Nate Silver’s essay discusses the limitations of gut instincts in election predictions, emphasizing that while polls in battleground states show a tight race, no one should trust their “gut” predictions. Silver’s “gut” leans toward Trump, but he stresses that polls are complex and often subject to errors like nonresponse bias. Both Trump and Harris could overperform based on various polling dynamics. He also warns of potential polling herding, which could lead to a larger-than-expected victory for either candidate. Ultimately, the outcome remains highly uncertain.
Huh? Which pollster is claiming that? This article from 3 days ago seems to indicate the opposite - Harris is highly unlikely to lose the popular vote but the EC is very much still up in the air.
California has a lot of people who vote, it’s tough to make up that margin.
Nate Silver’s model, which is literally the first linked model in the article you shared, has Harris up by 1.5% in national polling. The margin of error is 3%. That’s called being “well within the margin of error.”
The same model has Trump with a 5.9% higher chance than Harris of winning the electoral college.