2024 U.S. Elections | Trump v Harris

Nate Silver is now being attacked by democrats, just like he was in 2016 for giving Trump 30% chance, while Republicans are quoting him.

On the other hand, when his model favors the Democrats, which is the usual case, there are opposite reactions.

Speaks volumes about society's emotional biases and denial trumping rationality and numbers.


If Harris loses, I won't be surprised if some D nutters, yes they exist, call foul and descend on the capitol next January.
 
Last edited:
Avatar said:
I actually think he won't launch personal attacks much, and that could be his surprise for Harris. Nevertheless, if the night drags on, it will be hard to maintain a position out of character.
Click to expand...

Agreed. They will both be well armed with dirty to things to say about one another but will probably not engage fully unless attacked by the other.
 
Trump could literally shit himself and it wouldn’t matter. There is simply no bar for him. Harris needs to be perfect and even then it wouldn’t matter. Very pessimistic on this debate doing any good.
 
Avatar said:
What's wrong with chatgpt?

Anyway it turned out to be even worse: B-
Click to expand...

You can't trust it for highly specific information like that. You can get a pretty good idea of the life cycle of the Atlantic cod, but asking it what rating Nate Silver gave a specific polling company at a specific time is not a particularly fruitful task.
 
nimic said:
You can't trust it for highly specific information like that. You can get a pretty good idea of the life cycle of the Atlantic cod, but asking it what rating Nate Silver gave a specific polling company at a specific time is not a particularly fruitful task.
Click to expand...

You're correct.

The problem is it seemed to have been a highly specific information to Google as well. I didn't know where else to search.
 
Avatar said:
You're correct.

The problem is it seemed to have been a highly specific information to Google as well. I didn't know where else to search.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, as a last resort I might ask it as well. I wouldn't trust the information, but then I guess you didn't either if you eventually found the answer somewhere else.
 
Avatar said:
Nate Silver is now being attacked by democrats, just like he was in 2016 for giving Trump 30% chance, while Republicans are quoting him.

On the other hand, when his model favors the Democrats, which is the usual case, there are opposite reactions.

Speaks volumes about society's emotional biases and denial trumping rationality and numbers.


If Harris loses, I won't be surprised if some D nutters, yes they exist, call foul and descend on the capitol next January.
Click to expand...

Its the ugly side polling. In this case, its the blue MAGA version of calling something fake news.
 
Avatar said:
Nate Silver is now being attacked by democrats, just like he was in 2016 for giving Trump 30% chance, while Republicans are quoting him.

On the other hand, when his model favored the Democrats, which was the usual case, there were opposite reactions.

Speaks volumes about society's emotional biases and denial trumping rationality and numbers.


If Harris loses, I won't be surprised if some D nutters, yes they exist, call foul and descend on the capitol next January.
Click to expand...

Nate was "let go" of 538, after screwing up the midterms, maybe he isn't the all-knowing being many thinks he is.

Yes, 2016 exists, and he was more "correct" on that, but 2022 is a lot more recent, i know which one of those elections i think is more relevant for today, but feel free to disagree.
 
Avatar said:
You're correct.

The problem is it seemed to have been a highly specific information to Google as well. I didn't know where else to search.
Click to expand...

Try perplexity AI. It references the information it gives so you can double check it yourself too.
 
nimic said:
Fair enough, as a last resort I might ask it as well. I wouldn't trust the information, but then I guess you didn't either if you eventually found the answer somewhere else.
Click to expand...

I got it from the Caf :D https://www.redcafe.net/threads/2024-u-s-elections-trump-v-harris.473958/post-32404586

Morty_ said:
Nate was "let go" of 538, after screwing up the midterms, maybe he isn't the all-knowing being many thinks he is.

Yes, 2016 exists, and he was more "correct" on that, but 2022 is a lot more recent, i know which one of those elections i think is more relevant for today, but feel free to disagree.
Click to expand...

Frankly I don't follow the congressional elections, and I didn't know why he left 538. His record in presidential elections was mostly spot on though.

i don't agree with everything he says, and I do believe that stats in general are problematic with human phenomena, but it's the best we got.
 


Another mediocre poll for Harris.

Marist is a top "A" pollster
 
Morty_ said:
Nate was "let go" of 538, after screwing up the midterms, maybe he isn't the all-knowing being many thinks he is.

Yes, 2016 exists, and he was more "correct" on that, but 2022 is a lot more recent, i know which one of those elections i think is more relevant for today, but feel free to disagree.
Click to expand...

He left because his contract expired and other members were laid off by ABC amid cost cutting. The guy that replaced him at FiveThirtyEight actually had Biden winning the election days before his withdrawal.
 
Avatar said:
I got it from the Caf :D https://www.redcafe.net/threads/2024-u-s-elections-trump-v-harris.473958/post-32404586



Frankly I don't follow the congressional elections, and I didn't know why he left 538. His record in presidential elections was mostly spot on though.

i don't agree with everything he says, and I do believe that stats in general are problematic with human phenomena, but it's the best we got.
Click to expand...

"Wrong" is a matter of definition, so one could say he wasn't wrong in 2016 or 2022, but i don't see much evidence Trump and republicans being underestimated now, considering they usually underestimate dems since 2022 instead.

Could it be, that pollsters have corrected too much for 2020 election, and dems are now the ones being underestimated? I think that is very much an option, even though it appears i'm almost alone here, thinking this.
 
Raoul said:
He left because his contract expired and other members were laid off by ABC amid cost cutting. The guy that replaced him at FiveThirtyEight actually had Biden winning the election days before his withdrawal.
Click to expand...

Obviously they didn't find it worth it keeping him around though.

Funny enough, Nate complained about that model focusing on stuff like fundamentals over polls, and he was right on that, post-debate, nobody believed Biden had much of a chance anymore(me neither).

Why that is funny, is because, as i have told you many, many times, he uses fundamentals of his own now, to bump Trump up by a significant amount, hence why his model is so different from the others.

I have frankly grown tired of talking about Nate Silver with you, no offense, you think he is great, i don't, it is what it is.
 
Morty_ said:
"Wrong" is a matter of definition, so one could say he wasn't wrong in 2016 or 2022, but i don't see much evidence Trump and republicans being underestimated now, considering they usually underestimate dems since 2022 instead.

Could it be, that pollsters have corrected too much for 2020 election, and dems are now the ones being underestimated? I think that is very much an option, even though it appears i'm almost alone here, thinking this.
Click to expand...
Tbf he can never be ‘wrong’ with his probabilistic model. In 2016 it was ‘see guys I gave Trump more chance to win’ despite giving HRC 71% anyway, and in 2020 it was ‘the outcome fell into the expected range’ with Biden at 89%, so he had both ends covered.

I don’t even mind that, what I take issue with is the original ‘trust the numbers’, ‘poll unskewlers are idiots’ guy has been doing Beltway punditry with his forecast since 2020. He doesn’t cope well with the fact that his model is kinda bunk with the more volatile nature of current polling so comes up with increasingly more inventive excuse to defend it, because, well, his livelihood relies on being the election genius.
 
Morty_ said:
Obviously they didn't find it worth it keeping him around though.

Funny enough, Nate complained about that model focusing on stuff like fundamentals over polls, and he was right on that, post-debate, nobody believed Biden had much of a chance anymore(me neither).

Why that is funny, is because, as i have told you many, many times, he uses fundamentals of his own now, to bump Trump up by a significant amount, hence why his model is so different from the others.

I have frankly grown tired of talking about Nate Silver with you, no offense, you think he is great, i don't, it is what it is.
Click to expand...

He left because his staff were getting laid off. I think most of us are tired of discussing him, which wouldn't be happening in the first place if his model looked favorable to Harris.
 
I like Silver but he's not some kind of god. These days he's just finished a book about silicon valley unicorn founders and is playing a ton of poker. He also readily admits he is still really angry about the grief he received after Trump beat Hillary, particularly from the left.

His model is just one of several, the focus on it by posters is unhealthy imo.

This election is going to be closer than the last one, which was absurdly close. Polls aren't going to change that. If you can volunteer or donate, do that, it'll actually help.
 
Raoul said:
He left because his staff were getting laid off. I think most of us are tired of discussing him, which wouldn't be happening in the first place if his model looked favorable to Harris.
Click to expand...

He’s also selling a book and on a speaking tour. It would surprise me not 1% if he pitched a narrative that generated maximum exposure. Not that he’d concede reality, but a little massaging of messaging to guarantee debate over his gospel.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
He’s also selling a book and on a speaking tour. It would surprise me not 1% if he pitched a narrative that generated maximum exposure. Not that he’d concede reality, but a little massaging of messaging to guarantee debate over his gospel.
Click to expand...

I don't think he is deliberately pitching a narrative in that the results are simply what they are. The only issue is one side don't like the results and are vilifying him for not creating the perceptual illusion that their side is winning. That's all this comes down to at the end of the day. If his model showed Harris having the advantage, Dems wouldn't be squealing.
 
Morty_ said:
"Wrong" is a matter of definition, so one could say he wasn't wrong in 2016 or 2022, but i don't see much evidence Trump and republicans being underestimated now, considering they usually underestimate dems since 2022 instead.

Could it be, that pollsters have corrected too much for 2020 election, and dems are now the ones being underestimated? I think that is very much an option, even though it appears i'm almost alone here, thinking this.
Click to expand...


I would love for this to be true. But it's just an assumption that we can't confidently rely on.
 
africanspur said:
Try perplexity AI. It references the information it gives so you can double check it yourself too.
Click to expand...

This looks awesome!! Thank you so much.

Raoul said:
He left because his contract expired and other members were laid off by ABC amid cost cutting. The guy that replaced him at FiveThirtyEight actually had Biden winning the election days before his withdrawal.
Click to expand...

538 changed their model completely in the past couple of weeks citing issues with their earlier model. I don't trust them anymore.

The Firestarter said:
:lol:
Sure, they exist as probably 0.1% of the R-nutters
Click to expand...

Totally agree that the extreme R is more in numbers, and definitely more dangerous.
 
Avatar said:
538 changed their model completely in the past couple of weeks citing issues with their earlier model. I don't trust them anymore.
Click to expand...

She is winning by 2.7% in their national average at the moment so they're actually not that far off from Silver who has it at 2.3% . The thing that has apparently incensed Dems about Silver is his probability of winning chart seem to be moving towards Trump.
 
Raoul said:
She is winning by 2.7% in their national average at the moment so they're actually not that far off from Silver who has it at 2.3% . The thing that has apparently incensed Dems about Silver is his probability of winning chart seem to moving towards Trump.
Click to expand...

For the last time, its convention bump "thing", he even did a piece where he had without it a couple of days ago, and then she was favored in the electoral college slightly too, much like other models, he just want to be special is all.

You describe it as "look at these salty libs", when thats not the actual story.

What is it now, 3 weeks since the convention? How long will he keep that "fundamental" in his model.
 
Morty_ said:
For the last time, its convention bump "thing", he even did a piece where he had without it a couple of days ago, and then she was favored in the electoral college slightly too, much like other models, he just want to be special is all.

You describe it as "look at these salty libs", when thats not the actual story.

What is it now, 3 weeks since the convention? How long will he keep that "fundamental" in his model.
Click to expand...

This doesn't make any sense. The convention bump issue is ancient history now. What Silver's model is lacking is more polls in swing states. That is the responsibility of pollsters to deliver, so statisticians like Silver can plug them into their respective models. Therefore, this obviously partisan criticism of Silver is off the mark.
 
Morty_ said:
"Wrong" is a matter of definition, so one could say he wasn't wrong in 2016 or 2022, but i don't see much evidence Trump and republicans being underestimated now, considering they usually underestimate dems since 2022 instead.

Could it be, that pollsters have corrected too much for 2020 election, and dems are now the ones being underestimated? I think that is very much an option, even though it appears i'm almost alone here, thinking this.
Click to expand...
Trump consistently underperformed his polls during the primaries. It’s a definite possibility that pollsters are overadjusting for the silent voter, perhaps by underestimating how incentivized anti-Trump voters are to vote.
 
Anyway going to bed, hope to wake up to positive headlines from the debate.
 
Beachryan said:
All I can say about things like this is that her campaign 100% know this too. It's not like it's some new information that they're missing.

What you, I and everyone else is not privvy to is the actual discussions happening where it matters.

As a simpleton on the outside, I have absolutely no idea why there hasn't been a ceasefire. From the purely US perspective, it is in Biden's best interest and it is in Harris' best interest. Therefore, I have to assume that the reason it isn't happening is not a US issue, but rather one between Hamas and Israel.

I just find it extremely unlikely that given the importance of the election, the very well-known issue that the lack of a ceasefire presents and the very smart people working on the Harris campaign that Harris is not doing all she can to get it sorted. Why wouldn't she?

I still find posters on the caf absurdly naive in their belief that if not for the US Hamas and Israel would have settled this.
Click to expand...
Seems like it's a case where Netanyahu wants Trump to win and Biden doesn't care enough about Palestinian lives to rock the boat and grow a backbone on the issue and get Israel to agree to a ceasefire.

Clearly not a good play politically as a ceasefire gets a lot of voters onboard. But ideology over smart politics by Biden here.
 
Morty_ said:
"Wrong" is a matter of definition, so one could say he wasn't wrong in 2016 or 2022, but i don't see much evidence Trump and republicans being underestimated now, considering they usually underestimate dems since 2022 instead.

Could it be, that pollsters have corrected too much for 2020 election, and dems are now the ones being underestimated? I think that is very much an option, even though it appears i'm almost alone here, thinking this.
Click to expand...

Is not being alone or not. I am sure many we (me included) have gut feelings and specially wishful thinking to a certain degree because most in here dknt want another trump term but we have to be aware that we are going against hundreds of polls from the past and against what Ds needsin their recent historical results to win for EC vs PV

Anything that deviates much of what we know, is not impossible but would be a surprise. At the same time, there is always a first so dreaming is allowed
 
This is Nate Silver 2022



Seems familiar?

The guy unironically had a good model, then panicked because it went against the common wisdom of ‘incumbent party loses big in the mid term’, then decided to include shit right wing pollsters to arrive at the ‘rational’ conclusion he wanted, instead of following his oft-stated mantra. Ultimately though he can claim ‘but I still gave them 41% to retain control’, but if you don’t think he has credibility issue after that, when he’s doing it again now, and any and all criticism is just ‘lib tears’, then you haven’t been paying attention.
 
Silver's latest swing state numbers incorporating today's favorable NC poll for Harris. Its fair to say the race is very even with neither candidate having an advantage in any of the swing states that is outside the margin of error.

eZviFpp.png
 
Seems really obvious that Silver is going to drift right for the gravy train and turn into another grifter that punches left because that’s the side that “constantly attacks him” doesn’t pay him.
 
Pexbo said:
Seems really obvious that Silver is going to drift right for the gravy train and turn into another grifter that punches left because that’s the side that “constantly attacks him” doesn’t pay him.
Click to expand...

Not likely given that he runs a subscription substack, so anyone can pay him.
 
mariachi-19 said:
So Nate silver has been wrong in all elections since 2008 but suddenly he’s getting attacked? I think most people are calling his bullshit out
Click to expand...
He got 49/50 in 2008 and 50/50 in 2012, and despite the duplicitous nature of his model I’d say that he came out of 2016 with more credits than most forecasters due to the higher chance he consistently gave Trump.

The real downfall, imo, has been post-2020. I used to be a fan of his work, but it’s pretty clear that he hasn’t adapted well to the fact that traditional polling has become more inaccurate so began to incorporate more ‘fundamentals’ - traditional political maxims he used to deride in the past into his work, and that’s pretty intellectual dishonest when he still publicly maintained that it’s all codes written years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.