Maryland: DeSart model shows Clinton in the lead

The DeSart model released an updated predictionof the election result. According to this model, Clinton will achieve 61.4% of the two-party vote share in Maryland, while Trump will end up with 38.6%. In comparison, on April 27 Trump was still predicted to gain 39.7% of the vote.

Putting the results in context

Individual econometric models can include substantial errors, which is why they should be treated with caution. At least, one should check how a econometric model's results compare to benchmark forecasts.

Results compared to other econometric models

An average of recent econometric models in Maryland has Clinton at 60.6% of the two-party vote. Relative to her numbers in the DeSart model Clinton's econometric model average is 0.8 percentage points worse.

Comparison to the combined PollyVote

The econometric model results for Clinton are thus 2.7 percentage points below the combined PollyVote, which at the moment predicts a value of 64.1% in Maryland. In comparison, a look at the PollyVote national prediction for Clinton indicates that the actual results are 8.9 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 in Georgia: Trump is in the lead

The DeSart model enters the the econometric models component of the combined PollyVote. It currently forecasts a two-party vote share of 43.4% for Clinton and 56.6% for Trump in Georgia. In comparison, on April 26, Clinton was predicted to end up with only 42.2% of the vote.

Putting the results in context

Individual econometric models should be interpreted with caution, since they can contain large errors. Rather, one should examine how a econometric model's results compare to benchmark forecasts.

Comparison to other econometric models

Trump currently runs at 54.9% of the major two-party vote in an average of recent econometric models in Georgia. This value is 1.7 percentage points lower than his corresponding numbers in the DeSart model.

Comparison to the combined PollyVote

In Comparison, the PollyVote currently predicts Trump to gain 53.6% of the two-party vote in Georgia, which is 3.0 percentage points below the econometric model results. In comparison, a look at the PollyVote national prediction for Trump shows that the actual results are 9.2 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 shows Clinton in the lead

The DeSart model is part of the econometric models component of the combined PollyVote forecast. It currently predicts a two-party vote share of 91.9% for Clinton and 8.1% for Trump. In comparison, on April 26, Clinton was predicted to collect only 90.8% of the vote.

Putting the results in context

As any other method, econometric models are subject to bias. Therefore, as a general rule, one should not have too much faith in the results of a single econometric model. Rather than trusting the results from single econometric models, the best practice is to use combined econometric models or, even better, the combined PollyVote forecast that relies on different methods and data.

Comparison to other econometric models

An average of recent econometric models sees Clinton at 88.5% of the two-party vote. In comparison to her numbers in the DeSart model Clinton's econometric model average is 3.4 percentage points lower.

The DeSart model compared with PollyVote's prediction

The econometric model results for Clinton are thus 1.9 percentage points above the combined PollyVote, which at the moment predicts a value of 90.0%. In comparison, a look at the PollyVote national prediction for Clinton indicates that the actual results are 39.4 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 in Missouri: Trump is in the lead

The DeSart model published an updated forecast of the election result. The model currently forecasts a two-party vote share of 42.5% for Clinton and 57.5% for Trump in Missouri. In comparison, on April 27 Trump was still predicted to gain 58.6% of the vote.

Putting the results in context

As a general rule, however, one should not have too much faith in the results of single econometric models, because they sometimes incorporate large errors. Instead of trusting the results from single econometric models, one should rely on combined econometric models or, even better, a combined forecast that uses different methods and data.

Results in comparison to other econometric models

An average of recent econometric models in Missouri has Trump at 55.6% of the two-party vote. This value is 1.9 percentage points lower than his corresponding numbers in the DeSart model.

Comparison to the combined PollyVote

The econometric model results for Trump are thus 4.3 percentage points above the combined PollyVote, which at the moment predicts a value of 53.2% in Missouri. In comparison, a look at the PollyVote national prediction for Trump shows 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.

DeSart model: Trump with very clear lead in Alabama

The DeSart model is part of the econometric models component of the combined PollyVote. According to this model, Clinton will collect 35.8% of the two-party vote share in Alabama, while Trump will end up with 64.2%. In comparison, on April 26, Clinton was predicted to end up with only 34.7% of the vote.

Putting the results in context

In general, however, one should not have too much faith in the results of single econometric models, since they sometimes incorporate large errors. Rather than trusting the results from single econometric models, one should use combined econometric models or, even better, a combined forecast that relies on different methods and data.

Comparison to other econometric models

If we look at an average of Alabama econometric models, Trump's current two-party vote share is at 59.7%. This value is 4.5 percentage points lower than his corresponding numbers in the DeSart model.

The DeSart model compared with PollyVote's forecast

In Comparison, the PollyVote currently predicts Trump to gain 60.3% of the two-party vote in Alabama, which is 3.9 percentage points below the econometric model results. In comparison, a look at the PollyVote national prediction for Trump shows that the actual results are 16.8 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 in Arizona trails by a clear margin

The DeSart model released an updated forecast of the election outcome. The model's forecast is that Clinton will collect 42.7% of the two-party vote share in Arizona, while Trump will win 57.3%. In comparison, on April 26 Trump was still predicted to achieve 58.5% of the vote.

Putting the results in context

Individual econometric models should be regarded with caution, since they may include large errors. Instead of relying on results from single econometric models, research in forecasting recommends to consult combined econometric models or, even better, the combined PollyVote forecast that incorporates forecasts from different methods, each of which draws upon different data.

Results in comparison to other econometric models

Trump can currently count on 57.7% of the two-party vote in an average of recent econometric models in Arizona. This value is 0.4 percentage points higher than his corresponding numbers in the DeSart model.

Results compared to the combined PollyVote prediction

In Comparison, the PollyVote currently predicts Trump to gain 54.3% of the two-party vote in Arizona, which is 3.0 percentage points below the econometric model results. In comparison, a look at the PollyVote national prediction for Trump shows that the actual results are 9.8 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: Trump with very clear lead in Idaho

The DeSart model is included in the econometric models component of the combined PollyVote forecast. It currently forecasts a two-party vote share of 30.4% for Clinton and 69.6% for Trump in Idaho. In comparison, on April 26 Trump was still predicted to obtain 70.8% of the vote.

Putting the results in context

In general, however, you should not have too much faith in the results of single econometric models, as they often incorporate large errors. Instead of relying on results from single econometric models, the best practice is to use combined econometric models or, even better, a combined forecast that includes different methods and data.

Results vs. Other econometric models

If we look at an average of Idaho econometric models, Trump's two-party vote share is currently at 69.2%. In comparison to his numbers in the DeSart model Trump's econometric model average is 0.4 percentage points lower.

Results compared to the combined PollyVote forecast

The econometric model results for Trump are thus 2.0 percentage points above the combined PollyVote, which at the moment predicts a value of 67.6% in Idaho. In comparison, a look at the PollyVote national prediction for Trump indicates that the actual results are 22.2 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 comfortable lead in Illinois

The DeSart model released an updated predictionof the election result. The model's forecast is that Clinton will obtain 53.6% of the two-party vote share in Illinois, while Trump will win 46.4%. In comparison, on April 26, Clinton was predicted to collect only 52.5% of the vote.

Putting the results in context

As any other method, econometric models are subject to bias. In general, one should not have too much confidence in the results of a single econometric model. At least, one should check how a econometric model's results compare to benchmark forecasts.

Results compared to other econometric models

An average of recent econometric models in Illinois has Clinton at 53.7% of the two-party vote. This value is 0.1 percentage points higher than her respective numbers in the DeSart model.

Comparison to the combined PollyVote

In Comparison, the PollyVote currently predicts Clinton to gain 58.1% of the two-party vote in Illinois, which is 4.5 percentage points above the econometric model results. In comparison, a look at the PollyVote national prediction for Clinton indicates that the actual results are 1.1 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.

DeSart model: Trump in California trails by a clear margin

The DeSart model provided an updated forecast of the election outcome. The model's forecast is that Clinton will achieve 59.9% of the two-party vote share in California, while Trump will end up with 40.1%. In comparison, on April 26, Clinton was predicted to collect only 58.8% of the vote.

Putting the results in context

In general, however, a good strategy is to not have too much faith in the results of single econometric models, as they may incorporate large errors. Instead of relying on results from single econometric models, the evidence-based approach is to look at combined econometric models or, even better, a combined forecast that incorporates forecasts from different methods, each of which draws upon different data.

Results in comparison to other econometric models

Clinton currently runs at 57.0% of the two-party vote according to an average of recent econometric models in California. This value is 2.9 percentage points lower than her respective numbers in the DeSart model.

Results compared to the combined PollyVote prediction

The econometric model results for Clinton are thus 0.1 percentage points below the combined PollyVote, which at the moment predicts a value of 60.0% in California. In comparison, a look at the PollyVote national prediction for Clinton shows that the actual results are 7.4 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: Trump with very clear lead in Arkansas

The DeSart model provided an updated predictionof the election result. The model's forecast is that Clinton will collect 34.8% of the two-party vote share in Arkansas, whereas Trump will win 65.2%. In comparison, on April 26, Clinton was predicted to achieve only 33.7% of the vote.

Putting the results in context

As any other method, econometric models are subject to bias. Therefore, as a general rule, one should not have too much faith in the results of a single econometric model. At the very least, one should examine how a econometric model's results compare to benchmark forecasts.

Comparison to other econometric models

Looking at an average of Arkansas econometric models, Trump's two-party vote share is currently at 59.3%. In comparison to his numbers in the DeSart model Trump's econometric model average is 5.9 percentage points worse.

Comparison to the combined PollyVote

The econometric model results for Trump are thus 7.8 percentage points above the combined PollyVote, which at the moment predicts a value of 57.4% in Arkansas. In comparison, a look at the PollyVote national prediction for Trump shows that the actual results are 17.8 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.