I’m not sure what this means. The “real probability, if we could know it,” is either 100%, or 0%.
But this is getting to be a hijack. Maybe continue in the “polls…” thread.
(Or, better, drop it altogether. IMHO, there has been far too much ink spilled on these boards on arguing the value of polling, and of models based on those polls. If you find them useful and understand the caveats, great. If you don’t find them useful because of the caveats, great – but stop telling us about the caveats, because we know.
I think that both sides here are just venting, on some level…just one way we’re trying to cope with the anxiety we all feel about the possibility of another Trump presidency, and the supremely annoying fact that none of us will know the outcome for another ten days, at least.)
I wish I could find it but a couple weeks ago there was an article on 538 i believe about different polling companies being handed the same exact set of polling data from a 2022 poll and all coming up with completely different results from the same exact data.
By way of comparison, Trump’s odds of winning were about the same as Shohei Ohtani’s odds of getting a hit in any given at bat. If Shohei is up next and you asked me “is he going to get a hit?” I’d say “I don’t know. It’s about three chances in ten, assuming it’s not a walk.” That is an honest answer, and it’s based on real data, history, a fair degree of knowledge and expertise if I do say so myself, and actual numbers. It is not based on feelings. How much I do or don’t like Ohtani or the Dodgers is not relevant. I’m gonna base that call on facts.
If I were to say it’s three chances in ten and then over the course of many at bats he’s batting .100, now you can start to conclude I’m wrong or have incomplete information.
Silver’s models absolutely can be falsified, man. I don’t know why people keep spouting such nonsense about this. Remember, in every election he’s made a prediction for every state. If his model didn’t work, he’d be way off on a lot of states. He’d have said Clinton was sure to win a state she actually easily lost, or that Trump would absolutely crush it in Virginia in 2020. He would by this point have totally blown an election or two by predicting, say, a huge blowout for Romney in 2012 or something. But none of those things seem to happen. His model is quite accurate - much, much more accurate than anyone in this thread’s guesses, or any other poll analyst.
Where the Silvers and 538s are valuable is that they just look at facts and run them through models based on real life data and history, as distinct from bullshit like “Trump looks bad” or “Harris cackles” or “Walz Vance blah blah blah.” They may have problems and end up being wrong, like the guy in 2016 who said Clinton was certain to win, and insulted Nate Silver for saying it wasn’t certain, and ended up having to eat a bug, but they are applying facts, not feelings, and we now have some who’ve shown they’re pretty damned close to the truth. In this thread we have a mountain of evidence of the willingness of Harris supporters to fool themselves with that stuff, and if you want to see Trump supporters doing the same, holy fuck Twitter is an absolute tire fire; the Trumpists will tell you straight up Trump will win California because they saw a bunch of pickup trucks doing a Trump parade and he’s gonna win 480-58.
No, but as I have said many, many, many times, the election is about motivating people to vote, not flipping their vote. And you can flip a few here and there, which can matter in an election this close when added to turnout effect.
Like or it not the perfidy of Elon Musk matters, and now Jeff Bezos has joined in the soft coup. Their plan is to turn the USA into Russia.
There are 400,000 Arab Americans living in MI. Many of them will either not vote for President or will go 3rd party according to interviews in the state. A few, like this guy, will vote for DJT. But it doesn’t matter. Their distaste for US policies in the Mideast will swing the state to the GOP and thus the election.
Sorry, I did not mean to reignite the debate about Silver, so I should have phrased that differently:
Hey you guys who truly believe in the polls and the aggregators, don’t just believe them when they say Trump has a 29 percent chance and dread a Trump victory based on that; believe them also when they say Harris has a 47 percent chance and actually, you know, believe that she has such a chance!
(And I mean people in the thread in general; not you in particular.)
I think I have a name for it: Dem Down-racheting. Anything that’s bad for Dems is believed; anything good is doubted. So it’s click click click click down until maximum fear and despair are achieved.
If you make 1 poll that shows “toss up” as a result: that’s ok.
If 80% of all polls in the country show that result— you didn’t come to the forest to hunt.
I think the change came when the county dropped polls as such, and instituted “voting places.” Even if if you’re not on the AEVL you can vote in person* at a handful of them open right now. At the site a wireless WAN (not the internet!) connects the workers to the county database for signature verification and also which ballot you are to get which is then printed out on the spot. Bunches more of them are activated on election day and you can choose the one handiest for you.
The ballots are not counted there but are fed through a reader that checks for overvotes and then deposits them in a ballot box. As traditionally, the ballot boxes are sent to the registrar’s office to be counted there after the polls close.
*Personally, I prefer the receiving mine by mail. I was over two hours filling mine out. The partisan offices were easy (straight D all the way down) but the down ballot non-partisan choices (school boards and the like) need research online. Plus this year the Republican-majority legislature put on a bunch of deceptively titled initiatives they were too chicken-shit to simply try and pass muster as a law.
So, in other words the theme of this thread {well, I suppose if you flip it}, right?. Any data, polls, input, information, or polls that show that the rapist scumbag “can win at this point” is doubted, shit on, ignored, dismissed, or handwaved away.
I know there’s no tangible way to connect the dots (if the fucking imbecile ends up winning) to threads like this where the tenor going back to mid-August was “don’t worry boys, the stick shaker is shaking - she’s got it in the bag, probably by 400+ EV’s and he’s not coming out of this death spiral now, we got this and it’s over”, but I can’t imagine how this thread could’ve possibly been more counterproductive.
I suppose it could’ve been explicitly stated that “ignore when I told you months ago that he wasn’t even going to be the Republican candidate - and well ok, later I moved the goalposts when I told you that he wouldn’t even show up for the debate against Biden - well crap, ok, this time he’s really old and done with and he has zero chance of winning”.
There’s a gambling/roulette system called the “Martingale” where you keep doubling-down on losing bets, hoping that you eventually get back to even. I probably tried it when I was younger, until I figured out it was a losing proposition - but I feel like we’re living it here in real time.
Goshdamn I want to come back and eat my words and ‘mea culpa’ in a couple of weeks (I acknowledge that “we’re all on the same side here”), but I just couldn’t pass up the irony of “Anything that’s bad is believed; anything good is doubted”.
I just don’t see how you can have accurate polls when one side’s supporters simply refuse to be polled. The only solution seems to be to just give Trump a handicap, which will make the polls closer to the real result but its still just a guesstimate. Polling companies know they under counted Trump supporters in 2016 and 2020, and probably over counted them in 2022 (when Trump wasn’t running) and are trying to not make the same mistake. Trump support didn’t change much from 2016 to 2020, his % of the vote was almost identical, but apathy was replaced with strong opposition on the Democrat side.
You may call it that. I, however, call it “I’m not a prophet and there are too many unknowns”. I truly do not understand how some participants in this thread are so bloody certain. Do you folks have some sort of time-viewer? If not, in this race nobody can be sure of the outcome.
You haven’t been a constant participant but rather have popped in from time to time to tell me, in effect, how stupid and wrong I am. I don’t think you’ve had a grip on how the conversation has progressed, so the value of your assessment ends up being lower than it otherwise could be.
I’ve admitted I was wrong a couple of times, including–well, scroll up a few posts and you’ll see.
More importantly, however, I think it’s a gross mischaracterization to say that I’ve dismissed any and all negative information. That I am, again in effect, a Pollyanna about the election. I’ll say what I’ve said multiple times: it’s a disgrace that this election is close–and it is close. I am thinking and hoping that Harris has hidden support/advantages, such as a better ground game, that the polls don’t or can’t measure, and she will make it over the finish line first. I just said above that I was wrong in that I thought she’d being doing much better–obviously better–by now.
That was fucking incorrect, mmmkayyy?!?!
And even if Harris wins, this country is in serious trouble. Not because MAGA will live on without Trump (I think it will whimper and die pretty quickly without its Christ). But because
about half of America is stupid, evil, massively ill-/mis-informed, or all three. It absolutely fucking sucks, and I underestimated just how bad it really is.
We have no idea who’s going to win the election, because we won’t know until the votes are cast and counted. But all of the people telling us it’s a tossup are full of shit. They don’t know, either.
I guarantee that after the election, there’s going to be some theme about the hidden effect of some group, or some silent voting block. In reality, polls don’t capture the electorate.
So stop fretting about how Trump is so neck and neck with Harris. We don’t know.
Either he will win or Harris will win. And once that happens, we will have an answer to the question of whether it was a close election. Until that time, it’s entirely fair to look at how the candidates are performing, how much the campaigns are spending, and the issues of the day when trying to determine the outcome. Resorting to the Numbers game is like boasting about the accuracy of the measurements taken by 19th century phrenologists; Their precision is only coincidentally related to the actual outcome.
100% acknowledged and agreed, that my “sample size” is probably 10 - 15% of the posts back to early September, but the posts I’ve paused on to read, of others trying to play along and genuinely answer the original question of “how can the scumbag win at this point” with data, evidence, polls, and information, are always ignored, dismissed, and handwaved away.
And I admit after scrolling back up to the top, I conflated some of your mid-August “boys, it’s over, he’s in an unrecoverable death spiral now” posts to Velocity’s “fuggedaboutit, she’s gonna get 400+ EV’s easily, she’s got it in the bag fellas” posts.
I hope neither one of you have been spreading your “meh, it’s over, the scumbag doesn’t have what it takes and we got this easily, pass me the brandy and light me a cigar” rhetoric across other social mediums ever since August because (at least in my mind) that false confidence serves no purpose whatsoever.
There’s only one poster who is still pushing the narrative that’s it’s basically impossible for Trump to win. And I heavily doubt that they’re sincere.
I think it depends on how they are portrayed by their purveyors and the media, and in turn how they are used and understood by their consumers and the general populace.
For example, as I’ve said wayyyy back, Nate Silver expressing his average to one decimal point is, factually and objectively, a misrepresentation of the precision of his model and, therefore, its meaning. Even rounding it up to a single digit would probably also be incorrect.
Yes. I said “it’s close” above, but the proper expression would be, “It’s apparently close.” If either candidate wins by a nose, then it was close. If, on the other hand, Harris wins all of the Blue Wall states by 2%, or wins Florida or something crazy like that, then it wasn’t close by the standard of 21st century presidential elections.
Yes, there is always a post hoc narrative that makes perfect sense of it all. E.g., the pre-2020 election “red wave” narrative was wrong–but the polls weren’t! Maybe so, but again, as I said above, how polls are purveyed and consumed doesn’t always match up with their post hoc “correctness.”
