2024 U.S. Elections | Trump wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
It’s just one district though. If MTG won a statewide election, I’d be more worried.
I think polls were actually not too terrible this year. If I am reading this correctly, the most likely simulated outcome in the 538 model was Trump winning with 312 electoral votes. And that's exactly how many electoral votes he has won.
The issues with electoral modeling based on polls are that you can have a polling error, in which case your model is based on faulty data and does not give you the right answer. This happened in 2016 and 2020. Your model can estimate for outcomes when there is an error, but so far nobody has figured out how to identify the error before the election. The other problem is that even if there is no big polling error, if a race is very close, the margin of error of polls means you just can't really call them. That's what many models spit out this year: too close to call. And when people tried to make models that gave you a more concrete answer using other indicators (special elections, washington primary, etc.) they failed, because the indicators failed.
Bigger picture, it looks like going by polls was more effective in 2008 and 2012, but the larger issues have reared their head in the last three cycles.
Last edited:
You gotta wonder what's all these polls company are doing. I dont even think they actually poll real people and just go with whatever they want to write
Funny that the gold standard Ann Selzer had Iowa completely wrong.
Could they even force through a replacement before Trump's term begins?
They have the President and the Senate, but there would probably be some blue dog dem who'd think it was underhanded.
Yeah I would have zero faith the Dems can put a replacement in on time. Knowing their recent fumblings they d probably get her to retire and have Trump say ty and put in another heritage foundation stooge.
Oh yeah, it's not worth the risk so close to the transfer of power. The time was one or two years ago like with Breyer.
The polling was 1-3 points off in most states and nationally. Not some "cloud castle", it was pretty close to the result. There were people on twitter estimating the result based on vibes and based on other things (like special elections) who thought Kamala is winning comfortably, while most pollsters, including this site (split ticket), Nate Silver, Nate Cohn, and other, had it at 50-50.
Polling also caught the shift among Hispanics and young voters, which were hard to believe, but were proven right.
e - obviously the famous polling error was in the blue wall states in 2016, but, 2020 polling was also awful, the margins were much tighter than predicted. this cycle probably had the best polling<->results correlation of the three.
Maybe next time some people here will be less sure of themselves when they say "polling a year out from the election is meaningless" or other such non-factual statements.
The tried and tested strategy of shaming voters. Never fails.
So this map is interesting, not because of the idiocy behind it but because of a point it can illustrate.
Imagine this image was something related to a critical policy that was being debated before the election (e.g. inflation). The Republicans would post it, it would go around social media and the Democrats would try to counter it with the factual nuance behind it that is actually the truth. 50%+ of the population either won't see, won't care or won't understand that nuance. How can the Democrats raise the level of public debate such that informed decisions can actually be made? Is it possible or are elections consigned to post-truth garbage for the forseeable future?
So this map is interesting, not because of the idiocy behind it but because of a point it can illustrate.
Imagine this image was something related to a critical policy that was being debated before the election (e.g. inflation). The Republicans would post it, it would go around social media and the Democrats would try to counter it with the factual nuance behind it that is actually the truth. 50%+ of the population either won't see, won't care or won't understand that nuance. How can the Democrats raise the level of public debate such that informed decisions can actually be made? Is it possible or are elections consigned to post-truth garbage for the forseeable future?
Ironically this actually does illustrate how massively undemocratic the Senate is.
I know some people dont want to hear it but Fetterman is more what the Dems need of right now instead of alienating him like some have. Just needs to know when the shut up sometimes though. Like this time, even though he has a pt.
Hard disagree.
California being a prime example. Our residents have two Senators in a country where the states with the 22 smallest populations have as many combined people as CA does, but they instead get a whopping 44 Senators. This is probably one of the main reasons the system will eventually break - its using 1700s logic in the 21st century.
It does, but it will never change in our lifetimes. Its a catch-22, to change the system you'll need a super majority and there are way too many senators with a vested interest in the status quo. We're much more likely to be able to find a way to reduce the partisanship than change the electoral system.
Yep. That's why the system is more likely to eventually collapse than be reformed. You can't call yourself a democracy and have such a disproportionately large number of citizens not being adequately represented in favor of another group who are represented far more than they should be.
Making money
Or just run a better candidate next time.
I think two senators for state is fine, and serves a purpose, but the issue is that the Senate is more powerful than the House. Ideally, weakening the Senate and strengthening the House (e.g., Cabinet positions and judges to be appointed in the House) would be the best, with the Senate to provide some saying to the small rural states. Essentially the Senate to be the equivalent of House of Lords in the UK.
No chance that happens though. GOP basically always have a chance to control the Senate, no matter how terrible they are, and it will take an unprecedented disaster for them to love Senate massively (such as when Dems had 60 senators under Obama).
Atlas taking a victory lap about being the most accurate this cycle. Believe they were one of those placed in the camp of being pro-Trump polls crammed into Silver's polling average to skew the numbers.
Although I suspect ActiVote will catch them by the time all the counting is done.
Although I suspect ActiVote will catch them by the time all the counting is done.
538 had 312-226 as the most likely outcome too..
The polling was 1-3 points off in most states and nationally. Not some "cloud castle", it was pretty close to the result. There were people on twitter estimating the result based on vibes and based on other things (like special elections) who thought Kamala is winning comfortably, while most pollsters, including this site (split ticket), Nate Silver, Nate Cohn, and other, had it at 50-50.
Polling also caught the shift among Hispanics and young voters, which were hard to believe, but were proven right.
e - obviously the famous polling error was in the blue wall states in 2016, but, 2020 polling was also awful, the margins were much tighter than predicted. this cycle probably had the best polling<->results correlation of the three.
Maybe next time some people here will be less sure of themselves when they say "polling a year out from the election is meaningless" or other such non-factual statements.
It was more red leaning than anyone expected, but its hardly a shocker. the 2016 one was the shocker. this was not.
Dems don't need another mentally impaired politician. They already tried Joe Biden.
The Rs won with one.
Many think the Dems are snobby elitists. People who think they're smart. Let's give em what they want instead.
Two Senators from each state would be fine if there was no electoral college and the popular vote decided elections. That way there would be no imbalances based on one state having 40m people, and another like Wyoming only 500k, but having the same senatorial representation as CA.
All that stuff was just refusal to admit that Biden was unpopular.
It's pretty crazy. I think most people thought "ok Harris isn't going to win Iowa but the poll must be picking up something real that could benefit her." Nope.
Pelosi is slowly turning into late stage Diane Feinstein at this point. She should retire and leave the party asap.
Mate that happened a long time ago.
Probably true. Politicians in their 80s are generally well it and should step down. Age limits are definitely in order.
Can we make an exception for Bernie? The dude has just won another six year term at age 83
America is wild.But seriously, who will take up the mantle once he is gone. All the high profile democrats are basically centrists.
Can we make an exception for Bernie? The dude has just won another six year term at age 83
But seriously, who will take up the mantle once he is gone. All the high profile democrats are basically centrists.
I'm actually shocked how lucid Bernie is at his age. He's two years older than Biden and presents himself as being at least a decade younger.
More misplaced Dem delusions to cope with losing.
You gotta admit, rendering all the 45-47 stuff that Trump’s supporters have bought meaningless would be a peak level of pettiness
I dont care about protecting europe.