Forecasting the US 2020 elections | The Economist
It is increasingly likely Biden wins in a landslide!
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Economist is analysing polling, economic and demographic data to predict America's elections in 2020
Right now, our model thinks Joe Biden is very likely to beat Donald Trump in the electoral college.
Joe Biden Democrat Donald Trump Republican Chance of winning the electoral college around 9 in 10 or 91% around 1 in 10 or 8% Chance of winning the most votes better than 19 in 20 or 99% less than 1 in 20 or 1% Predicted range of electoral college votes
(270 to win) 249-415 123-289 The probability of an electoral-college tie is <1%
| Chance of winning the electoral college |
Chance of winning the most votes |
Predicted range of electoral college votes (270 to win) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Joe Biden Democrat | around 9 in 10 or 91% | better than 19 in 20 or 99% | 249-415 |
| Donald Trump Republican | around 1 in 10 or 8% | less than 1 in 20 or 1% | 123-289 |
The probability of an electoral-college tie is <1%
Estimated electoral college votes
Our model is updated every day and combines state and national polls with economic indicators to predict a range of outcomes. The midpoint is the estimate of the electoral-college vote for each party on election day.
Electoral-college simulations
Our model works by simulating 20,000 paths for the election, each time varying candidates' vote shares to account for polling error, changes in turnout or the political environment and the effects of campaigning. The bars below represent the predicted likelihood of every plausible electoral-vote outcome.
Chance of winning each state
Our model combines the national prediction with polls and political-economic factors at the state level. We take into account that states that are similar are likely to move with each other; if Donald Trump wins Minnesota, he will probably win Wisconsin too.
Modelled popular vote on each day
The model first averages the polls, weighting them by their sample sizes and correcting them for tendencies to overestimate support for one party. It then combines this average with our forecast based on non-polling data, pulling vote shares on each day slightly towards the final election-day projection.
Sources: US Census Bureau; MIT Election and Data Science Lab; 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study; US Bureau of Economic Analysis; American National Election Studies; 270towin.com; Gallup; FiveThirtyEight; YouGov
Forecast by The Economist with Andrew Gelman and Merlin Heidemanns, Columbia University
Download the source codeDownload the polling data
Checks and Balance
Follow The Economist's coverage of US politics by subscribing to our newsletter and podcast. Sign up for our newsletterListen to our podcast
Tags
Who is online
56 visitors
Trump's chances for reelection are Slim and None...
Just like him winning in 2016...
Yet, Trump only lost the popular vote by 2% in 2016. Biden is not Hillary Clinton and Trump is now down 10-15%. It's a whole new ballgame...
Yep, and that 8scwhyvwe havevthe EC, so the rest of the country isn't run by CA and NY.
the what?
Phone texting, lol!
Should read "Yep, and that's why we have the EC, so the rest of the country isn't run by CA and NY"
Oh okay lol. Just how is my state running the rest of the country?
Because without the EC, the popular vote of those two states alone would overrule the rest of the country. Look at what happened in 2016. Trump won 30 other states popular vote. Under the Popular Vote plan, more than half of the States would have had their popular vote overturned by CA alone.
And how do you feel about that? Should the American election process ignore the will of the people, in your opinion?
By that theory, you are stating that citizens of less populated states, should have more voter rights than other citizens? Or at least that their votes should count more than others?
Is that truly what you believe? Some people's votes should count more than other people's?
Is there any particlular reason no Democrats even breathed ONE fucking word about the EC in 2008 or 2012?
We like our elections decided by states that have more cows than people.
Thinking such as that cost your Abuela Hillary dearly in 2016, and caused you untold amounts of angst!
Of course there is a reason, the electoral college did not overturn the will of the people in 2008 or 2012. Duh!!!!!!!
Is there any particular reason no Republican had any problems with mail in ballots over the last 100 years?
the EC did what it ALWAYS does, vote accordingly as their states voted.
the will of the people by state was honored.
Once again Texan you show a complete lack of understanding. Most likely due to your highly partisan core beliefs and lack of empathy.
I understand it is pointless to whine about the electoral college because your Abuela Hillary lost.
Petulant children whine.
Once again you completely ignore the conversation and try to detour it to one of your favorite talking points. Otherwise, show me where I mentioned Hillary's name.
sorry, but she is the one who caused you all the grief over the ec.
sooner or later people just have to come to terms with it
That is one way of looking at it. Pretty narrow minded view, but still a view!
Yes, the voters of Nebraska should decide who their State votes for in the Presidential election, not the voters of California. Look at the issues that are foremost in each State for a better understanding of Why each State should have an equal voice in deciding who leads the country. According to your plan, the State with the largest population should have the biggest voice in deciding Who is in charge. Personally, I don't really want Hollyweird perverts pouring their money into campaigns to drown out the competition and then allowing them to decide Who will be in charge. President Weinstein anyone????
It's tough to do the level of polling needed to catch the fractional percentages that gained trump the electoral votes to win the presidency.
Typical polls of 1,100 or so simply cannot predict to .002. 9,000 would get you to about a +- .01 or 1% error level. So when polls bounce around about 3-4 points - consider it a tie. Consistent spreads greater than that - probably not.
Trump won Florida by .012, Michigan by .002, Pennsylvania by .007, and Wisconsin by .008 to get 75 electoral votes. Total votes - maybe 80,000 or so.
Polls just before the election showed Clinton ahead in the popular poll by 3.3 points. She actually won by 2.1 points.
Just get people out to vote..... run up the score, leave no doubt that the nation has rejected Trump.
The problem in 2016 was that dems thought it was a done deal and neglected to vote.
Hopefully they will ignore the lopsided polls and get out the vote this time.