Don’t listen to polls, just vote.
can i do both? i kinda like data
I’ll allow it.
I tried to go vote but they told me to come back in three months. Maybe I’ll have better luck tomorrow.
Vote early and vote often.
I think I’ll send in a few hundred copies of my ballot just to be on the safe side.
FrAuD!!!1
I worry some asshole is gonna see this comment and then Fox News will start talking about liberals on Lemmy coordinating efforts to vote multiple times.
That’s the brilliant part though. The protections which prevent this kind of basic election fraud are simple and robust! It is virtually impossible to register multiple votes. If anything, attempts at voting “early and often” would simply illustrate the strength of the current election integrity framework.
Counter argument. When the pollsters say it’s a dead heat, listen to them.
If don’t you want federal abortion bans and more handouts for billionaires, then you need to show up and bring your friends and family.
It’s going to come down to a handful of votes.
Democrats give handouts to billionaires (aka their donors). It’ll just be less handouts.
Jesse, what the fuck are you talking about?
Why you being so weird?
What is weird is the Democrats ignoring that Biden was enabling genocide, that he was having serious cognitive decline and that he wasn’t progressive. So you should be asking yourself.
Why do people on Lemmy hate polls so much? Who’s going out and saying “I’m not going to vote, we have polls instead”
I think we’re all just scarred after 2016, because a lot of polling back then had Clinton beating Trump, and we know how that worked out.
I’m glad they listen to polls. With Harris we actually have a chance.
Harris tops Trump for the first time
I knew Trump was a bottom
The last headline was about edging. I’m a bit worried about the election climax, but I am hoping for postcoital bliss.
Please never make me think about climaxing and Trump in the same context.
I’ve already filled a lawsuit for emotional damage.
Do you get outside ever?
My phone is mobile, yes.
Trump wears the diapers in the relationship
If it wasn’t already obvious, the whole Stormy Daniels spanking him with a Forbes magazine confirmed it.
of course he would be; you’d think he’d actually do work in bed?
excuse me now i’m gonna throw up.
For no reason at all I started reading old Archie comics from the very first printing a couple years ago, and I really really appreciated this post
polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls polls
Pollllllllllllllllllllssssssssssssss!
jazz hands
nate silver’s election forecasts are what, within 5% 3/4 of the time?
60% of the time, it works every time
5% is a huge margin in polling. He should be within that margin much more often than 75%.
🥵
But do we have a forecast for whether Nate’s algorithm will be accurate, based on past accuracy and factors like the economy and fascists pushing a clueless puppet again? Who’s watching the watchers?
Nate is an aggregator with a model. Him, 538, and others like them are the ones that are literally watching the watchers. Silver is not a pollster, he’s someone that looks at other pollsters past performance and ranks / calculates how likely they are to be correct in current polls.
Amazing how not running a candidate over 70 has been hugely beneficial for democrats.
The Hill - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Hill:
MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4811646-harris-trump-election-forecast-nate-silver/
He predicted a Hillary blowout in 2016 and was one of the many reasons why people on the left underestimated Trump. I don’t want to hear this man’s name again.
Did he? My recollection is that he gave her a 70% chance of winning, which is not at all the same as predicting that she will win.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Yup. 70% Clinton, 30% Trump. With points where it was about 50-50. They even had a 1 in 10 shot of Clinton winning the popular vote and Trump winning the election, which was higher than their chances of a Clinton blowout (6%).
And at the time he went out of his way to emphasize that, when something has a roughly 1/3 chance of occurring, not only is it possible, but you actually expect it to happen in 1 of 3 times. His prediction was the main reason that I was not feeling comfortable about Hillary just winning.
I think Nate made a good point about people not understanding polls. 70% chance to win means Hillary would have won 70/100 elections, not win by 70-30. But many read 70% as some kind of guarantee.
Days before the 2016 election, 538 (which Nate Silver founded and was leading at the time) ran an article titled “Trump Is Just A Normal Polling Error Behind Clinton”. Nate Silver and 538 did some of the best forecasting of that election. Don’t conflate him with others’ screwups.
There was a massive voter suppression campaign in 2016. Specifically there were roll purges in many of the swing states. Trump’s team has inserted MAGA cultists at all levels in Georgia. They’re trying to do the same throughout the rest of the swing states.
That’s not how his model has ever worked.
I think the messaging around polling in general is lost on most of the population and lots of people confuse the chance of winning with a prediction of the voting outcomes. This article is approximately 8 years old now and aged like milk, but comparing the odds Trump had of losing a game of russian roulette is very apt. With the benefit of hindsight, more emphasis should have been put into driving comparison home. I think that every poll should include this metric instead of trump’s chance of winning.
The 2016 election in a nutshell
Lol… He just cursed Kamala.
