Predicting the election result
Enjoying this newsletter? Get it in your inbox every weekend, as well as our daily round-up of The Economist’s best journalism, by signing up for free here.
Hello from New York,
A wiser writer than I am would not try to predict the outcome of America’s presidential election, even with one day to go. Polls suggest this race cannot sensibly be called. Our forecast model, having nudged in favour of Donald Trump late in October, has shifted back to what is, in effect, a dead heat. The Democratic candidate just got a zinger of a boost from a hugely respected poll, the Selzer survey in Iowa. That suggests she will do far better in the Hawkeye State than most had previously thought, and thus across the Midwest.
Maybe. As a former correspondent in the Midwest, I’m rooting for the region to be the decisive arena. I’d also love to see Americans get around to electing their first female president. Doing so is a welcome mark of liberal democracy: leave it to horrible authoritarian regimes in places such as Russia or China to refuse to let women near the top of most power structures.
And yet. And yet. Trump supporters have every reason to hope. These days voters love to batter incumbent parties. They do so all over the world—for a heartwarming example, see what happened in Botswana on Friday. The only reason America might be different is the weakness of the Republican candidate. Still, by the end of Tuesday some 75m Americans will have given their votes to the Donald. That’s a massive number, win or lose. Read our analysis unpacking why they do it. Around half of Americans don’t see him as illegitimate—despite his being a convicted felon; the storming of the Capitol in 2021; and so on. Many, including less educated, working-class former Democrats, are fired up by him. They think he speaks for the little guy, whereas Democrats speak down.
On election night (and onwards, for as long as it takes) I invite you to visit our website and our app to track our live results page. We will have live data updates running constantly, along with rolling analysis from our coffee-fuelled correspondents and editors, plus videos and podcasts, as we try to unpick what is happening, and what it means for the world.
The detail I’m most gripped by—OK, get ready for some nerdiness—is our county-level voting analysis of the crucial states. As this is updated by the minute, you will get an early sense of whether Ms Harris, say, is improving on Joe Biden’s performance of four years ago in a vital county in suburban Pennsylvania (or wherever). Such fine-grained data should give you the best indication of how the rest of the results will play out.
So here is my challenge to you. I’ll dare to be unwise, if you will join me. Last week you gave us a huge and generous response to my request for your comments on our endorsement of Ms Harris. (We have read every message, and have tried to reply directly to as many of you as we can.) So I hope you will take part this time, too. Between now and Tuesday at 6pm EST, I invite you to email me your prediction for how many electoral-college votes Mr Trump and Ms Harris will each get. Remember that 270 is the winning post (and your total should add up to 538). If you want to include a line or two explaining your rationale, please do.
We’ll then assess the hive mind of readers of this newsletter. Judged by the average prediction of respondents, can we do a better job of foreseeing the outcome than, say, The Economist’s presidential forecast model? I promise to namecheck anyone who predicts the numbers correctly. My own best guess: Mr Trump will take Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona and North Carolina and collect 281 electoral-college seats in total—leaving Ms Harris with just 257. What do you say? Write to me at economisttoday@economist.com.
Adam Roberts, Digital editor
Recommended reads
Let us count the ways
Recommended by LinkedIn
A new poll of 30,000 people worldwide has some surprising results
Investors are betting on him boosting the dollar, perhaps mistakenly
A white, working-class independent, he threatens the Republican dominance of Nebraska’s politics
The inside story of Truth Social
Most read by subscribers
Get full access to our journalism
Read three free articles each month on Economist.com—register for free. If you are not a subscriber, enjoy full access by subscribing here.
OK Boštjan Dolinšek
RADAR Techniques Development Meteorologist at National Weather Service RADAR Operations Center (ROC) Norman, OK
1moSelzer ended up apologizing for the poor predictive skill that estimate showed. Most of these are very biased.
The Economist has lost its relevance making wrong predictions about the US elections. I do not read it anymore due to their articles leaning towards the left.
Técnico Superior - Arquitecto Projectista
1mo@Como é possível o povo Norte Americano ser tão idiota!? Já não lhes chega os presidentes anedóticos que tiveram em toda a sua historia? Auguro algo muito mau...
Political Scientist | Project Manager at Columbia University | Cybersecurity Aficionado
1moI predict a win for K. Harris with 270 to 268.