natesilver: Trump’s chances of winning the nomination are exactly 7.1459814514128405 percent. Just kidding. I’m somewhere in the high single digits.
micah: And on Sept. 1?
natesilver: Well, I put his chances at 2 percent in that “stages of doom” article, which lays out a procedure for how you’d calculate them. If he has cleared Stage 1, his chances would double, to 4 percent.
micah: Harry’s dead on.
natesilver: But I’d round up a little bit higher than that because I think he’s made some progress on some of the later stages. For instance, his favorability ratings — although still potentially a liability down the road — have improved some.
I recall Silver saying Trump had somewhere in the neighborhood of a 1 percent chance. It might not have been on FiveThirtyEight, but I remember reading it somewhere, possibly on his Twitter account.
Last June, FiveThirtyEight said of Trump's chances: "Trump has a better chance of cameoing in another “Home Alone” movie with Macaulay Culkin — or playing in the NBA Finals — than winning the Republican nomination."
"In the long run — as our experience with past trolls shows — Trump’s support will probably fade. Or at least, given his high unfavorable ratings, it will plateau, and other candidates will surpass him as the rest of the field consolidates."
This is just a quick skim of FiveThirtyEight's archives. There are literally dozens of articles written by Silver and staff where they attempt to apply historical data to Trump's campaign and come up laughably wrong. It's hard to blame them for being wrong, because almost everybody has been wrong. But I'd argue that FiveThirtyEight, and especially Silver, have been wrong perhaps more than any other serious political analyst.
Good work, I like all the links with actual, factual data.
When you say "But I'd argue that FiveThirtyEight, and especially Silver, have been wrong perhaps more than any other serious political analyst. ", what time frame are you using for that statement? Are you saying that you think they're really off on this election cycle, or are you saying this taking prior elections into account as well? I've only made one play this cycle (it was Hillary winning Iowa which just barely won), but Silver and company made me a bunch of $ in 2012.
Based on the links that I gave, I thought it was pretty clear that Silver wasn't giving Trump a 1% chance at winning in late October. Did he think that he had a 1% chance at some point in time? I'm sure, since I don't think many thought of Trump as a serious candidate early in the game. And with something like politics (and sports for that matter), it's so tough to go back in time and see if the projections were correct (unless you're applying results-based thinking). Was Trump at 7% in October way too low? Sure looks like it. But it also looks like KenPom giving Holy Cross a 3% chance at beating Bucknell was also a horrible projection, even though it might have been true.
As for the line of "Trump has a better chance of cameoing in another “Home Alone” movie with Macaulay Culkin — or playing in the NBA Finals — than winning the Republican nomination.", while it was on 538, it wasn't Silver that wrote it. Though if I look at the quote on a serious level, I'd say that last June, I would have put Trump's chances somewhere between another Home Alone cameo (seemed more likely than him actually getting enough support to be the top republican candidate) and the NBA (obviously zero chance).
But I would like to hear from Casper Ware as to what these last 100 predictions that Nate Silver has gotten wrong have been.
FWIW.......99% of political pundits have been wrong about Drumpf.... Grilling 538 about being wrong on him is like walking into prison and accusing only 1 inmate of having broken the law.
Silver was obviously great in the 2012 election and his analysis is mostly great and should be trusted over just about any other source. Anybody following or betting the election will definitely benefit from reading his stuff. But he has been wrong...horribly wrong...on Trump. That doesn't mean he isn't a skilled analyst, it just means he was wrong on Trump.
I can remember reading Silver's earliest Trump articles, where he compared Trump to previous failed candidates, and questioning the validity of his argument for the simple reason that Trump is unlike just about any other candidate we've ever seen. The sports betting analogy would be to cite trends/stats from the 2012 Texas Longhorns as a basis for projecting the performance of the 2015 Texas Longhorns. Two different teams, two different sets of rules, two completely different styles.
Last summer, Trump was dominating headlines in a way that few candidates ever had before. He was dominating social media, a platform that barely existed two election cycles ago. He was commanding air time on every show on every network. And all along, Nate Silver, who wrote "The Signal and the Noise," dismissed Trump's popularity as nothing but...noise.
I initially agreed with Silver's commentary for the most part. But as the months passed and the calendar flipped into September and October, I felt like he was overlooking the uniqueness of this candidate and this election.
Good work, I like all the links with actual, factual data.
When you say "But I'd argue that FiveThirtyEight, and especially Silver, have been wrong perhaps more than any other serious political analyst. ", what time frame are you using for that statement?
I was referring specifically to Trump's candidacy. He whiffed on Trump, badly and repeatedly, and then doubled down. Then he was wrong again, and again. Not the end of the world.
Silver is still the first person I go to for politics/election coverage.
Trump is a great bet t +260 to be president, fbi just gave leenecy to a key witness on Hillary crimes.
He is already back up to +340 at BM/CRIS. If you are going to bet him wait. There is a much better chance in peoples minds that they try to railroad his nomination, compared to anything being done to Hilary. Don't kid yourself. Good luck
But as the months passed and the calendar flipped into September and October, I felt like he was overlooking the uniqueness of this candidate and this election.
You can't argue prior probabilities based on results. There's no way of knowing what his real chances at the nomination were last summer but the idea that it was anything but a longshot given the information at the time seems ridiculous.
You can't argue prior probabilities based on results. There's no way of knowing what his real chances at the nomination were last summer but the idea that it was anything but a longshot given the information at the time seems ridiculous.
Trump has had a double digit lead in August, and has only grown since. silver is deceptive and has a clear agenda, and that agenda is not to be correct about things
U.S.A. ELECTIONS - MATCHUPS - MAR 04
WILL DONALD TRUMP BE THE NEXT US PRESIDENT?
9:00 PM
TEAMSYES SPREAD TOTAL ODDS
+325
3K USD
NO
-440
WILL DONALD TRUMP BE THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE ?
9:00 PM
YES
-230
3K USD
Trump has had a double digit lead in August, and has only grown since. silver is deceptive and has a clear agenda, and that agenda is not to be correct about things
I must be too dumb to see Nate SIlver's "clear agenda", since I'd wager that his "agenda" is to try and get things right. Since I'm so stupid, can you humor me and explain to me what the agenda is (since I'd think the most important thing to him is to continue kicking butt with his presidential predictions so that he can keep increasing his earnings potential and exposure)? And has this agenda been in place all along (especially in 2008 and 2012), or is it specific to the 2016 election?
Bloomberg jumping in sure would be interesting. You have to think that Bloomberg is worried about HRC being a weak candidate in a general(possibly low enthusiasm/turnout) and possibly putting his name on the ballot. Trump would once again benefit from a crowded field.
Anybody with opinions on who wins Hawaii? Information is very scarce. Demographically, I would have thought that Trump was unlikely to win, but now am less convinced.
Anybody with opinions on who wins Hawaii? Information is very scarce. Demographically, I would have thought that Trump was unlikely to win, but now am less convinced.
As you know Hawaii is a solid Blue State with 19 measly delegates. The leader of the GOP is a young Asian-American that panders to the Dems. She despises Trump and is playing the 'Romney Card'. I haven't seen a credible poll because the ballot has six candidates. JBush and Carson are still on it. I guess they don't get late scratches on the Islands. LOL
Biggest fraud alive Nate Silver gave Hillary a 99pct chance to win Michigan. LMFAO
Had you seen the polls leading up to yesterday in Michigan? Mitchell gave Hillary a 37 point lead, Monmouth 13, YouGov 11, Marist 17, etc. Was there anyone (outside of the Sanders camp of course) that was calling for a Sanders win in Michigan? I'm honestly interested in hearing if others were more bullish on Sanders' chances. Or is this like an instance where you'll say that a college hoops pundit was a fraud if they didn't see Austin Peay winning the OVC tourney?
You just gonna ignore the classic tout-style free roll in there? He could teach Fezzik a thing or two.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
natesilver: Yeah, and Sanders is even at some risk of not getting 15 percent, which would deny him any delegates.
natesilver: Yeah, Trump losing Michigan wouldn’t be a Lakers-Warriors upset, but it would be a big upset. Clinton losing would be an ENORMOUS upset.
Then again, I have a gut feeling — WHICH YOU SHOULD TOTALLY IGNORE — that Sanders could beat his polling there.
I said in our Slack chat today that I had a “gut feeling” that Sanders could beat his polling in Michigan. I also said, for the record, that you should mostly ignore that gut feeling. But it wasn’t a total shot in the dark.
You just gonna ignore the classic tout-style free roll in there? He could teach Fezzik a thing or two.
What is the problem there? I thought he explained it all pretty well. His numbers showed that Hillary would win big, he didn't trust those numbers completely and though that there were signs that pointed towards it being closer than the numbers said, but in the end he trusted the numbers more than his gut.
What should the true odds have been heading into last night? For all I know, 99% was a good number and this is that 1 time in 100 that the 1% hit (I mean, if you're giving something a 99% chance, it will lose once in a while). I'm looking forward to reading more about last night to understand why the predictions/polls were that far off. It would be one thing if everyone else was calling for Sanders and Silver was saying that Hillary had a 99% chance of winning. But it seems like everyone totally missed the mark on that race last night. I don't see it as an indictment on Nate Silver as much as an indictment on the polling numbers, but I'll need to read up some more to see what went wrong.
Seriously? The problem, as with any free roll, is that no matter what the outcome ends up being he would say he was 'right' in some way. If Clinton wins, 'sure enough my 99% call was correct.' If Sanders wins, 'Well I said it would be an ENORMOUS upset but I also said I had a gut feeling but I said you should ignore that gut feeling but it wasn't a total shot in the dark and was actually more than a gut feeling.' Free roll on top of a free roll
Seriously? The problem, as with any free roll, is that no matter what the outcome ends up being he would say he was 'right' in some way. If Clinton wins, 'sure enough my 99% call was correct.' If Sanders wins, 'Well I said it would be an ENORMOUS upset but I also said I had a gut feeling but I said you should ignore that gut feeling but it wasn't a total shot in the dark and was actually more than a gut feeling.' Free roll on top of a free roll
So you think his analysis would be better if he said "Candidate A will win tonight, there is no other possible outcome", or something along those lines? Rather than explaining what the numbers say, what other factors are at play, etc? I think it's a lot more "toutish" to say "this is going to be a blowout winner, there is no chance of losing this one" than explaining all of the factors at play (as he always does). I remember people trashing him before the last election when he said that Romney was basically drawing to an inside straight heading into election day, and that while Obama would most likely win, there was still a 15% chance (or whatever it was) that Romney could win if certain factors went a different way, saying that he was giving himself an out. I see it as good analysis.
So you think his analysis would be better if he said "Candidate A will win tonight, there is no other possible outcome", or something along those lines?
Nice straw man there.
No, I think it would be better if he said 'I had this as a 99% outcome, and I got it wrong, but I still believe my numbers were correct and this was just a highly unlikely outcome' or 'maybe my numbers were a little too high, here are some reasons why.' Not some bullshit about how he actually had a gut feeling so even though his 99% prediction was wrong he was actually kind of right.
I guess if you don't agree that this was a massive free roll we're probably not going to find any common ground.
No, I think it would be better if he said 'I had this as a 99% outcome, and I got it wrong, but I still believe my numbers were correct and this was just a highly unlikely outcome' or 'maybe my numbers were a little too high, here are some reasons why.' Not some bullshit about how he actually had a gut feeling so even though his 99% prediction was wrong he was actually kind of right.
That's pretty much what he did in the link that I gave in post 101 in this thread. He basically said that there were some signs of this coming, but he said that he told us to ignore those signs. And then he goes on to give some of the reasons why he thinks that everyone was wrong about this race. And I expect that we'll probably still read some more from him about this race.
silver is very biased, gave trump a 1 pct chance in November when he was leading in every poll. Gives sanders a 1pct chance to win Michigan then basically says he was just kidding after he could not have been more wrong. His sports predictions are the worlds worst too. the emperor has no
silver is very biased, gave trump a 1 pct chance in November when he was leading in every poll. Gives sanders a 1pct chance to win Michigan then basically says he was just kidding after he could not have been more wrong. His sports predictions are the worlds worst too. the emperor has no
I've already refuted that claim earlier in this thread with evidence that Silver was giving Trump a 7% (or something like that) chance in October. After giving him something like a 2% chance (again, if I recall correctly) in September. And I'll ask again...Were any of those numbers wrong? Did Trump actually have a >7% chance at the Republican nomination in October? Or are we going to just use results based thinking and ignore the fact that pretty much every political pundit on earth had Clinton winning Michigan last night, or had Trump as a longshot last fall?
Ken Pomeroy gave Holy Cross a .05% chance of winning the Patriot League tourney (ie, Sanders had a >10x better chance of winning Michigan than the Crusaders had of dancing). Does missing this badly mean that Ken's ratings are suddenly useless and he has no idea what he's talking about?
And again...What is Nate Silver's bias? Is he biased against Billionaires? Is he biased against guys with bad hair? What is the agenda of his that I keep hearing about, but no one is willing to explain?
he is an obvious Trump hater, Trump has had a double digit lead since August. for him to make Trump a 2 pct chance to win was very irresponsible. Ronbets calling him a Danny Sheridan doppleganger is very accurate. He is extremely biased towards the left. I get that he is a lefty, but his work should be even handed and it is far from that.
He is extremely biased towards the left. I get that he is a lefty, but his work should be even handed and it is far from that.
I remember hearing a lot about Silver's bias back in 2012 when he had Obama winning big and the Republicans didn't want to hear it and talked about how biased he was (plenty of examples of it in the Homerplayer thread on the 2012 election). If he's so biased, then why has he hit 99 of the last 100 states in Presidential elections with his only miss being Indiana in 2008 when he predicted it to go red and it went blue. If he was biased towards the left, wouldn't his "misses" be favoring the left and not the right?
If he's so biased, then why has he hit 99 of the last 100 states in Presidential elections
Well, in fairness, you or I could probably get 90 of 100 right. Forty states are basically the same every year (either Republican or Democrat) and have been unchanged for at least four election cycles. So, 80 states are virtual giveaways...the equivalent of Joe Lunardi getting to write in all the automatic teams into his projected NCAA tourney bracket before inevitably claiming he got "66 of 68 teams right!"
The remaining 10 states are the proverbial coin flips, but even those aren't true coin flips. In the last four election cycles, only five states (Nevada, Denver, Ohio, Virginia, Florida) have been split evenly between Republicans/Democrats at 2-2.
Comments
As always, I encourage you to bring facts/links/substance to the conversation. Can you give us a link where Silver made that statement?
Here is a link that I can provide from October 20th, 2015 (ie "late oct")...
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/donald-trump-is-doomed-andor-invincible/
micah: Let’s try to get a more exact sense of where we see things. What were Trump’s chances of winning the nomination on Sept. 1? And what do you think they are now?
hjenten: 2 percent and 4 percent.
micah: TRUMP DOUBLES CHANCES OF WINNING!
natesilver: Trump’s chances of winning the nomination are exactly 7.1459814514128405 percent. Just kidding. I’m somewhere in the high single digits.
micah: And on Sept. 1?
natesilver: Well, I put his chances at 2 percent in that “stages of doom” article, which lays out a procedure for how you’d calculate them. If he has cleared Stage 1, his chances would double, to 4 percent.
micah: Harry’s dead on.
natesilver: But I’d round up a little bit higher than that because I think he’s made some progress on some of the later stages. For instance, his favorability ratings — although still potentially a liability down the road — have improved some.
He told Anderson Cooper that Trump had roughly a five percent chance in October, compared to the "2 percent chance" he gave Trump in August.
Last June, FiveThirtyEight said of Trump's chances: "Trump has a better chance of cameoing in another “Home Alone” movie with Macaulay Culkin — or playing in the NBA Finals — than winning the Republican nomination."
In early August, Silver emphatically predicted Trump will not win the nomination because "It’s not even clear that he’s trying to do so." He previously wrote that Trump was the "Nickelback of GOP candidates," and also called him "The world's greatest troll."
"In the long run — as our experience with past trolls shows — Trump’s support will probably fade. Or at least, given his high unfavorable ratings, it will plateau, and other candidates will surpass him as the rest of the field consolidates."
This is just a quick skim of FiveThirtyEight's archives. There are literally dozens of articles written by Silver and staff where they attempt to apply historical data to Trump's campaign and come up laughably wrong. It's hard to blame them for being wrong, because almost everybody has been wrong. But I'd argue that FiveThirtyEight, and especially Silver, have been wrong perhaps more than any other serious political analyst.
When you say "But I'd argue that FiveThirtyEight, and especially Silver, have been wrong perhaps more than any other serious political analyst. ", what time frame are you using for that statement? Are you saying that you think they're really off on this election cycle, or are you saying this taking prior elections into account as well? I've only made one play this cycle (it was Hillary winning Iowa which just barely won), but Silver and company made me a bunch of $ in 2012.
Based on the links that I gave, I thought it was pretty clear that Silver wasn't giving Trump a 1% chance at winning in late October. Did he think that he had a 1% chance at some point in time? I'm sure, since I don't think many thought of Trump as a serious candidate early in the game. And with something like politics (and sports for that matter), it's so tough to go back in time and see if the projections were correct (unless you're applying results-based thinking). Was Trump at 7% in October way too low? Sure looks like it. But it also looks like KenPom giving Holy Cross a 3% chance at beating Bucknell was also a horrible projection, even though it might have been true.
As for the line of "Trump has a better chance of cameoing in another “Home Alone” movie with Macaulay Culkin — or playing in the NBA Finals — than winning the Republican nomination.", while it was on 538, it wasn't Silver that wrote it. Though if I look at the quote on a serious level, I'd say that last June, I would have put Trump's chances somewhere between another Home Alone cameo (seemed more likely than him actually getting enough support to be the top republican candidate) and the NBA (obviously zero chance).
But I would like to hear from Casper Ware as to what these last 100 predictions that Nate Silver has gotten wrong have been.
I can remember reading Silver's earliest Trump articles, where he compared Trump to previous failed candidates, and questioning the validity of his argument for the simple reason that Trump is unlike just about any other candidate we've ever seen. The sports betting analogy would be to cite trends/stats from the 2012 Texas Longhorns as a basis for projecting the performance of the 2015 Texas Longhorns. Two different teams, two different sets of rules, two completely different styles.
Last summer, Trump was dominating headlines in a way that few candidates ever had before. He was dominating social media, a platform that barely existed two election cycles ago. He was commanding air time on every show on every network. And all along, Nate Silver, who wrote "The Signal and the Noise," dismissed Trump's popularity as nothing but...noise.
I initially agreed with Silver's commentary for the most part. But as the months passed and the calendar flipped into September and October, I felt like he was overlooking the uniqueness of this candidate and this election.
Full disclosure: I don't have a Trump to win bet.
I was referring specifically to Trump's candidacy. He whiffed on Trump, badly and repeatedly, and then doubled down. Then he was wrong again, and again. Not the end of the world.
Silver is still the first person I go to for politics/election coverage.
He is already back up to +340 at BM/CRIS. If you are going to bet him wait. There is a much better chance in peoples minds that they try to railroad his nomination, compared to anything being done to Hilary. Don't kid yourself. Good luck
Solid theory explains Drumpf's rise better than any other theory out there.
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism
I suggest betting these if it's that clear cut
I must be too dumb to see Nate SIlver's "clear agenda", since I'd wager that his "agenda" is to try and get things right. Since I'm so stupid, can you humor me and explain to me what the agenda is (since I'd think the most important thing to him is to continue kicking butt with his presidential predictions so that he can keep increasing his earnings potential and exposure)? And has this agenda been in place all along (especially in 2008 and 2012), or is it specific to the 2016 election?
As you know Hawaii is a solid Blue State with 19 measly delegates. The leader of the GOP is a young Asian-American that panders to the Dems. She despises Trump and is playing the 'Romney Card'. I haven't seen a credible poll because the ballot has six candidates. JBush and Carson are still on it. I guess they don't get late scratches on the Islands. LOL
Had you seen the polls leading up to yesterday in Michigan? Mitchell gave Hillary a 37 point lead, Monmouth 13, YouGov 11, Marist 17, etc. Was there anyone (outside of the Sanders camp of course) that was calling for a Sanders win in Michigan? I'm honestly interested in hearing if others were more bullish on Sanders' chances. Or is this like an instance where you'll say that a college hoops pundit was a fraud if they didn't see Austin Peay winning the OVC tourney?
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/michigan-mississippi-idaho-hawaii-primaries-presidential-election-2016/?#livepress-update-16912794
You just gonna ignore the classic tout-style free roll in there? He could teach Fezzik a thing or two.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
natesilver: Yeah, and Sanders is even at some risk of not getting 15 percent, which would deny him any delegates.
natesilver: Yeah, Trump losing Michigan wouldn’t be a Lakers-Warriors upset, but it would be a big upset. Clinton losing would be an ENORMOUS upset.
Then again, I have a gut feeling — WHICH YOU SHOULD TOTALLY IGNORE — that Sanders could beat his polling there.
I said in our Slack chat today that I had a “gut feeling” that Sanders could beat his polling in Michigan. I also said, for the record, that you should mostly ignore that gut feeling. But it wasn’t a total shot in the dark.
What is the problem there? I thought he explained it all pretty well. His numbers showed that Hillary would win big, he didn't trust those numbers completely and though that there were signs that pointed towards it being closer than the numbers said, but in the end he trusted the numbers more than his gut.
What should the true odds have been heading into last night? For all I know, 99% was a good number and this is that 1 time in 100 that the 1% hit (I mean, if you're giving something a 99% chance, it will lose once in a while). I'm looking forward to reading more about last night to understand why the predictions/polls were that far off. It would be one thing if everyone else was calling for Sanders and Silver was saying that Hillary had a 99% chance of winning. But it seems like everyone totally missed the mark on that race last night. I don't see it as an indictment on Nate Silver as much as an indictment on the polling numbers, but I'll need to read up some more to see what went wrong.
Seriously? The problem, as with any free roll, is that no matter what the outcome ends up being he would say he was 'right' in some way. If Clinton wins, 'sure enough my 99% call was correct.' If Sanders wins, 'Well I said it would be an ENORMOUS upset but I also said I had a gut feeling but I said you should ignore that gut feeling but it wasn't a total shot in the dark and was actually more than a gut feeling.' Free roll on top of a free roll
So you think his analysis would be better if he said "Candidate A will win tonight, there is no other possible outcome", or something along those lines? Rather than explaining what the numbers say, what other factors are at play, etc? I think it's a lot more "toutish" to say "this is going to be a blowout winner, there is no chance of losing this one" than explaining all of the factors at play (as he always does). I remember people trashing him before the last election when he said that Romney was basically drawing to an inside straight heading into election day, and that while Obama would most likely win, there was still a 15% chance (or whatever it was) that Romney could win if certain factors went a different way, saying that he was giving himself an out. I see it as good analysis.
Nice straw man there.
No, I think it would be better if he said 'I had this as a 99% outcome, and I got it wrong, but I still believe my numbers were correct and this was just a highly unlikely outcome' or 'maybe my numbers were a little too high, here are some reasons why.' Not some bullshit about how he actually had a gut feeling so even though his 99% prediction was wrong he was actually kind of right.
I guess if you don't agree that this was a massive free roll we're probably not going to find any common ground.
That's pretty much what he did in the link that I gave in post 101 in this thread. He basically said that there were some signs of this coming, but he said that he told us to ignore those signs. And then he goes on to give some of the reasons why he thinks that everyone was wrong about this race. And I expect that we'll probably still read some more from him about this race.
I've already refuted that claim earlier in this thread with evidence that Silver was giving Trump a 7% (or something like that) chance in October. After giving him something like a 2% chance (again, if I recall correctly) in September. And I'll ask again...Were any of those numbers wrong? Did Trump actually have a >7% chance at the Republican nomination in October? Or are we going to just use results based thinking and ignore the fact that pretty much every political pundit on earth had Clinton winning Michigan last night, or had Trump as a longshot last fall?
Ken Pomeroy gave Holy Cross a .05% chance of winning the Patriot League tourney (ie, Sanders had a >10x better chance of winning Michigan than the Crusaders had of dancing). Does missing this badly mean that Ken's ratings are suddenly useless and he has no idea what he's talking about?
And again...What is Nate Silver's bias? Is he biased against Billionaires? Is he biased against guys with bad hair? What is the agenda of his that I keep hearing about, but no one is willing to explain?
I remember hearing a lot about Silver's bias back in 2012 when he had Obama winning big and the Republicans didn't want to hear it and talked about how biased he was (plenty of examples of it in the Homerplayer thread on the 2012 election). If he's so biased, then why has he hit 99 of the last 100 states in Presidential elections with his only miss being Indiana in 2008 when he predicted it to go red and it went blue. If he was biased towards the left, wouldn't his "misses" be favoring the left and not the right?
Well, in fairness, you or I could probably get 90 of 100 right. Forty states are basically the same every year (either Republican or Democrat) and have been unchanged for at least four election cycles. So, 80 states are virtual giveaways...the equivalent of Joe Lunardi getting to write in all the automatic teams into his projected NCAA tourney bracket before inevitably claiming he got "66 of 68 teams right!"
The remaining 10 states are the proverbial coin flips, but even those aren't true coin flips. In the last four election cycles, only five states (Nevada, Denver, Ohio, Virginia, Florida) have been split evenly between Republicans/Democrats at 2-2.