In a political landscape where the seven battleground states are consistently polling within a mere percentage point or two, claiming a 50-50 outcome is the only prudent forecast. This is essentially where my model has positioned itself since the debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. However, when I present this somewhat unsatisfactory conclusion, I am often met with the same query: “C’mon, Nate, what’s your gut feeling?”
So, let me share my intuition with you. My instinct leans towards Donald Trump. I suspect this sentiment resonates with many anxious Democrats as well. Yet, I must emphasize that you should not place any weight on anyone’s gut feelings — including my own. Instead, it is crucial to accept that a 50-50 forecast truly indicates a 50-50 likelihood. Furthermore, you should remain open to the idea that these forecasts could be incorrect, and that uncertainty exists in equal measure for both Mr. Trump and Ms. Harris.
It’s not that I dismiss intuition outright. In fact, it plays a significant role in contexts like poker. Many seasoned players I’ve encountered over the years assert that intuition offers that slight edge, enhancing their decision-making process. While there’s never absolute certainty, intuition might shift the odds to a favorable 60-40 by picking up on subtle cues when an opponent is bluffing.
However, poker players rely on thousands of hands of experience to hone their instincts. In contrast, presidential elections occur only once every four years, making it challenging to draw accurate parallels. Many people lean towards predicting a Trump victory due to recency bias — after all, he secured an unexpected win in 2016 and came remarkably close in 2020, despite trailing in the polls. Yet, we often overlook 2012, when Barack Obama not only won but surpassed his polling predictions. The unpredictability of polling errors makes it exceedingly difficult to forecast their trajectory.