his math. My other brother who is a tenured college teacher who teaches computer graphics could do the math. Heck, my mother could probably do the math. She's where we got our math skills from.

Calling Biden a "weak" leader is just a term that Nate Silver is choosing to use. He's also gunshy because of all of the flack he got when he clocked Trump's chances of winning at about 30% the day before the 2016 Presidential Election. Silver should be proud of his 30% estimate. Based on the polling at the time, a 30% chance was pretty accurate, and it was more accurate than most of the pollsters.

The main things Nate doesn't know, and no one truly knows this, is what happens when people quit the race. Do those votes go to Biden or Sanders or Warren or who? That is the big wild card, and it is why Silver is using silly terms like "weak" instead of just saying things like "Biden has a lead, but it's not a big lead" which would be much more accurate and less misleading.

[crazytown]

49. I appreciated you post,

and answered somewhat flippantly. Probability is one of the more straightforward branches of mathematics. Statistics is not. I sub-majored in operations research and found areas like Box-Jenkins regression fascinating - that autocorrelation could make a stab at projecting the "unknown unknowns". That's long been overtaken by chaos theory, I understand

538 does polls and projections for a living. Their reputation rides on their pronouncements. We can disagree on their assumptions, but not their rigor I would have thought.

[Sloumeau]

59. At no point did I question 538s rigor.

I merely said that Nate's use of the term "weak" was misleading. Also, simple math does not mean bad math. Some of the best math is pretty simple.

Here's something that you might want to know about Nate Silver. If you go to the link on Moneyball for Wikipedia here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moneyball

...you'll see a link about Nate Silver at the bottom:

Nate Silver who developed PECOTA, the Player Empirical Comparison and Optimization Test Algorithm, to predict baseball player performance

This is why you will see 538 also talking about sports. Because Nate Silver is deep into using Quantitative Analysis for things like sports. Specifically, the Moneyball approach to sports refers to using things like the sabermetric approach to sports that was used by the Oakland As. Basically, they gather huge amounts of data on players and then do things like analyzing the relationship between things like the ability to get on base, or a person's strikeout percentages and see how it relates to winning games. Nate took the same analytical approach he used to analyze relationships in things like sports and applied it to politics. I don't see any reason why he would need to use something like Chaos Theory in order to do the type of analysis he does, but I guess someone might surprise me.

As for the Box-Jenkins Model, I love all kinds of regression. Using data points to make the predictions is pretty cool, especially if you can make money on it. Now, since you have a firm grasp on mathematics, try this on for size. Only about 51% of the Democratic Party identify themselves as Liberal. Those are essentially your Warren and Sanders Voters. We know that they are around 40%-51% because they are basically the kinds of people who voted for Sanders in 2016--the others voted for Hillary. The problem is, as long as Warren and Sanders stay in the race, they are splitting that liberal vote, allowing Biden to cruise to the nomination. That is something that I do not think Nate Silver is including that his 35% estimate of Biden winning. He's just correlating polling percentages to odds of winning based on previous races.

Here's another way of looking at it. Let's say that just three people were running: Biden, Warren, and Sanders. Let's say that today they were polling at 40% Biden, 30% Sanders and 30% Warren. Odds are, if neither Sanders and Warren drop out, Biden ends up winning. If Warren drops out, Sanders wins. If Sanders drops out, Warren wins. I think that that dynamic means more than anything else in this race. I think that if neither drops out, Biden wins, and I think that that means more than whether or not someone is a called a weak leader or not.

[crazytown]

62. 40% Biden, 30% Sanders and 30% Warren

Suppose the final delegate count is 40% Biden, 35% Sanders and 25% Warren. That is my nightmare scenario. The majority of Warren delegates will be party loyalists who will not vote Sanders .... nor will the super delegates. Biden is nominated- the Berners cry "we wuz robbed - 60% of vote was progressive", and Elizabeth is vilified like no Dem since 1968.

[radius777]

79. Nate said Trump couldn't win the GOP nomination.

He stood by that for a long time, iirc, until it was obvious he was wrong.

The problem the other candidates have is that Biden has the Hillary coalition (PoC, moderates, loyalists) but stronger due to better support amongst whites/rural voters, and is more teflon in terms of his poll numbers not moving despite running mediocre campaign, so-so debates, numerous attacks against him - yet his polls don't move. I don't see what would change this, as Biden is a known quantity, not much is going to change perceptions at this point. As long as he does good (top 3) in IA and NH he will retain his strong PoC support, thus will stomp through the South and the diverse Super Tuesday states.

Sanders and Warren split the left, and Buttigieg has no consistent base of support outside of the first two contests. None of them do well with PoC, who won't move from a known quantity like Biden just as there was no movement away from Hillary.

[crazytown]

86. Statisticians are aways going by past data,

every campaign is difficult, but none, in my opinion is comparable to this one. The usual roles of the parties are reversed. Democrats will be voting against 'the other'.

It's enough for Biden to be offering what he does to win the GE - and handsomely, but he does not command the 'Obama Coalition' - not yet. "His polls don't move" - that's the problem.Biden has the 30% he started out with - people who trust him, who share his vision and lived experience. He has not advanced with younger voters, and college/post grad educated white are still looking elsewhere. Obama owned them, Biden does not. 35% of the vote is enough to win a plurality of delegates, but not the majority.

A 4th in IA would change the electability narrative. It is much on the cards as HRC's 3rd was in 2008 - for the same reasons - competitors have significantly deeper ground games.


Some are in love with their candidates, and see little than the flaws in their opponents. I want to see the best representative of the party win. That's about it.

[bluewater]

31. 538 says someone OTHER than Biden has a higher chance of winning.

Biden remains the favorite to win the Democratic nomination. That said, his grasp on the lead is tenuous. For instance, when thinking about Biden’s odds, it’s important to remember that the historical data suggests that the rest of the Democratic field combined has a larger chance of winning than Biden does on his own — 44 percent for all of the other candidates still in the race compared with Biden’s 35 percent shot.

I am not the one making this claim, 538 is.

Using relative descriptors like weak and strong between individual candidates wasn't the point of 538's article.

Biden remains the favorite, i.e. he has the best chance at 35% of any single remaining candidate, but the rest of the field combined has a 44% of having the eventual nominee come from there.

That is what 538 is saying, not me.

That is why 538 calls Biden's lead tenuous. The odds right now favor someone OTHER than Biden of being the eventual nominee.

But thanks for the discussion.

[Demsrule86]

74. But he isn't really...

[Demsrule86]

84. I consider 35 % a good number when compared to 10 -12 %.

We have more candidates than in any primary used in this anaysis...and the bottom line is Biden is winning.

[dansolo]

89. Calculating odds at this point is stupid

The field of candidates is still too large. If they were to do a proper analysis, they should be looking at first and second choices. The best chance that Warren or Sanders has to get the nomination is for the other one to drop out so all of the support on the left will coalese around a single candidate. As of now, Biden will maintain the plurality, and will most likely pick up the support from most of the lower tier candidates, as well as most of the undecideds.

[highplainsdem]

28. Real headline here: Biden's chances of winning nomination 3-1/2 times greater than Warren, Sanders

Fixed it for ya.

You're welcome, crazytown.

[crazytown]

30. Or maybe "the rest of the Democratic field combined has a larger chance of winning than Biden "

Any time HPD

[bluewater]

32. THAT is the point 538 is making, the odds favor someone OTHER than Biden.

Biden remains the favorite to win the Democratic nomination. That said, his grasp on the lead is tenuous. For instance, when thinking about Biden’s odds, it’s important to remember that the historical data suggests that the rest of the Democratic field combined has a larger chance of winning than Biden does on his own — 44 percent for all of the other candidates still in the race compared with Biden’s 35 percent shot.

I mean they make that pretty clear, why are so many people missing 538's point?

[The Valley Below]

52. A point that is laughably incorrect.

Biden has a near-lock on the nomination.

[highplainsdem]

36. LOL. So you think we're electing a committee?

[crazytown]

39. Now I suspect you understand probability theory better than that

[highplainsdem]

41. I understand that none of his rivals are close to having as good a chance as Biden.

And that's what matters here.

[bluewater]

46. "And that's what matters here."

Not really.

If your least favorite candidate is Biden, 538's analysis is great news.

They say there is a 44% chance someone OTHER than Biden will be the nominee (even though Biden has been the front runner for so long) and that Biden only has a 35%.

[highplainsdem]

48. Since all the other candidates do much worse than Biden, how is that good news for anyone who

favors one of those others, whose chances are 10% or less?

[bluewater]

53. Again, people also want their LEAST favorite candidate not to win.

There are many people here that probably have Sanders as their least favorite candidate.

They might favor another candidate than Biden, lets say. Even though their preferred candidate is not winning, they would be glad to see that Sanders was not favored to get the nomination.

That is pretty clear, correct?

Ok. Now take the cognitive leap to imagine that maybe, just maybe, there are some people who have Biden as their least favorite candidate.

The analysis from 538 that says it is more likely (at 44%) that someone OTHER than Biden (at 35%) will be the nominee is good news to them, especially since Biden has been the frontrunner for so long.

538 is telling them that right now, the odds do not favor Biden to actually be the nominee. The odds favor that someone else will be.

I must run, enjoy your evening.

[Demsrule86]

85. I understand probability theory pretty well and the point you are making is not correct.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

60. Yes and few, if any, of the remaining candidates align with Biden.

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[Demsrule86]

75. If it was a team sport, but it isn't. Both sanders and warren have 10 to 12 % chance individually.

And with their lack of AA support, it is probably less than that. When all is said and done, Biden is in the lead. And predictions of his demise have been reported breathlessly for months.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

33. 538 gave Clinton a 71% chance of winning the day before the election,

for what it's worth. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/final-election-update-theres-a-wide-range-of-outcomes-and-most-of-them-come-up-clinton/

[crazytown]

37. Do you have a reason to suspect that was wrong?

71% - seven times out of ten Clinton would be expected to win. We ending up with the 3/10 tails.


It was so f'ing close V.O. :tears:

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

40. A lot of polls and predictions were wrong.

I'm not a statistician so I don't know why. But it makes me skeptical of polls and predictions.

[cos dem]

47. The polls weren't "wrong".

So much is invested in whether polls are right or wrong. That is the wrong way to look at it.

Polls are an estimate of the expected outcome. They are essentially raw data, including noise and bias errors. Good polls have low noise and bias, bad polls have high noise and bias. Noise is estimated by the infamous "margin of error", and bias isn't talked about, at least by the pollsters themselves.

538 and other poll aggregation sites attempt to process the raw data from (mostly) good polls into a better estimate of the outcome. Sites that were predicting 99%+ probability of Clinton winning were pretty seriously flawed, but they weren't technically wrong either. They just had an overly optimistic interpretation of the raw data.

538, however, I think got it right. The way dumbass won was a fairly small edge-case, and he basically had to run the table to get it. They gave him 30%, and sure-enough, he won. I feel like their analysis was pretty good, all things considered.

30% is not a low probability. I'd take a 30% chance of winning the lottery, wouldn't you?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

51. OK, so maybe deceptive is the better description.

I do recall those polls predicting a 99%+ chance of winning. I also remember one pollster who said he'd eat his hat or some other inedible thing if Trump won (I don't know if he ever did it). It might have been that polls like this gave voters a false sense of security and didn't bother to vote because they were so sure of the outcome.

[TwilightZone]

65. Agreed.

71% isn't 100%. Nate had also noted in the final days that there was a trend toward Trump at the end.

As you noted, Trump needed a bunch of things to go right, and they all did. 30% is representative of that. At the time, it seemed high, but in the end, it reflected the situation, much more so than most.

[totodeinhere]

45. Maybe they didn't take into account that the Russians would intervene to help Trump win.

n/t

[dflprincess]

57. I don't recall the percentage

but on election day 2016 538 had Russ Feingold easily winning in Wisconsin.

[TwilightZone]

64. 71% isn't 100%, of course.

And it's about 29% lower than most people and organizations predicted.

Nate had also noted in the final days that there was a trend toward Trump at the very end.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

91. I thought Hillary was given a much higher chance of winning than that...perhaps I'm misremembering.

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[Scurrilous]

34. Thanks crazytown!

[totodeinhere]

50. Instead of obsessing over who is ahead and who has the best chance why can't we

just support the candidate of our chose and then wait and see what happens? LOL. Does Biden have a 35% chance? Or maybe it's a 36% chance. Lets just take a deep breath and wait and see what happens.

[bucolic_frolic]

54. Statistics can be made to lean in any direction

and in this case I say they're useless. This race is now Biden's to lose. Yes, he can stumble, the media can go hyper over something, others can gain momentum. Biden has the tone, integrity, stature to defeat Donald Trump. Assuming Trump is the nominee, and truly, I'd give him less than 25% chance. His party is tired of his antics, tired of being snuffed, tired of making excuses, they will have to face a point and a question: Are we better off without him?

My worry about Biden is millennials. They are not in a grandfatherly mood, or a compromising one. But that's what politics is partly about: experience, and the wisdom of age. He still must demonstrate that, but Trump can't.

[crazytown]

56. Millennials also have the most negative view of trump.

[bucolic_frolic]

58. If that motivates millennials to vote, then it's a good thing!

The world, posterity, humanity, survivability - is counting on us. Americans must wake up and deliver!

[crazytown]

63. The strongest card Democrats have with young idealists is Climate Change.

It is entirely reasonable to ask them to put prejudices aside and vote to save the planet. In politics there is a next time, in climate science there is not.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

61. And theyre more likely to vote for Bernie or Elizabeth, not Joe. Why we need a progressive candidate

not a moderate.


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[Demsrule86]

76. Sorry no...we need to win states that neither Sanders or Warren can win.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

77. 60% of average Americans, 28 yrs or older,disagree with your statement about the use of statistics!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[LakeArenal]

55. Statistics

https://m.

[crazytown]

68. I'll remind you of that,

the next time HarrisX has Biden 20 points ahead ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[LakeArenal]

69. Geez. It was a joke. Simpson quotes do not count as thoughtful dialogue.

[Hav]

67. No need to overreact for all sides

This is basically just playing around with statistics by looking at maybe a dozen races in the past. It says those who polled around Biden's level won the nomination in 35% of the cases. Some of these cases might even include a race with fewer candidates or with another candidate with equal or higher polling averages. In other words, other candidates at this polling level might not have always been the frontrunner.

Does that mean Biden has a 35% of winning? Doubtful. Only if you believe the results of the past are a great indicator to make precise assessments about this race. What do these races tell us about the coming events we don't even know about? What do they say about a certain candidate? Absolutely nothing. The 35% is based on races that have nothing to do with either of our candidates or the current climate.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

78. The last 2 primary elections Joe lost in 1988/2008 are a good indication of how 2020 will end

for him. That is the statistic people should be focused on, and his early exit in those primary elections... the odds are simply not in Joe's favor. By comparison, Bernie has exceeded all expectations when he has run for President.


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[redstateblues]

82. Using your logic, Bernie will lose the nomination by millions

Just like the last time he ran-he has actually been running for the last three years

[redqueen]

93. A good percentage are just undecided.

We'll see how things go once the voting starts.