Its the ugly side polling. In this case, its the blue MAGA version of calling something fake news.
2024 U.S. Elections | Trump wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Its the ugly side polling. In this case, its the blue MAGA version of calling something fake news.
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.
Try perplexity AI. It references the information it gives so you can double check it yourself too.
I got it from the Caf
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/2024-u-s-elections-trump-v-harris.473958/post-32404586Frankly 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
I got it from the Caf
Oh, well
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.
I got it from the Caf
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I would love for this to be true. But it's just an assumption that we can't confidently rely on.
This looks awesome!! Thank you so much.
538 changed their model completely in the past couple of weeks citing issues with their earlier model. I don't trust them anymore.
Sure, they exist as probably 0.1% of the R-nutters
Totally agree that the extreme R is more in numbers, and definitely more dangerous.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Is this validated by a source so I don’t have to click on that twats right wing propaganda website
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.
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.
Not likely given that he runs a subscription substack, so anyone can pay him.
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.
Saw this on sky news which made me chuckle:
The podiums used for tonight's debate will be set at different heights, according to a source with knowledge of the arrangements.
Kamala Harris will stand behind the shorter one.
She stands at just over 5ft 4 (1.63 m), while Donald Trump is over 6ft (1.83 m).
He, and she, will be aware of the difference a height advantage makes to stage optics.
Presumably, both camps have been informed.
It won't please Mr Trump, given that he wrote on social media: "No boxes or artificial lifts will be allowed to stand on during my upcoming debate with Comrade Kamala Harris."
Debate podiums will be set at different heights
By James Matthews, US correspondentThe podiums used for tonight's debate will be set at different heights, according to a source with knowledge of the arrangements.
Kamala Harris will stand behind the shorter one.
She stands at just over 5ft 4 (1.63 m), while Donald Trump is over 6ft (1.83 m).
He, and she, will be aware of the difference a height advantage makes to stage optics.
Presumably, both camps have been informed.
It won't please Mr Trump, given that he wrote on social media: "No boxes or artificial lifts will be allowed to stand on during my upcoming debate with Comrade Kamala Harris."
Comrade
I agree. He had a good model when polls were "good" (more predictive), at a time when fewer people even built similar models. He added something to how election forecasting was done back then, but hasn't really added anything incremental since 2016.
Nice gesture by Harris to shake hands
He was trying to put the podium between him & her.
The strategy for her is to be normal. The more normal she is the and more unhinged he looks, the better for her.
And don’t be patronising like Hillary. This is how you get people onside.