The Point: *Every* election model shows Trump has almost no chance

View this email in your browser   September 30, 2020  | by Chris Cillizza and Lauren Dezenski *Every* model shows Trump has almost no chance If the 2020 election happened today, President Donald Trump would have, at best, a 1 in 5 chance of beating former Vice President Joe Biden, according to the three major models predicting the outcome.   That 21% chance of a Trump victory comes from 538's election model, which simulates the election 40,000 times and produces an aggregate of likeliest outcomes based on a variety of factors including historic results, polling and a variety of other variables.   The other two election models most politicos keep tabs on suggest the incumbent has an even smaller chance of winning. The Decision Desk HQ model gives Trump a 17.8% chance of securing a second term in 34 days' time. The Economist model gives Trump a meager 13% chance of winning.   Which is pretty stunning stuff! And honestly, it would be getting lots more attention if 2016 hadn't happened. After all, modelers -- especially 538's Nate Silver -- became hot commodities after the 2008 election, in which they accurately predicted Barack Obama's convincing win over John McCain. And Silver proved himself again by nailing the results in all 50 states in 2012.   But 2016 did happen. And the models were wrong.   On November 8, 2016 (Election Day), the 538 model gave Trump a 28.4% chance of winning. The New York Times "Upshot" model pegged his chances at 15%. The Huffington Post model gave the billionaire businessman a minuscule 1.7% chance of victory.   What that failure proved is that a model is only as good as the assumptions (and the data behind those assumptions) that you put into it. Trump was able to find voters in three key states -- Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin -- who the models missed. So he won.   But simply because election models missed the Trump phenomenon the first time around doesn't mean we should ignore them entirely. The models are updated to reflect the realignment Trump set in motion in 2016. The likelihood, then, of missing some sort of hidden pro-Trump factors in the electorate is much less.   The Point: In politics, we have a tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater: The election models missed Trump's 2016 victory and so, therefore, we should totally ignore what they are saying about 2020. No!  Of course the models could be wrong again. But there's a much higher likelihood that they're right.   -- Chris QUOTE OF THE DAY "If he doesn't correct it, I guess he didn't misspeak." -- GOP Sen. Tim Scott said he thought President Trump had misspoken when telling the far-right collective Proud Boys to "stand back and stand by." Scott added that "I think he should correct it." Chris' take: It's impossible to believe Trump simply misspoke. LET'S GET QUIZZICAL The role of first lady may not be an official position, but it is one rich in history, power and influence. Test your knowledge of the role and some of the women who've held it with The Point's first ladies trivia quiz! Brush up on more FLOTUS history with CNN Original Series "First Ladies," airing Sundays at 10 p.m. ET/PT. CHRIS' GOOD READS "An Epic Moment of National Shame"   "The Worst Presidential Debate in Living Memory"   "Notes from the Worst Debate in American History" Could vote-by-mail lose the election for Biden?   M-a-t-h on t-a-x-es   K-shaped recovery, explained   SPACE FORCE! Dating during the pandemic Some good news: The bee population is growing! MUSICAL INTERLUDE Chris never thought pipe organ music would be his thing. Until he listened to "All Thoughts Fly" by Anna von Hausswolff.  Today's episode:  Trump's dangerous call to "stand by." LAUREN'S CAMPAIGN TRAIL LATEST     After last night's totally chaotic first debate between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden, political observers quickly wondered aloud whether another would even happen. But so far, both sides say they're committed to showing up to the next two debates, scheduled for October 15 and October 22.    In the meantime, the Commission on Presidential Debates announced it will add more structure to the upcoming debates "to ensure a more orderly discussion of the issues." (TBD whether Trump will abide by those additional rules.) Despite turning in an otherwise "meh" performance, there are signs the debate was at least a financial boon for Biden. His campaign says it broke its single-hour fundraising record, raking in $3.8 million between 10 and 11 p.m. Eastern. The next big event on the calendar is the vice presidential debate between VP Mike Pence and Sen. Kamala Harris -- happening one week from today in Salt Lake City. ONE BIG VOTE 1.2 million The number of ballots already cast in this year's presidential election, according to a CNN survey of election officials in 20 states that are making return data available. You are receiving this message because you subscribed to CNN's The Point with Chris Cillizza newsletter. Unsubscribe from this list Check out other CNN Newsletters Create your CNN Account Share the Point Newsletter Was this email forwarded to you? Sign up now to get The Point in your inbox.   Send your tips and thoughts via email to Chris Cillizza and Lauren Dezenski. You can follow Chris and Lauren on Twitter and connect with The Point on: Our mailing address is: One CNN Center Atlanta, GA 30303   Copyright © 2020 Cable News Network, Inc., All rights reserved.