@eddeeMN @politics @uspolitics @realTuckFrumper
And even if it is true, we're all still gonna work like she's 10 points down.
this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)
politics
19093 readers
4701 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Yup, observe polls if you're curious... but ignore them and go fucking vote.
Unfortunately, since the US is not a democracy
According to RealClearPolitics' forecast, with no toss-up states, Trump is predicted to win in every battleground state, giving him 312 Electoral College votes to Harris' 227.
RealClearPolitics is hardly the place to look for accuracy. They have no pollster weighting and treat polls from a group like Trafalgar (that has literally come out as illegal working with the trump campaign) the same as a highly qualified pollsters. Guess which groups publish more polls lately
Nate Silver is making the identical call.
FiveThirtyEight is making the identical call.
Its just what it is. Trump is highly favored to win (outright) at this point and one favorable poll for Harris doesn't change that.
They don't have the same electoral map predictions, and they show 51% odds which is not "highly favored". They're saying it's a tossup. Moreover 538 and nate silver have still been influenced by those right wing polls just less so than RealClearPolitics.
You mean Nate Silver who works for Peter Thiel?
I think you mean 538. Silver hasn't been with 538 for years. I'm pretty sure he makes his money from TV/ appearances and his substack.
All I know is, if Republican strategists weren't scared as hell, they wouldn't be trying to flood the zone with fake polls. The campaigns do actually do their own internal polling not for public release. They try to make that as accurate as possible, as it helps them plan their GOTV strategy.
This sudden surge of fake conservative pools reeks of desperation. It's the Baghdad Bob of polling operations. They must be pretty fucking terrified of their own internal poll results if they feel the need to lie this bad and spend money on this many fake polls just to make it seem like they're winning.
At this point, I think dems are going to end up with a trifecta. 538 and Nate Silver are still including a lot of the fraudster pollsters in their models. They also ignore that there is a tendency among pollsters, even nonpartisan pollsters, to continuously tweak their methodology to not be too much of an outlier. So even the nonpartisan polls end up being skewed by Republican poll larping.
All I know is, if Republican strategists weren’t scared as hell, they wouldn’t be trying to flood the zone with fake polls.
As far as I know, this has been repeatedly debunked. You can take just the "left leaning" pollsters and you get largely the same result.
sudden surge of fake conservative pools reeks of desperation.
Kamala has been dropping in all polls since the 10th of September. Left, right, new and old.
At this point, I think dems are going to end up with a trifecta.
You must live in an incredibly privileged position to afford this level of self delusion. If you are that confident, you should put your money where your mouth is and lay down a bet on polymarket, because you would be getting 10:1 return on investment if you predict a Democratic sweep:
And polymarket itself is just a tool of conservative bullshitting. It's no coincidence right wingers have been pushing it so hard. It's a "poll" that they can skew just by writing a check! They don't even have to bother with sketchy polls methodology.
As for polymarket, I'm not putting my money in a sketchy cryptocurrency scheme.
And it's telling you mention polymarket. It's run by Peter Thiel, who also sponsors Nate Silver. That's another reason I'm extremely skeptical of Nate Silver's projections.
Yeah, Kamala has been dropping in the polls - conservative polls and 'centrist' polls that continuously adjust their methodology to not be too far from the average. At this point, I have zero faith in polls, and I'm predicting a dem trifecta. Even the non-partisan polls have zero idea what the electorate is going to look like this election, which is the entire thing for polls. After the repeal of Roe, you cannot simply project the 2020 electorate to 2024, but that's still what the polling models are doing, completely blind to the actual voter registration numbers.
I think my prediction of a dem trifecta isn't unreasonable.
I think my prediction of a dem trifecta isn't unreasonable.
Ok. Why? What evidence do you have for this?
[edit: I also think you need to address the fact that Kamala is also dropping in historically accurate and left leaning polls; that all of the polls are largely in agreement]
Newsweek - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Newsweek:
MBFC: Right-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris-donald-trump-national-polls-1973622?utm\_source=dlvr.it&utm\_medium=mastodon
https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris-donald-trump-national-polls-1973622?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=mastodon
Vote as if none of this is accurate or relevant. There’s a good chance it isn’t.
Better yet- Pretend it doesn’t exist.