[noirbot]

I think the question is if it matters to the predictive accuracy of the model. Just because it puts out results you can't envision actually happening on the margins doesn't mean they can't happen, or that they can't be valuable in presenting a holistic result.

It's clear that the models are tuned differently, but from Silver's replies in the PS's, it seems that he's ok with these artifacts being part of the model.

[RivieraKid]

Yes, it increases the state-level and national uncertainty intervals (Andrew Gelman has talked about this several times on his blog), which improves Trump's odds.

[noirbot]

Sure, but that's not necessarily wrong. Any decision in the model will change Trump's odds in one way or another. The question is if it makes it closer to the (unknowable) real odds.

Just because intuition says it should be longer odds for Trump doesn't mean that's right.