Jerome model: Trump in Massachusetts trails by a very clear margin

The Jerome model is captured in the econometric models component of the combined PollyVote forecast. It currently forecasts a two-party vote share of 61.6% for Clinton and 38.4% for Trump in Massachusetts.

Putting the results in context

Single econometric models should be regarded with caution, because they often include substantial errors. At least, one should check how a econometric model's results compare to benchmark forecasts.

Results vs. other econometric models

An average of recent econometric models in Massachusetts sees Clinton at 62.1% of the two-party vote. In comparison to her numbers in the Jerome model Clinton's econometric model average is 0.5 percentage points higher.

Comparison to the combined PollyVote

PollyVote currently predicts Clinton to gain 63.6% of the two-party vote in Massachusetts, which is 2.0 percentage points above the results of the Jerome model. In comparison, a look at the PollyVote national prediction for Clinton shows that the actual results are 8.8 percentage points higher.

This article was automatically generated by the PollyBot, which uses algorithms developed by AX Semantics to generate text from data stored in our API. The exact dataset underlying this particular article can be found here.

Please let us know if you find any typos, missing words, or grammatical errors. Your feedback helps us to further improve the quality of the texts.

DeSart model: Clinton with very clear lead in Massachusetts

The DeSart model published an updated prediction of the election outcome. The model predicts that Clinton will garner 37.4% of the two-party vote share in Massachusetts, while Trump will end up with 0.0%. In comparison, on August 4 Trump was predicted to achieve 37.4% of the vote.

Putting the results in context

As any other method, econometric models are subject to bias. As a result, don't rely too much on the results of an individual econometric model. Rather than relying on results from single econometric models, research in forecasting recommends to consult combined econometric models or, even better, the combined PollyVote forecast that uses forecasts from different methods, each of which uses different data.

Comparison to other econometric models

When compared to the average results of other econometric models Clinton performed worse with 0.0 percentage points, while Trump did better with 0.0 percentage points.

This article was automatically generated by the PollyBot, which uses algorithms developed by AX Semantics to generate text from data stored in our API. The exact dataset underlying this particular article can be found here.

Please let us know if you find any typos, missing words, or grammatical errors. Your feedback helps us to further improve the quality of the texts.

Jerome model: In Massachusetts trails by a very clear margin

The Jerome model is part of the econometric models component of the combined PollyVote forecast. It currently forecasts a two-party vote share of 38.4% for Clinton and 0.0% for Trump in Massachusetts. In comparison, on August 4, Clinton was predicted to win 61.6% of the vote.

Putting the results in context

As any other method, econometric models are subject to bias. In general, don't focus too much on the results of a single econometric model. Rather than trusting the results from single econometric models, you should rely on combined econometric models or, even better, the combined PollyVote forecast that includes forecasts from different methods, each of which draws upon different data.

Results compared to other econometric models

When compared to the average results of other econometric models Clinton performed better with 0.0 percentage points, while Trump did worse with 0.0 percentage points.

This article was automatically generated by the PollyBot, which uses algorithms developed by AX Semantics to generate text from data stored in our API. The exact dataset underlying this particular article can be found here.

Please let us know if you find any typos, missing words, or grammatical errors. Your feedback helps us to further improve the quality of the texts.

DeSart model: Trump in Massachusetts trails by a very clear margin

The DeSart model published an updated forecast of the election outcome. It currently forecasts a two-party vote share of 62.6% for Clinton and 37.4% for Trump in Massachusetts.

Putting the results in context

Single econometric models can include substantial biases, and should be treated with caution. At least, one should examine how a econometric model's results compare to benchmark forecasts.

Results in comparison to other econometric models

An average of recent econometric models in Massachusetts has Clinton at 62.1% of the two-party vote. This value is 0.5 percentage points lower than her respective numbers in the DeSart model.

The DeSart model in comparison with PollyVote's forecast

PollyVote currently predicts Clinton to gain 63.6% of the two-party vote in Massachusetts, which is 1.0 percentage points above the results of the DeSart model. In comparison, a look at the PollyVote national prediction for Clinton shows that the actual results are 10.6 percentage points higher.

This article was automatically generated by the PollyBot, which uses algorithms developed by AX Semantics to generate text from data stored in our API. The exact dataset underlying this particular article can be found here.

Please let us know if you find any typos, missing words, or grammatical errors. Your feedback helps us to further improve the quality of the texts.

Jerome model in Massachusetts: Clinton with very clear lead

The Jerome model released an updated prediction of the election outcome. The model forecasts that Clinton will receive 61.6% of the two-party vote share in Massachusetts, while Trump will win 38.4%.

Putting the results in context

Single econometric models can contain substantial biases, and should be treated with caution. Rather, one should check how a econometric model's results compare to benchmark forecasts.

Results in comparison to other econometric models

Clinton is currently at 62.1% of the major two-party vote according to an average of recent econometric models in Massachusetts. This value is 0.5 percentage points higher than her respective numbers in the Jerome model.

Comparison to the combined PollyVote

The results of the Jerome model for Clinton are thus 2.0 percentage points below the combined PollyVote, which at the moment predicts a value of 63.6% in Massachusetts. In comparison, a look at the PollyVote national prediction for Clinton shows that the actual results are 9.6 percentage points higher.

This article was automatically generated by the PollyBot, which uses algorithms developed by AX Semantics to generate text from data stored in our API. The exact dataset underlying this particular article can be found here.

Please let us know if you find any typos, missing words, or grammatical errors. Your feedback helps us to further improve the quality of the texts.

Jerome model: Trump in Massachusetts trails by a very clear margin

The Jerome model is part of the econometric models component of the combined PollyVote forecast. The model predicts that Clinton will garner 61.6% of the two-party vote share in Massachusetts, while Trump will win 38.4%. In comparison, on April 26, Clinton was predicted to gain only 60.4% of the vote.

Putting the results in context

As any other method, econometric models are subject to bias. In general, don't put too much trust in the results of an individual econometric model. Rather, one should check how a econometric model's results compare to benchmark forecasts.

Results vs. other econometric models

Looking at an average of Massachusetts econometric models, Clinton's current two-party vote share is at 62.1%. This value is 0.5 percentage points higher than her respective numbers in the Jerome model.

Results compared to the combined PollyVote forecast

In Comparison to the econometric model, the PollyVote currently predicts Clinton to gain 63.6% of the two-party vote in Massachusetts, which is 2.0 percentage points above the econometric model results. In comparison, a look at the PollyVote national prediction for Clinton indicates that the actual results are 9.7 percentage points higher.

This article was automatically generated by the PollyBot, which uses algorithms developed by AX Semantics to generate text from data stored in our API. The exact dataset underlying this particular article can be found here.

Please let us know if you find any typos, missing words, or grammatical errors. Your feedback helps us to further improve the quality of the texts.

DeSart model: Clinton with very clear lead in Massachusetts

The DeSart model released an updated forecast of the election result. The model expects that Clinton will achieve 62.6% of the two-party vote share in Massachusetts, while Trump will end up with 37.4%. In comparison, on April 27 Trump was still predicted to obtain 38.5% of the vote.

Putting the results in context

Individual econometric models should be treated with caution, since they often include large errors. At the very least, one should examine how a econometric model's results compare to benchmark forecasts.

Comparison to other econometric models

Clinton can currently count on 61.5% of the major two-party vote according to an average of recent econometric models in Massachusetts. This value is 1.1 percentage points lower than her respective numbers in the DeSart model.

The DeSart model in comparison with PollyVote's forecast

The econometric model results for Clinton are thus 0.7 percentage points below the combined PollyVote, which at the moment predicts a value of 63.3% in Massachusetts. In comparison, a look at the PollyVote national prediction for Clinton indicates that the actual results are 10.1 percentage points higher.

This article was automatically generated by the PollyBot, which uses algorithms developed by AX Semantics to generate text from data stored in our API. The exact dataset underlying this particular article can be found here.

Please let us know if you find any typos, missing words, or grammatical errors. Your feedback helps us to further improve the quality of the texts.