diff --git a/_freeze/2024-potus/Alabama/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Alabama/execute-results/html.json
index d2c4d016..95b397db 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 27th, 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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, 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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 542ec7fe..9d396ae2 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 27th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 98% 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 59cfa8b1..b12a4667 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 27th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 71% 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 71% 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 f83d24f3..3cf1dd58 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 27th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 29fa0c15..8c873e7f 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 27th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 ee0865cf..fd850044 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 27th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a 96% 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a 96% 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 1160806e..13056865 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 27th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 b13383ff..f3a481c7 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 27th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 02fa5a72..53914292 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 27th, 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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, 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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 2d170195..e33d376a 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 27th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 e41f59a6..36c8a383 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 27th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 71% 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 71% 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 fb4d9a6a..4ec39f9e 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 27th, 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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, 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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 c8234fb5..bcf13b49 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 27th, 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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, 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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 5fb6074b..c341daa1 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 27th, 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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, 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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 4a0b6c94..dde28f0b 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 27th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 f042206d..0bb5974b 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 27th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 92% 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 92% 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 f1ccfa44..92e514ff 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 27th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 97% 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
*No polls have been conducted in Kansas. 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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 97% 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
*No polls have been conducted in Kansas. 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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 12d38529..812b71e9 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 27th, 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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, 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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 867e936b..a14b79e9 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 27th, 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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, 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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 d04c8d22..441268d0 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 27th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 05dd89bd..f6d9d3b0 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 27th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 87% 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 87% 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 d3650c49..a7cc08d2 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 27th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a 96% 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a 96% 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 bc208f11..20a65cc1 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 27th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 79695ddc..de305b80 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 27th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 f2bd5d25..7fef242b 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 27th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a 52% 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a 52% 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 3e8359d6..2c57f994 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 27th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a 85% 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a 85% 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 037193e0..9b61d2f5 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 27th, 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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, 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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 761ce2b9..7e03b1f8 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 27th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 f9a7bf62..d851c5d3 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 27th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 ceff8ff2..94a8e886 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 27th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 56% 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 **44%** chance of being elected America's next president.\nShe's projected to win between **175** and **399** electoral college votes.
\n\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"12%\"}\n{width=120}\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"38%\"}\n\n\n\n
**Donald Trump** currently has a **56%** chance of re-taking the white house.\nHe's projected to win between **139** and **363** 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 57% 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 **43%** chance of being elected America's next president.\nShe's projected to win between **175** and **396** electoral college votes.
\n\n\n\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"12%\"}\n{width=120}\n:::\n::: {.column width=\"38%\"}\n\n\n\n
**Donald Trump** currently has a **57%** chance of re-taking the white house.\nHe's projected to win between **142** and **363** 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 0348bf77..67965671 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 fb579f14..a42271a0 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Nebraska CD-1/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Nebraska 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 27th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 94% 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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 93% 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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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-2/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Nebraska CD-2/execute-results/html.json
index 1351cb17..1293ec2c 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 27th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a 88% 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a 90% 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 0c35e3c3..d5c3324f 100644
--- a/_freeze/2024-potus/Nebraska CD-3/execute-results/html.json
+++ b/_freeze/2024-potus/Nebraska CD-3/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 27th, 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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, 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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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/execute-results/html.json b/_freeze/2024-potus/Nebraska/execute-results/html.json
index cc8bf23b..d5ca731f 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 27th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 8fc4b6ff..cf95d6f7 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 27th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 55% 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 56% 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 2513e5a4..0495a38f 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 27th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a 90% 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 c4424efd..885c09c9 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 27th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a 97% 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 7d3ce210..2d6bbd44 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 27th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a 91% 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a 91% 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 da0d4c24..f90bc9d2 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 27th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 4ac7dae2..b900ff40 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 27th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 70% 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 71% 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 46de4d79..2124683c 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 27th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 b33d4f34..1e9909d5 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 27th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 99% 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 760d2bfb..d0bd3c04 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 27th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 1f020e32..42f1875d 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 27th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 3a625a0d..793c725b 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 27th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 56% 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 57% 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 f8024331..b4b77052 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 27th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 1e5e2546..e2e541b7 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 27th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 1388734f..687d35df 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 27th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 1eaf8a78..a3cc259c 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 27th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 6ba3c219..40290ea4 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 27th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, the forecast gives **Donald Trump a 96% 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 6ec86bb3..4e060eb8 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 27th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 00e63701..8b5aecbd 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 27th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 13fa9e3d..4b995afc 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 27th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a 90% 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a 89% 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 94810b3c..c57fece5 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 27th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 8af8da98..708df9a2 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 27th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 17240055..9e97092d 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 27th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a 52% 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, the forecast gives **Kamala Harris a 51% 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:::: {.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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 cbc719b9..048a32ac 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 27th, 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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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 28th, 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**
[Wisconsin](Wisconsin.qmd)
[Michigan](Michigan.qmd)
[Nevada](Nevada.qmd)
[Pennsylvania](Pennsylvania.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"