Clinton's win is still certain

Using the latest poll data, it seems clear that Clinton's win is almost certain.
On average she will get between 320 (worst case) to 333 (best case) electoral votes. So if something is going to change, then it is not in the poll data yet.

28 October, USA general election situation

These are the updated probability obtained running the Python code that computes the Bayesian posterior distribution over the electoral votes using near-ignorance priors. The worst and best case distribution for Clinton are in red and respectively, blue..

• Winning probability above 0.99 (for both worst and best scenario).
• Electoral votes between 322 and 335 (mean of the worst and best distribution)

 The state-by-state situation is here

Fresh forecast for US2016 election

The worst-case probability for Clinton winning the election is back above 90% (precisely 93%). You can try by yourself running this code  in my Github repository.

US2016 election forecast

I have run again the Bayesian algorithm that uses a prior near-ignorance model to compute US2016 election forecast.
This is the current situation for Clinton (worst-case in red and best-case in blue).
The probability range of winning the election (by getting the majority of the electoral votes) is [0.68,0.91]. The posterior distributions obtained using the
prior near-ignorance model are shown in figure:

The state by state situation is the following

The most uncertain states at the moment are
-Arizona
-Florida
-Iowa
-Nevada
-North-Carolina
-Ohio
-Pennsylvania
-

Clinton vs. Trump 23th Sptember 2016

 

I have run again the Python code that computes the worst-case (red) and best-Case (blue) posterior distribution for Clinton winning the general USA election. using fresh (September) poll-data.    At the moment there is a quite large uncertainty but is still in favour of Clinton: the  probability of winning is between 0.78 and 0.95.  If you are interested in the methodology I have used to compute these distributions please see the past posts. If you want to try yourself, Python code and data-poll from fivethirtyeight.com are available in my github (just click on the links).

 

General Poll for US Presidential Election 2016

We continue our adventure in the Bayesian USA 2016 election forecast through near-ignorance priors.

I will today show how to compute the lower and upepr probabilities for Clinton of winning the general election 2016. First, we load the lower and upper probabilities for Clinton of winning in every single State (see http://idpstat.blogspot.ch/2016/08/bayesian-winning-lower-and-upper.html) as well as the Electoral Vore for each state

In [12]:

import pandas as pd
lowerupper     = pd.read_csv('LowerUpper.csv')
electoralvotes = pd.read_csv('electoralvotes.csv')

In [40]:

lowerupper

Out[40]:

	Unnamed: 0	LowerProbability	UpperProbability
0	0	0.0026	0.0076
1	1	0.0155	0.0314
2	2	0.0367	0.0762
3	3	0.0690	0.1759
4	4	1.0000	1.0000
5	5	0.9034	0.9500
6	6	0.9937	0.9980
7	7	0.9950	0.9988
8	8	0.9850	0.9949
9	9	0.9459	0.9689
10	10	0.1747	0.2734
11	11	1.0000	1.0000
12	12	0.0013	0.0170
13	13	1.0000	1.0000
14	14	0.0003	0.0019
15	15	0.4979	0.6543
16	16	0.0098	0.0339
17	17	0.1462	0.2677
18	18	0.0081	0.0232
19	19	0.9931	0.9966
20	20	1.0000	1.0000
21	21	1.0000	1.0000
22	22	0.9549	0.9755
23	23	0.9774	0.9924
24	24	0.0006	0.0012
25	25	0.3789	0.5690
26	26	0.1162	0.3647
27	27	0.1013	0.2727
28	28	0.5729	0.7442
29	29	0.8637	0.9293
30	30	0.9999	1.0000
31	31	0.9890	0.9962
32	32	1.0000	1.0000
33	33	0.5132	0.6745
34	34	0.0003	0.0009
35	35	0.9250	0.9622
36	36	0.0000	0.0000
37	37	0.8899	0.9510
38	38	0.6900	0.8112
39	39	1.0000	1.0000
40	40	0.1803	0.3053
41	41	0.0448	0.0985
42	42	0.0079	0.0252
43	43	0.0000	0.0008
44	44	0.0001	0.0003
45	45	1.0000	1.0000
46	46	0.9994	0.9998
47	47	0.9996	1.0000
48	48	0.0712	0.2090
49	49	0.8702	0.9318
50	50	0.0000	0.0000

In [41]:

electoralvotes

Out[41]:

	Index	State	Vote
0	1	Alabama	9
1	2	Alaska	3
2	3	Arizona	11
3	4	Arkansas	6
4	5	California	55
5	6	Colorado	9
6	7	Connecticut	7
7	8	Delaware	3
8	9	D.C.	3
9	10	Florida	29
10	11	Georgia	16
11	12	Hawaii	4
12	13	Idaho	4
13	14	Illinois	20
14	15	Indiana	11
15	16	Iowa	6
16	17	Kansas	6
17	18	Kentucky	8
18	19	Louisiana	8
19	20	Maine	4
20	21	Maryland	10
21	22	Massachusetts	11
22	23	Michigan	16
23	24	Minnesota	10
24	25	Mississippi	6
25	26	Missouri	10
26	27	Montana	3
27	28	Nebraska	5
28	29	Nevada	6
29	30	Hampshire	4
30	31	Jersey	14
31	32	Mexico	5
32	33	York	29
33	34	Carolina	15
34	35	Dakota	3
35	36	Ohio	18
36	37	Oklahoma	7
37	38	Oregon	7
38	39	Pennsylvania	20
39	40	Island	4
40	41	Carolina	9
41	42	Dakota	3
42	43	Tennessee	11
43	44	Texas	38
44	45	Utah	6
45	46	Vermont	3
46	47	Virginia	13
47	48	Washington	12
48	49	Virginia	5
49	50	Wisconsin	10
50	51	Wyoming	3

We compute two histograms: one relative to the lower probability and the other relative to the upper probability. To obtain the histogram of the lower: for each State, we generate a random number r in [0,1] and we assign the electoral vote of the State to Clinton if $r \leq LowerProbability$ in the State or to Trump otherwise. (same for the upper). We also compute the lower and upper probability that the total electoral votes for Clinton exceeds the break-even line (that is equal to 269)

In [34]:

import numpy as np
#break-even line
evenline=269
#monte Carlo samples
Np=10000

lowvotes=0
upvotes=0
LowElec=np.zeros(Np)
UpElec=np.zeros(Np)
for i in range(0,Np):
    lowElec=0
    upElec=0
    for s in range(0,51):
        if np.random.rand(1)<lowerupper['LowerProbability'][s]:
            lowElec=lowElec+electoralvotes['Vote'][s]
        if np.random.rand(1)<lowerupper['UpperProbability'][s]:
            upElec=upElec+electoralvotes['Vote'][s]
    LowElec[i]=lowElec
    UpElec[i]=upElec
    if lowElec>evenline:
        lowvotes=lowvotes+1
    if upElec>evenline:
        upvotes=upvotes+1
    
upvotes=upvotes/Np
lowvotes=lowvotes/Np
print('['+str(lowvotes) +',' +str(upvotes)+']')

[0.9981,0.9999]

In [44]:

import warnings
warnings.filterwarnings('ignore')
%matplotlib inline

import seaborn as sns
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt

sns.distplot(LowElec, axlabel="Electoral Votes (even-line in green)", 
                 kde=True, hist=True,color='darkred',label=str(lowvotes)) 
go=sns.distplot(UpElec, 
                 kde=True, hist=True,color='darkblue',label=str(upvotes)) 
go.set_title('Lower (red) and Upper (blue) distirbution for Clinton')
go.legend()
plt.axvline(x=270.,color='g')

Out[44]:

<matplotlib.lines.Line2D at 0x7f1513db14a8>

In [ ]:

Bayesian winning lower and upper probabilities in all 51 States

This post is about how to perform a Bayesian analysis of election polls for USA 2016 presidential election. In previous posts, I have discussed how to make a poll for a single State (Nevada as example). Here we will use some simple Python functions to compue the probability for Clinton of winning in all 51 States (State-by-State). I will make use of near-prior ignorance models that were introduced in a past post.
As first step, we load the data from an Excel file that includes 51 sheet (one per state) with the election poll data

In [59]:

import pandas as pd
import os
xl_file = pd.ExcelFile('StatePoll.xlsx')
df = {sheet_name: xl_file.parse(sheet_name) 
          for sheet_name in xl_file.sheet_names}

The following function implements the Covariance Intersection discussed in the post http://idpstat.blogspot.ch/2016/08/combining-polls-data-from-different.html

In [2]:

def covariance_intersection(sample,A,B):
    #A is the first candidate
    #B is the second candidate
    #sample is the samplesize
    Af=0
    Bf=0
    Samplef=0
    for i in range(0,len(A)):
        Af=Af+A[i]*sample[i]/len(A)
        Bf=Bf+B[i]*sample[i]/len(A)
        Samplef=Samplef+sample[i]/len(A)
    Af=Af/Samplef
    Bf=Bf/Samplef    
    return list((Samplef,Af,Bf))

We implement the Bayesian election forecast using the multinomial-Dirichlet model with near-ignorance priors discussed in http://idpstat.blogspot.ch/2016/08/blog-post_9.html for Nevada. Here the procedure is applied to all States. The following loop computes the poll state-by-state and save the resulting posterior lwoer and upper distirbutions in png files

In [67]:

#define the function of interest for Bayesian inference
def g(theta):
    #x is a numpy vector
    return (theta[:,0]-theta[:,1])

#function that computes the posterior sampels
def compute_posterior_samples(ap,Np):
    #ap: posterior Dirichlet distribution vector parameters
    #Np: number of MC samples
    return np.random.dirichlet(ap,Np) #we use numpy

import warnings
warnings.filterwarnings('ignore')
from IPython.display import Image
%matplotlib inline
import numpy as np
import seaborn as sns
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt

#number of MC samples
Np=10000
#pseudo-votes for Near-Ignorance Priors
c=2

Statesind=0
for key, value in sorted(df.items()):
    Statesind=Statesind+1
    #compute the list of fused polls
    fus=covariance_intersection(df[key]['SAMPLE'].values,df[key]['Clinton'].values,df[key]['Trump'].values)
    #data from the poll
    datapoll=np.array([fus[0]*fus[1],fus[0]*fus[2],fus[0]*(1-fus[1]-fus[2])])
    #prior for a swing scenario in favor of Clinton
    au=np.array([c,-c,0])
    #prior for a swing scenario in favor of Trump
    al=np.array([-c,c,0])

    #compute the lower and upepr distirbutions for the two swing scenarios
    postsampleslower = compute_posterior_samples(datapoll+al,Np)
    postsamplesupper = compute_posterior_samples(datapoll+au,Np)
    #Compute the lower and upepr probabilities
    problower=sum(g(postsampleslower)>0)/Np
    probupper=sum(g(postsamplesupper)>0)/Np
    
    
    # Plot the figs and save to temp files
    sns.distplot(g(postsampleslower), axlabel="Clinton-Trump", 
                 kde=True, hist=True,color='darkred') #, hist_kws={"range": [-1,1]}
    go=sns.distplot(g(postsamplesupper), 
                 kde=True, hist=True,color='darkblue') #, hist_kws={"range": [-1,1
    
    go.set_title(key+'    ['+str(problower)+','+str(probupper)+']')
    plt.axvline(x=0.,color='g')
    namefile='./plots/f'+str(Statesind)+'.png'
    plt.savefig(namefile); 
    plt.close();
    
   

In [68]:

# Combine them with imshows
fig, ax = plt.subplots(11,5, figsize=(30,50))
count=0
for i1 in range(0,11):
    for i2 in range(0,5):
        count=count+1
        if count>51:
            ax[i1,i2].set_visible(False)
        else:
            ax[i1,i2].imshow(plt.imread('./plots/f%s.png' %count), aspect='auto'); ax[i1,i2].axis('off')
            plt.tight_layout()
            
plt.savefig('AllStates')
plt.show()

The green line represents the "even-line". We have therefore three different situaions:

1. both lower and upper distributions are (almost all) to the right of the green line (these are the States that are clearly for Clinton);
2. both lower and upper distributions are (almost all) to the left of the green line (these are the States that are clearly for Trump);
3. States where the lower and upper distributions are across the line.

For instance, States that are clearly for Clinton are California, Connecticut, Delaware, etc. while States that are for Trump are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona etc.. The values of the lower and upepr probability of winning the State for Clinton are reported in the top of the plots. One of advantages of near-prior ignorance model is that they allow us to automatically detect the States that are more uncertain, i.e., States where a small change of the vote intention can dramatically change the final result. Let us consider for instance the undecided State 'North-Carolina' (it is undecided because the lower and upper probabilitie are 0.52 and 0.66). It can be observed that a change of the vote of only 2 people from Clinton to Trump (that is 0.4% of the poll sample size) reduces Clinton's probability of winning to 0.52.
The other undecided States are

• Iowa [0.50,0.64]
• Missouri [0.38, 0.56]
• Nevada [0.58, 0.74]
• North-Carolina [0.52,0.66]

We are almost ready to compute the general election result, in the next post.