this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2024
-3 points (20.0% liked)

politics

19087 readers
4010 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

If I told you that you had a five in six chance to roll the dice and not roll a one, and then you rolled the dice and got a one, was what I told you wrong?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

"wrong" is a subjective call dependent on the intelligence of the observer. To some other people the answer isnt 'wrong' or 'right' its 'I love my pickup' or 'boobs!' or 'me no like polls, polls stinky and bad'.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Their odds predicted the past two elections wrong. What part of this is not getting through?

There wasn’t a five in six chance for the candidates during either of the previous two elections. So I’m ignoring your example.

They were wrong. Twice. Enough said.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Here is a direct quote from 538:

538’s forecast is based on a combination of polls and campaign “fundamentals,” such as economic conditions, state partisanship and incumbency. It’s not meant to “call” a winner, but rather to give you a sense of how likely each candidate is to win. Check out our methodology to learn exactly how we calculate these probabilities.

Source

In 2016 they gave Hillary Clinton a 71.4 % chance of winning, and in 2020 they gave Joe Biden 89 % chance of winning. They are dealing in odds, not calls.

And even if it isn't getting through to you, how were they wrong in 2020?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

So based on their record over the past two years, it’s safe to say that whoever they assume to have the best odds of winning- it’s still going to be a whoever wins, wins.

My point is… they’re not accurate.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago

You just fundamentally do not understand statistics and it’s tiresome

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

What would accurate odds in the previous two presidential elections look like to you?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago

Voting is the only accurate means to determine a president. This bullshit with odds and predictions muddies the water.