Our model is based on several key assumptions that underpin our predictive analysis. By understanding these assumptions, users can gain a deeper insight into the methodology and approach used to generate our predictions. These assumptions are grounded in historical data, political trends, and statistical analysis, providing a robust foundation for our election forecasts. Explore the key assumptions that drive our model and learn how they contribute to the accuracy and reliability of our predictions.
Quantitative Base.
The below is the assumptions for the key data during the election. This is stating how many swing states each candidate must win to win the election.
| Canidate | Start | Delgates | States |
|---|---|---|---|
| Harris | 233 | 37 | 3 or more |
| Trump | 232 | 38 | 3 or more |
| Undecided | 73 |
Probability Breakdown.
Below are the probabilities of winning for each state for each candidate. These are based off of the Score metric that we talked about in methodology.
| State | Delegates / Votes | Harris Probability To Win | Trump Probability To Win |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona | 11 | ||
| Georgia | 16 | ||
| Michigan | 16 | ||
| Pennsylvania | 20 | ||
| Wisconsin | 10 | ||
| Undecided | 73 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Decided | 465 |
Chances of winning a needed number of swing states.
Below are the chances of winning a certain amount of states for each candidate.
| Number of States | States | Harris Probability To Win This Combination |
|---|---|---|
| TOTALS | 0.00% |
| Number of States | States | Trump Probability To Win This Combination |
|---|---|---|
| Win 3 states | ||
| AZ GA MI | NaN% | |
| AZ GA PA | NaN% | |
| AZ MI PA | NaN% | |
| AZ PA WI | NaN% | |
| GA MI PA | NaN% | |
| GA MI WI | NaN% | |
| GA PA WI | NaN% | |
| MI PA WI | NaN% | |
| Win 4 states | ||
| AZ GA MI PA | NaN% | |
| AZ GA PA WI | NaN% | |
| AZ MI PA WI | NaN% | |
| GA MI PA WI | NaN% | |
| AZ GA MI WI | NaN% | |
| Win 5 states | ||
| AZ GA MI PA WI | NaN% | |
| TOTALS | 0.00% |