this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2024
194 points (84.4% liked)

News

23399 readers
4130 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] IAmTheZeke@lemmy.world 34 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Polling guru Nate Silver and his election prediction model gave Donald Trump a 63.8% chance of winning the electoral college in an update to his latest election forecast on Sunday, after a NYT-Siena College poll found Donald Trump leading Vice President Kamala Harris by 1 percentage point.

He's just a guy analizing the polls. The source is Fox News. He mentions in the article that tomorrow's debate could make that poll not matter.

Should you trust Nate or polls? They're fun but... Who is answering these polls? Who wants to answer them before even October?

So yeah take it seriously that a poll found that a lot of support for Trump exists. But it's just a moment of time for whoever they polled. Tomorrow's response will be a much better indication of any momentum.

[–] GlassHalfHopeful@lemmy.ca 13 points 2 months ago (3 children)

It just seems strange because I don't think that many people are on the fence. Perhaps I'm crazy, but I feel most people know exactly who they're voting for already. Makes me wonder how valid this cross-section was that was used as the sample set. If it accurately represents the US, including undecided voters, then... 😮

[–] randon31415@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago

but I feel most people know exactly who they’re voting for already

The cross-section of people you know are more politically off the fence than the entire nation. Those that aren't online at all are also more undecided and less likely to interact with you.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I listen to those news things that interview people on the street and I'm amazed at how many are uninformed and can go either way.

[–] zabadoh@ani.social 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

There's a Trump undercount in polling: Trump voters don't trust "MSM" and therefore don't answer calls from pollsters, or are embarrassed to admit they will vote for him.

Same goes for asking random people on the street.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago (2 children)

There's also an undercount of young people who don't answer the phone.

[–] actually@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

I don’t know many people (boomers and younger) who answer the phone from numbers they do not recognize. I would like to imagine that the people who do answer strange numbers tend to be out of touch. Bias in the polls to fools or the lucky who are not spammed ?

[–] TehWorld@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

And an undercount of women who are telling their husbands and anyone else who asks that they'll be voting Trump, but will actually vote for Harris when the time comes. And an undercount of bro-ski-s who claim to support Harris, but secretly hate the fact that they can't get a 'female' that will cater to their every whim and will vote Trump because he'll increase oppression of women. And an undercount of cat ladies.... etc. Most "high quality" models at least attempt to mitigate these over and undercounts, which definitely skews results, and why poll aggregators are important. It helps to eliminate biases in polling types. There's really only ONE poll that matters. VOTE! BRING YOUR FRIENDS!

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 months ago

Pollsters are compensating for that undercount of unlikely voters. 2016 they were low, 2020 still low but pretty close. They will have scaled it up to be more accurate this go around.

Except there's a few snags there. In between the 2020 election and now, there was an insurrection, Roe v. Wade was overturned, Trump was convicted of crimes and indicted for many more. These are things that a statistical process can't really account for when putting weight on how likely a respondant is to actually vote.

Trump lost in 2020. Do all of these events incentivize more people will turn out for him this time than in the last election? Or will less people turn out for him?

Every time something unprecedented happens it negatively impacts the ability for a scientific statistical process to predict the outcome. Science can't predict things there's no model for, and how do you can't have a model for something you haven't seen before. And a hell of a lot of unprecedented shit has happened. Maybe next time a convicted felon that tried to overthrow democracy runs in an election there can be accurate polling, but it's not going to be the case in this election.

There really is no way to know what will happen on election day. So there's else to do other than maximum effort until election day.

[–] bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 2 months ago

The issue isn't really people on the fence for Trump or Harris but mainly with generating turnout. After Biden's poor debate performance, people didn't change their mind and decide to vote for Trump, they became apathetic and maybe wouldn't show up to vote.

Harris doesn't need to persuade people to abandon Trump, she needs to get people excited to show up to vote.

[–] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago (2 children)
[–] IAmTheZeke@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

I have shamed my family

[–] Silentiea@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 months ago

Whi, is it not completeli spelled correctli?

[–] MonkRome@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

He's not polling, he is aggregating all of the polls into a prediction model. Either way it is just a snapshot in time.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 5 points 2 months ago

The key to doing statistics well is to make sure you aren't changing the results with any bias. This means enough samples, a good selection of samples, and weighing the outcome correctly. Even honest polling in pre-election is hard to get right, and because of that it's easy to make things lean towards results if you want to get certain results, or or getting paid to get those results.

There's only one poll that matters, and that poll should include as large of a sample as possible, and be counted correctly. Even though some will try to prevent that from happening.