Messing about with the electoral map

I played around a bit with an interactive electoral map site tonight to try to get a better understanding of where things stand. The site allows you to select from an array of safe—>likely—>leans for either candidate in each state (along with a choice of a toss-up). The map loads with each of the states selected in different categories, presumably set via some amalgamation of recent polls. With those selections, Biden holds a commanding lead of 290 (270 are needed to win) vs. Trump’s 163 with 85 electoral votes up in the air.

This looks promising, but it has AZ (11), WI (10), MI (16), and PA (20), all leaning towards Biden. Given the map’s 290/163 starting point, you only have to lose a few of those states to put the outcome in question. The map also has IA (6), OH (18), NC (15), GA (16), and FL (29) listed as toss-ups. All of the states from both of those lists went to Trump in 2016.

Nate Silver, the NYT’s data guru, who famously predicted all 50 states correctly in the 2012 election, had this as his 2016 map. We know how that worked out.

Here’s the actual map from 2016 for reference.

Of the four aforementioned ‘lean Biden’ states, only AZ was predicted to go to Trump in 2016, but all of them did. So, anyone feeling a bit skittish over polls after 2016 seems reasonable, but the real concern is something else. Prof Tressie Cottom gets to the heart of it.

They’re telegraphing their move and already acting on it, so we know what’s coming. And we also know that in the right places, a little bit of undue influence can go a long way. I’m hoping for a landslide for Biden, so that we might get to the work of demanding meaningful change towards a better nation. But I’m not getting my hopes up for a short, uneventful end to the election. And I am going to continue to brace for the worst while hoping this is one of those times where my earned cynicism isn’t rewarded.

Addendum: