I’m choosing 3-4 points since that’s basically what we refer to as a “normal-sized polling error” around these parts.
asserted
we → choose → parts
Systematic polling errors in this range are fairly common; that’s roughly the margin by which polls underestimated Trump in 2016, 2020 and 2024.
asserted
polls → ’ → 2016
There can be larger errors in individual states, and larger systematic errors are possible too, but those fall more in the tails than in the thicker part of the probability distribution.
asserted
those → fall → distribution
Since polling error is basically the critical question at this point, we’ll probably attempt at least one more big-picture analysis of it before Nov. 3.
asserted
we → attempt → Nov.
One point that sometimes gets lost, that my previous newsletter didn’t really address, is that pollsters are very aware of the problem.
asserted
pollsters → lose → problem
So in predicting polling error, in some sense you’re predicting the behavior of human beings and how they adjust to changing conditions in the polling landscape.
asserted
they → predict → landscape
But leave that philosophical question aside for now — because after a long week of travel,1 I could use a simpler Model Talk.
uncertain
I → leave → Talk
I just want to take that “what if polls are off by 3-4 points in every state” question more literally.
asserted
polls → want → question
We’ll take two approaches into this, the first of which is super simple: just looking at our table of current polling averages.
asserted
first → take → averages
We’ll take today’s batch of 40,000 FLIPR Deluxe simulations and sort them into three buckets: “no systematic national bias,” “polls overrate Democrats,” and “polls overrate Republicans.”
asserted
polls → take → Republicans
We can answer a few important questions alongside this:
Are we at the point where Democrats are guaranteed to pick up the Senate unless there’s a systematic polling error?
How much capacity do Democrats have to absorb polls overrating them again?
asserted
Democrats → answer → them
And how bad could the map get for Republicans if polls underrate Democrats instead?
uncertain
polls → get → Democrats
Yes, that can actually happen, as they did in New Jersey and Virginia last year.
asserted
they → happen → Jersey
Democrats might survive a modest polling error
Here are FLIPR’s current polling averages in all Senate races that are polling within the single digits.
uncertain
that → survive → digits
They include both the states that Democrats are targeting and the ones they’re defending.
asserted
they → include → that
For purposes of flipping the Senate, this distinction basically doesn’t matter.
asserted
distinction → flip → Senate
If Democrats pick up four GOP-held seats but lose Michigan, they’ll get stuck on the same result as if they pick up three seats but hold Michigan: a 50-50 Senate where JD Vance would cast the tie-breaking vote.
asserted
Vance → pick → vote
Before I show you the data, let me warn you that the polling averages are a little thin in some of these states.
asserted
averages → show → states
The more advanced versions of FLIPR heavily hedge toward the “fundamentals” in these cases and don’t necessarily take the polling averages at face value.
asserted
versions → hedge → value
They would take the “over” on Republican performance in South Dakota, for instance — although the fact that we’re even talking about South Dakota tells you something about how red the terrain is.
asserted
terrain → take → something
I would also note that we’re slightly cheating in Alaska by looking at the margin before ranked-choice voting reallocations, which could hurt Mary Peltola.2
If the current FLIPR polling averages are exactly right — they won’t be, but please humor me — Democrats would pick up seven Republican seats while holding all of their own, producing a D 54-R 46 map.
It is worth noting, though, that there are eight states where Democrats currently hold leads of between 1 point and 4.3 points.
uncertain
Democrats → note → points
There are lots of states that just tilt or lean toward them, in other words.3
asserted
that → be → them
This looks a lot like the presidential maps of 2012 and 2016, when Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton respectively held narrow leads in most swing states.
asserted
Obama → look → states
Needless to say, one of those elections turned out well for Democrats and the other didn’t.
asserted
other → say → Democrats
It’s not like 2020 when Biden had more of a cushion (which it turned out he very much needed).
asserted
he → ’ → which
So let’s stress-test that lead.
asserted
’s → let → lead
What if the polls overrate Democrats by 2 points in every state?
asserted
polls → overrate → state
Well then, Kansas and Iowa stay Republican.
asserted
Kansas → stay → ?
But James Talarico would prevail by 0.6 points, and Troy Jackson would hold on by 0.7 points in Maine.4
asserted
Jackson → prevail → points
Democrats still take the Senate 52-48.
asserted
Democrats → take → Senate
With a 3-point polling error, though, Maine and Texas turn into narrow GOP wins, and Democrats would top out at 50 seats.
asserted
Democrats → turn → seats
And with a 4-point polling error, they’d also fail to pick up Alaska and lose Michigan, producing a 52-48 GOP Senate.
asserted
they → fail → Senate
Still, you’d always rather have a narrow polling lead than a narrow polling deficit.
asserted
you → have → deficit
Democrats’ situation is more robust than if you just treat all of the states in the middle of the table as pure toss-ups.
asserted
you → treat → ups
Peltola, Talarico and Sherrod Brown, in particular, have led in the vast majority of polls, and those pickups plus North Carolina would suffice to give Democrats a 51-49 winning map.
asserted
pickups → lead → map
That helps explain why FLIPR gives Democrats around a 3-in-4 chance of flipping the Senate rather than 50-50.
asserted
FLIPR → help → 50
This analysis leaves a lot out, though.
asserted
analysis → leave → lot
It’s fair to say that FLIPR is mostly riding-or-dying with the polls, but not completely so.
asserted
FLIPR → ’ → polls
FLIPR Classic incorporates fundamentals, and FLIPR Deluxe also adds expert ratings.
asserted
Deluxe → incorporate → ratings
The probabilities you see in FLIPR are based on the errors it estimates in these blended forecasts and not just the error associated with the polling averages on their own.5
asserted
it → see → own.5
…and 22 more, not listed.
The Aporia
