diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Alabama/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Alabama/execute-results/html.json
index 34f417ce..a1d45752 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Alabama/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Alabama/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a >99% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Alabama.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n *No polls have been conducted in Alabama. The projected voteshare is estimated using economic and approval indicators, as well as polling information from similar states.* \n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a >99% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Alabama.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n *No polls have been conducted in Alabama. The projected voteshare is estimated using economic and approval indicators, as well as polling information from similar states.* \n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Alaska/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Alaska/execute-results/html.json
index f7eb33e2..d538bb3e 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Alaska/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Alaska/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 97% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Alaska.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 97% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Alaska.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Arizona/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Arizona/execute-results/html.json
index 121edf91..89d2cf5a 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Arizona/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Arizona/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 67% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Arizona.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 67% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Arizona.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Arkansas/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Arkansas/execute-results/html.json
index 26162dcc..39ec2832 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Arkansas/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Arkansas/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a >99% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Arkansas.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a >99% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Arkansas.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/California/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/California/execute-results/html.json
index 6caaff1d..e6207bd3 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/California/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/California/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a >99% chance of beating Donald Trump** in California.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a >99% chance of beating Donald Trump** in California.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Colorado/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Colorado/execute-results/html.json
index 2205c914..3cf9375e 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Colorado/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Colorado/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a 97% chance of beating Donald Trump** in Colorado.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a 97% chance of beating Donald Trump** in Colorado.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Connecticut/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Connecticut/execute-results/html.json
index d745a49d..8e9f369e 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Connecticut/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Connecticut/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a >99% chance of beating Donald Trump** in Connecticut.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a >99% chance of beating Donald Trump** in Connecticut.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Delaware/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Delaware/execute-results/html.json
index 721c7194..4a825a1f 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Delaware/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Delaware/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a >99% chance of beating Donald Trump** in Delaware.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a >99% chance of beating Donald Trump** in Delaware.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/District of Columbia/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/District of Columbia/execute-results/html.json
index 146638ec..72dbf95a 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/District of Columbia/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/District of Columbia/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a >99% chance of beating Donald Trump** in the District of Columbia.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n *No polls have been conducted in the District of Columbia. The projected voteshare is estimated using economic and approval indicators, as well as polling information from similar states.* \n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a >99% chance of beating Donald Trump** in the District of Columbia.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n *No polls have been conducted in the District of Columbia. The projected voteshare is estimated using economic and approval indicators, as well as polling information from similar states.* \n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Florida/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Florida/execute-results/html.json
index b86a851e..dcc43dc7 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Florida/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Florida/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 89% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Florida.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 91% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Florida.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Georgia/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Georgia/execute-results/html.json
index f9e25bb1..0c416503 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Georgia/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Georgia/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 67% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Georgia.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 68% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Georgia.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Hawaii/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Hawaii/execute-results/html.json
index 70c05dbe..a6e10433 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Hawaii/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Hawaii/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a >99% chance of beating Donald Trump** in Hawaii.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n *No polls have been conducted in Hawaii. The projected voteshare is estimated using economic and approval indicators, as well as polling information from similar states.* \n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a >99% chance of beating Donald Trump** in Hawaii.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n *No polls have been conducted in Hawaii. The projected voteshare is estimated using economic and approval indicators, as well as polling information from similar states.* \n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Idaho/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Idaho/execute-results/html.json
index 38206b74..a8699687 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Idaho/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Idaho/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a >99% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Idaho.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n *No polls have been conducted in Idaho. The projected voteshare is estimated using economic and approval indicators, as well as polling information from similar states.* \n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a >99% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Idaho.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n *No polls have been conducted in Idaho. The projected voteshare is estimated using economic and approval indicators, as well as polling information from similar states.* \n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Illinois/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Illinois/execute-results/html.json
index 5a36c32c..233ce3bd 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Illinois/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Illinois/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a 99% chance of beating Donald Trump** in Illinois.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n *No polls have been conducted in Illinois. The projected voteshare is estimated using economic and approval indicators, as well as polling information from similar states.* \n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a 98% chance of beating Donald Trump** in Illinois.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n *No polls have been conducted in Illinois. The projected voteshare is estimated using economic and approval indicators, as well as polling information from similar states.* \n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Indiana/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Indiana/execute-results/html.json
index a00b2d91..b1595dc8 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Indiana/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Indiana/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a >99% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Indiana.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a >99% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Indiana.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Iowa/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Iowa/execute-results/html.json
index 2c24c564..db8d46b9 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Iowa/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Iowa/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 90% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Iowa.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 91% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Iowa.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Kansas/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Kansas/execute-results/html.json
index fcec16e6..215681c7 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Kansas/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Kansas/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 92% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Kansas.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 93% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Kansas.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Kentucky/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Kentucky/execute-results/html.json
index 3770e9cf..28ed217e 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Kentucky/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Kentucky/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a >99% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Kentucky.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n *No polls have been conducted in Kentucky. The projected voteshare is estimated using economic and approval indicators, as well as polling information from similar states.* \n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a >99% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Kentucky.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n *No polls have been conducted in Kentucky. The projected voteshare is estimated using economic and approval indicators, as well as polling information from similar states.* \n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Louisiana/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Louisiana/execute-results/html.json
index 1e3edc4f..92e43219 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Louisiana/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Louisiana/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 98% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Louisiana.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n *No polls have been conducted in Louisiana. The projected voteshare is estimated using economic and approval indicators, as well as polling information from similar states.* \n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 99% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Louisiana.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n *No polls have been conducted in Louisiana. The projected voteshare is estimated using economic and approval indicators, as well as polling information from similar states.* \n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Maine CD-1/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Maine CD-1/execute-results/html.json
index 40095aac..cb046962 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Maine CD-1/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Maine CD-1/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a >99% chance of beating Donald Trump** in Maine CD-1.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a >99% chance of beating Donald Trump** in Maine CD-1.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Maine CD-2/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Maine CD-2/execute-results/html.json
index ebb107a2..66570880 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Maine CD-2/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Maine CD-2/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 85% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Maine CD-2.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 86% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Maine CD-2.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Maine/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Maine/execute-results/html.json
index 4f2c60ab..df6e8e90 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Maine/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Maine/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a 97% chance of beating Donald Trump** in Maine.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a 97% chance of beating Donald Trump** in Maine.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Maryland/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Maryland/execute-results/html.json
index ffbab214..fc225f17 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Maryland/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Maryland/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a >99% chance of beating Donald Trump** in Maryland.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a >99% chance of beating Donald Trump** in Maryland.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Massachusetts/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Massachusetts/execute-results/html.json
index fb33b361..9c95a7d0 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Massachusetts/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Massachusetts/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a >99% chance of beating Donald Trump** in Massachusetts.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a >99% chance of beating Donald Trump** in Massachusetts.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Michigan/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Michigan/execute-results/html.json
index 957cada0..b0da8242 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Michigan/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Michigan/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a 55% chance of beating Donald Trump** in Michigan.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a 58% chance of beating Donald Trump** in Michigan.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Minnesota/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Minnesota/execute-results/html.json
index 0344cc60..e9cb4d8a 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Minnesota/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Minnesota/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a 86% chance of beating Donald Trump** in Minnesota.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a 88% chance of beating Donald Trump** in Minnesota.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Mississippi/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Mississippi/execute-results/html.json
index aebcef82..3c270a22 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Mississippi/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Mississippi/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 95% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Mississippi.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n *No polls have been conducted in Mississippi. The projected voteshare is estimated using economic and approval indicators, as well as polling information from similar states.* \n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 96% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Mississippi.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n *No polls have been conducted in Mississippi. The projected voteshare is estimated using economic and approval indicators, as well as polling information from similar states.* \n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Missouri/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Missouri/execute-results/html.json
index b69c151a..63c9fab5 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Missouri/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Missouri/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a >99% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Missouri.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a >99% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Missouri.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Montana/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Montana/execute-results/html.json
index 789e80c6..a2c42770 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Montana/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Montana/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a >99% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Montana.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a >99% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Montana.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/National/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/National/execute-results/html.json
index 72944540..1555d6ae 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/National/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/National/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "30f18cb853999354865df51e58333e90",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=80%}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 53% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in the electoral college.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=20%}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"12%\"}\n{width=120}\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"38%\"}\n\n\n\n
**Kamala Harris** currently has a **47%** chance of being elected America's next president.\nShe's projected to win between **180** and **404** electoral college votes.
**Donald Trump** currently has a **53%** chance of re-taking the white house.\nHe's projected to win between **134** and **358** electoral college votes.
\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Projected electoral college votes\nThe model is updated daily, blending state and national polls with non-polling predictors, like economic growth and presidential approval, to generate a range of potential outcomes in the electoral college.\nAs we get closer to election day, the uncertainty around the estimate will decrease.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\nThere is a less than 1% chance of a tie in the electoral college.\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Chance of winning each state\nState-level results determine the makeup of the electoral college.\nMost states heavily favor a particular party, leaving a few competitive battlegrounds that will be decisive in determining the next president.\nHover/click to see more information about a particular state.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Conditional outcomes\nFrom the thousands of simulations, the model can see how the electoral college outcome changes when each candidate wins in a specific state.\nIf Harris wins in a red-leaning state, for example, it's likelier that she also wins in competitive states.\n\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n{width=1152}\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"70%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=80%}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 52% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in the electoral college.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=20%}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"12%\"}\n{width=120}\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"38%\"}\n\n\n\n
**Kamala Harris** currently has a **48%** chance of being elected America's next president.\nShe's projected to win between **181** and **404** electoral college votes.
**Donald Trump** currently has a **52%** chance of re-taking the white house.\nHe's projected to win between **134** and **357** electoral college votes.
\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Projected electoral college votes\nThe model is updated daily, blending state and national polls with non-polling predictors, like economic growth and presidential approval, to generate a range of potential outcomes in the electoral college.\nAs we get closer to election day, the uncertainty around the estimate will decrease.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\nThere is a less than 1% chance of a tie in the electoral college.\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Chance of winning each state\nState-level results determine the makeup of the electoral college.\nMost states heavily favor a particular party, leaving a few competitive battlegrounds that will be decisive in determining the next president.\nHover/click to see more information about a particular state.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Conditional outcomes\nFrom the thousands of simulations, the model can see how the electoral college outcome changes when each candidate wins in a specific state.\nIf Harris wins in a red-leaning state, for example, it's likelier that she also wins in competitive states.\n\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n{width=1152}\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"70%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n",
"supporting": [
"National_files"
],
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/National/figure-html/plot-conditionals-1.png b/_freeze/2024-potus/National/figure-html/plot-conditionals-1.png
index f2de4af4..95b30418 100644
Binary files a/_freeze/2024-potus/National/figure-html/plot-conditionals-1.png and b/_freeze/2024-potus/National/figure-html/plot-conditionals-1.png differ
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Nebraska CD-1/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Nebraska CD-1/execute-results/html.json
index 55815843..87d64759 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Nebraska CD-1/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Nebraska CD-1/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,14 +2,14 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 91% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Nebraska CD-1.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n *No polls have been conducted in Nebraska CD-1. The projected voteshare is estimated using economic and approval indicators, as well as polling information from similar states.* \n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 96% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Nebraska CD-1.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
],
"includes": {
"include-in-header": [
- "\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n"
+ "\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n"
]
},
"engineDependencies": {},
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Nebraska CD-2/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Nebraska CD-2/execute-results/html.json
index ee04f1f9..84b1c2d1 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Nebraska CD-2/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Nebraska CD-2/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a 93% chance of beating Donald Trump** in Nebraska CD-2.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a 93% chance of beating Donald Trump** in Nebraska CD-2.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Nebraska CD-3/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Nebraska CD-3/execute-results/html.json
index bcaddad0..93ac48cd 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Nebraska CD-3/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Nebraska CD-3/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,14 +2,14 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a >99% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Nebraska CD-3.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n *No polls have been conducted in Nebraska CD-3. The projected voteshare is estimated using economic and approval indicators, as well as polling information from similar states.* \n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a >99% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Nebraska CD-3.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
],
"includes": {
"include-in-header": [
- "\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n"
+ "\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n"
]
},
"engineDependencies": {},
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Nebraska/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Nebraska/execute-results/html.json
index 55d92d52..2acb27e4 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Nebraska/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Nebraska/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a >99% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Nebraska.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a >99% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Nebraska.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Nevada/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Nevada/execute-results/html.json
index 2efc8e8b..c91f4f5d 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Nevada/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Nevada/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 52% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Nevada.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 50% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Nevada.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/New Hampshire/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/New Hampshire/execute-results/html.json
index 1e2aea64..489efabe 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/New Hampshire/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/New Hampshire/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a 92% chance of beating Donald Trump** in New Hampshire.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a 92% chance of beating Donald Trump** in New Hampshire.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/New Jersey/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/New Jersey/execute-results/html.json
index e03d0ad7..13636fe1 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/New Jersey/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/New Jersey/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a 98% chance of beating Donald Trump** in New Jersey.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a >99% chance of beating Donald Trump** in New Jersey.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/New Mexico/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/New Mexico/execute-results/html.json
index 0bdb6471..a6c3267e 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/New Mexico/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/New Mexico/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a 93% chance of beating Donald Trump** in New Mexico.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a 92% chance of beating Donald Trump** in New Mexico.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/New York/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/New York/execute-results/html.json
index 53186d42..f73af865 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/New York/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/New York/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a >99% chance of beating Donald Trump** in New York.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a >99% chance of beating Donald Trump** in New York.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/North Carolina/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/North Carolina/execute-results/html.json
index 41cdd288..19cc8afa 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/North Carolina/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/North Carolina/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 66% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in North Carolina.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 66% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in North Carolina.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/North Dakota/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/North Dakota/execute-results/html.json
index aee338d2..722e0fce 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/North Dakota/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/North Dakota/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a >99% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in North Dakota.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a >99% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in North Dakota.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Ohio/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Ohio/execute-results/html.json
index 8e513538..dbde0ddf 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Ohio/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Ohio/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 98% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Ohio.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 98% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Ohio.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Oklahoma/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Oklahoma/execute-results/html.json
index 21ad298c..3302f664 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Oklahoma/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Oklahoma/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a >99% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Oklahoma.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a >99% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Oklahoma.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Oregon/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Oregon/execute-results/html.json
index 607f8b92..eb28ca4e 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Oregon/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Oregon/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a 96% chance of beating Donald Trump** in Oregon.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a 96% chance of beating Donald Trump** in Oregon.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Pennsylvania/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Pennsylvania/execute-results/html.json
index c485a5f2..a709e2ec 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Pennsylvania/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Pennsylvania/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 52% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Pennsylvania.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 52% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Pennsylvania.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Rhode Island/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Rhode Island/execute-results/html.json
index dc3fbd50..c737e00b 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Rhode Island/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Rhode Island/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a >99% chance of beating Donald Trump** in Rhode Island.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a >99% chance of beating Donald Trump** in Rhode Island.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/South Carolina/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/South Carolina/execute-results/html.json
index 9b909968..9118ba26 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/South Carolina/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/South Carolina/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a >99% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in South Carolina.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a >99% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in South Carolina.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/South Dakota/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/South Dakota/execute-results/html.json
index c60936d3..35da8c6e 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/South Dakota/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/South Dakota/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a >99% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in South Dakota.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a >99% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in South Dakota.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Tennessee/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Tennessee/execute-results/html.json
index 7cd9757d..f4fcc0a0 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Tennessee/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Tennessee/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a >99% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Tennessee.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a >99% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Tennessee.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Texas/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Texas/execute-results/html.json
index 03a1f5f2..c8bfcd8f 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Texas/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Texas/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 95% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Texas.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 94% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Texas.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Utah/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Utah/execute-results/html.json
index 5367c3d3..5202c855 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Utah/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Utah/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a >99% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Utah.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a >99% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Utah.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Vermont/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Vermont/execute-results/html.json
index 275b2577..5b4ff89a 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Vermont/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Vermont/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a >99% chance of beating Donald Trump** in Vermont.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a >99% chance of beating Donald Trump** in Vermont.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Virginia/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Virginia/execute-results/html.json
index 8f6a91c8..57607273 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Virginia/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Virginia/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a 91% chance of beating Donald Trump** in Virginia.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a 91% chance of beating Donald Trump** in Virginia.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Washington/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Washington/execute-results/html.json
index cbcf7c81..6573188e 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Washington/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Washington/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a >99% chance of beating Donald Trump** in Washington.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a >99% chance of beating Donald Trump** in Washington.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/West Virginia/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/West Virginia/execute-results/html.json
index 934c9adb..16a31c4d 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/West Virginia/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/West Virginia/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a >99% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in West Virginia.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a >99% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in West Virginia.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Wisconsin/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Wisconsin/execute-results/html.json
index ddbc53b5..259e9ffc 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Wisconsin/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Wisconsin/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a 55% chance of beating Donald Trump** in Wisconsin.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a 56% chance of beating Donald Trump** in Wisconsin.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n
\n\n\n\n
\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"
diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Wyoming/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Wyoming/execute-results/html.json
index d9793622..15c31d12 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Wyoming/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Wyoming/execute-results/html.json
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"hash": "33ef22863f8e8a8325bc405c8322e46f",
"result": {
"engine": "knitr",
- "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 29th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a >99% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Wyoming.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n *No polls have been conducted in Wyoming. The projected voteshare is estimated using economic and approval indicators, as well as polling information from similar states.* \n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
+ "markdown": "---\nformat: \n html:\n code-fold: true\n page-layout: custom\n fig-align: center\n fig-width: 12\n fig-height: 4\nexecute: \n message: false\n warning: false\n echo: false\nparams:\n state: \"Oklahoma\"\n branch: \"dev\"\n---\n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n::::: {.column-body-custom}\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"80%\"}\n\n\nAs of October 30th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a >99% chance of beating Kamala Harris** in Wyoming.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"20%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Presidential probabilities\nEach day, the model simulates thousands of plausible election results, from landslide victories to tightly contested races.\nEach candidate’s probability of winning is the proportion of simulations that they’ve won.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### Forecasted election-day voteshare\nThe model first constructs a polling average, pooling data across similar states when polls are sparse.\nIt then projects forward to election day, initially relying on non-polling indicators like economic growth and partisanship, but aligning more closely with the polling average as election day approaches.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n::: {.cell}\n::: {.cell-output-display}\n\n```{=html}\n\n\n```\n\n:::\n:::\n\n *No polls have been conducted in Wyoming. The projected voteshare is estimated using economic and approval indicators, as well as polling information from similar states.* \n\n::: {.cell}\n\n:::\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"60%\"}\n\n\n### State similarities\nThe model uses state characteristics, like demographic composition, population density, and education, to estimate how similar states are to one another.\nSimilar states are more likely to share polling biases and see similar shifts in polling trendlines.\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"40%\"}\n:::\n::::\n\n\n\n{height=700 fig-align='center'}\n\n\n\n---\n\n:::: {.columns}\n::: {.column width=\"30%\"}\n\n\n\nSources: Ballotpedia; Cook Political Report; The Economist; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; FiveThirtyEight; Urban Stats; 270towin.com\n \n \n[{{< fa brands github >}} View the source code](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main)\n \n[{{< fa solid database >}} Explore the output](https://github.com/markjrieke/2024-potus/tree/main/out)\n\n\n\n:::\n::::\n\n---\n\n:::::\n\n::::: {.column-margin-custom}\n\n\n\n**[National Forecast](National.qmd)** [How this works](../posts/2024-07-04-forecast-methodology/index.qmd)\n\n **Competitive states** [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd)\n\n **All states** [Alabama](Alabama.qmd) [Alaska](Alaska.qmd) [Arizona](Arizona.qmd) [Arkansas](Arkansas.qmd) [California](California.qmd) [Colorado](Colorado.qmd) [Connecticut](Connecticut.qmd) [Delaware](Delaware.qmd) [District of Columbia](District of Columbia.qmd) [Florida](Florida.qmd) [Georgia](Georgia.qmd) [Hawaii](Hawaii.qmd) [Idaho](Idaho.qmd) [Illinois](Illinois.qmd) [Indiana](Indiana.qmd) [Iowa](Iowa.qmd) [Kansas](Kansas.qmd) [Kentucky](Kentucky.qmd) [Louisiana](Louisiana.qmd) [Maine CD-1](Maine CD-1.qmd) [Maine CD-2](Maine CD-2.qmd) [Maine](Maine.qmd) [Maryland](Maryland.qmd) [Massachusetts](Massachusetts.qmd) [Michigan](Michigan.qmd) [Minnesota](Minnesota.qmd) [Mississippi](Mississippi.qmd) [Missouri](Missouri.qmd) [Montana](Montana.qmd) [Nebraska CD-1](Nebraska CD-1.qmd) [Nebraska CD-2](Nebraska CD-2.qmd) [Nebraska CD-3](Nebraska CD-3.qmd) [Nebraska](Nebraska.qmd) [Nevada](Nevada.qmd) [New Hampshire](New Hampshire.qmd) [New Jersey](New Jersey.qmd) [New Mexico](New Mexico.qmd) [New York](New York.qmd) [North Carolina](North Carolina.qmd) [North Dakota](North Dakota.qmd) [Ohio](Ohio.qmd) [Oklahoma](Oklahoma.qmd) [Oregon](Oregon.qmd) [Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.qmd) [Rhode Island](Rhode Island.qmd) [South Carolina](South Carolina.qmd) [South Dakota](South Dakota.qmd) [Tennessee](Tennessee.qmd) [Texas](Texas.qmd) [Utah](Utah.qmd) [Vermont](Vermont.qmd) [Virginia](Virginia.qmd) [Washington](Washington.qmd) [West Virginia](West Virginia.qmd) [Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd) [Wyoming](Wyoming.qmd)\n\n\n\n:::::\n\n",
"supporting": [],
"filters": [
"rmarkdown/pagebreak.lua"