ICYMI: Predicting Politics is Pure Poker Play

The polls are ofiicially open (early voting has started in some states!)

The latest polls have the Harris stuck between 1 and 3 percent. Here’s the latest chart showing her lead SLIPPING nationally.

“Poker is a skill game pretending to be a chance game." — James Altucher

When it comes to elections, much like poker, it may seem like luck plays the biggest role. But seasoned players—and political forecasters—know the truth: it's all about the math.

Nate Silver approaches political forecasting the same way a skilled poker player approaches a hand. His model calculates probabilities, not certainties, assigning a percentage to every possible electoral outcome.

For those troubled by his predictions that show Trump with a higher-than-expected chance in states like Pennsylvania (like the entire media establishment), thinking like a poker player may offer clarity. After all, both poker and elections are games of numbers, strategy, and calculated risks.

---

Why Election Forecasting is Like Poker

In poker, every hand presents a chance to win, but not every chance is equal. Some hands are stronger, like holding pocket Aces, while others leave you hoping for a lucky draw. Nate Silver's model uses the same probabilistic thinking: it's not about predicting the future with certainty but understanding the odds.

Political campaigns operate like poker players managing risk. They know some states are critical—those “big hands” that could decide the entire election.

Back to Pennsylvania: If Trump wins this state, Silver’s model gives him a 93.8% chance of winning the election. For Trump, winning Pennsylvania is like holding pocket Kings—a powerful hand that significantly boosts his chances. Harris, on the other hand, needs to win other key states, like Michigan or Georgia, to balance out her losses, similar to a poker player playing multiple lower-value hands to win over time.

This approach has ties to game theory, pioneered by John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern in Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. They taught us that, in games of strategy like poker—or elections—players must calculate their best possible moves based on incomplete information. Silver’s model follows this principle, assigning win probabilities to each candidate depending on the available polling data, historical trends, and demographic factors. Just as a poker player can’t know what cards their opponent holds, campaigns can’t know exactly how voters will behave. All they can do is calculate the best possible strategy and adjust as the game plays out.

---

"The Bias in the Deck": How the Electoral College Changes the Odds

Election forecasting becomes even more complex when factoring in the Electoral College, which acts like a skewed deck of cards in poker. Even if one player (or candidate) wins the popular vote by a decent margin, the Electoral College can change everything. The real battleground becomes a handful of key swing states, each with a different value depending on how the race shapes up.

The chart of Electoral College bias illustrates this perfectly. If Harris wins the popular vote by 2-3 points, her chance of winning the presidency is 57.2%. But as the popular vote margin narrows to 1-2 points, Trump’s win probability jumps to 72.7%. Why? Because certain states—like Pennsylvania or Florida—act like trump cards (no pun intended) in the Electoral College. Winning these states changes the dynamics of the game dramatically, much like hitting a key card on the river in poker.

FOR SUBSCRIBERS I BREAK DOWN THIS ANALYSIS FURTHER