corrections to nc

_assets/scripts/insert_aug1.jl

@@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ months[aug1][AZ][ny2] = [Poll(49,45,677)]
 months[aug1][AZ][tr] = [Poll(47,48,1000)]
 months[aug1][GA][ny2] = [Poll(44,51,661)]
 months[aug1][MI][tr] = [Poll(49,47,800)]
-months[aug1][NC][cj] = [Poll(47,44,600)]
+months[aug1][NC][cj] = [Poll(44,47,600)]
 months[aug1][NV][tr] = [Poll(45,49,1000)]
 months[aug1][NV][ny2] = [Poll(42,45,677)]
 months[aug1][PA][ec2] = [Poll(47,47,1000)]

_assets/scripts/polls.jl

@@ -7,8 +7,8 @@ prior_month = "jul2"
 mon         = aug1
 MON         = "aug1"
 Mon         = "aug1"
-st          = "PA"
-ST          =  PA
+st          = "NC"
+ST          =  NC
 
 #include("polls_head.jl")
 prior_poll = BSON.load("../objs/"*"$st"*"_"*"$prior_month"*"_p_sample.bson")

index.md

@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ Based on the criterion that the model shows Harris doing at least as well as Bid
 
 Based on the criterion that the model shows Harris winning by at least 50% plus one vote of the two-candidate split, Harris would six of the seven swing states (having lost in North Carolina), taking 77 electoral votes resulting in a **303-235 Electoral College victory.**
 
-The poll results conducted in the seven swing states in March, April, May, June and July show presidential preference divided, but favoring Trump in more states than Harris. Each of the poll results has a greater or smaller degree of uncertainty that depends primarily on how many answers were collected. Taking into account, however, the results of 2020, although there are signs of erosion in Harris's support, the performance is better than the standalone polls would suggest. The choice of model is intended to dampen volatility. To date, the results are consistent with an eroding margin in the swing states won by the Democrats in 2020. North Carolina has been static
+The poll results conducted in the seven swing states in March, April, May, June, July (before Biden withdrew) showed presidential preference divided, but favoring Trump in more states than Biden. After Biden withdrew, polling showed Harris generally holding steady in polling through the end of July. In the August pre-convention polls, Harris's nuimbers improved.  Each of the poll results has a greater or smaller degree of uncertainty that depends primarily on how many answers were collected. Taking into account, however, the results of 2020, although there were signs of erosion in Biden's support, the performance is better than the standalone polls would suggest. The choice of model is intended to dampen volatility. To date, the results are consistent with an eroding margin in the swing states won by the Democrats in 2020. North Carolina has been static. There has not been sufficient polling to determine if Harris is reversing the previous trend to exceed tne 2020 margins.
 
 The model is based on the *Bayesian analysis*  described in [Methodology](/method]) It begins with the relative share of the two-candidate popular vote won by Biden in each of the swing states in 2020 adjusted by the effect of polling conducted to date.
 

nc.md

@@ -33,11 +33,11 @@ Trump wins under the *Historical* criterion.
     <tr>
       <td style = "text-align: right;">0.493</td>
       <td style = "text-align: right;">0.493</td>
-      <td style = "text-align: right;">0.4931</td>
+      <td style = "text-align: right;">0.4932</td>
       <td style = "text-align: right;">0.4926</td>
       <td style = "text-align: right;">0.4934</td>
       <td style = "text-align: right;">0.0</td>
-      <td style = "text-align: right;">1.0007</td>
+      <td style = "text-align: right;">1.0</td>
     </tr>
   </tbody>
 </table>