this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024
26 points (70.3% liked)

politics

19144 readers
5938 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
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
26
Nate Silver: Here’s What My Gut Says About the Election. But Don’t Trust Anyone’s Gut, Even Mine. (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by WoahWoah@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Nate Silver's essay discusses the limitations of gut instincts in election predictions, emphasizing that while polls in battleground states show a tight race, no one should trust their "gut" predictions. Silver’s "gut" leans toward Trump, but he stresses that polls are complex and often subject to errors like nonresponse bias. Both Trump and Harris could overperform based on various polling dynamics. He also warns of potential polling herding, which could lead to a larger-than-expected victory for either candidate. Ultimately, the outcome remains highly uncertain.

top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com 21 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

There isn't much new in this essay, which makes sense since Silver typically avoids getting too far away from the data and the data right now is "toss-up." (Electoral college swing states, obviously - Harris will win the popular vote for sure, but who cares what the majority of Americans think, right?)

But I agree with the core thesis - my gut says Trump. My brain says Harris, but it was wrong in 2016. I committed an extreme sampling error and had too much faith in my fellow Americans' ability to spot and not vote for the obvious conman.

Now that he is a convicted felon, with the accumulated data from his first administration confirming him as a fascist, J6, two impeachments, racist comments, stolen documents, civil fraud, increased evidence of Russian connections, and so on, certainly people haven't gotten dumber fast enough to keep up with how low he's pulled the bar? Yes, they most definitely have. And reading anecdotal swing voter info suggests the Trump Show re-runs are still enough to make it close, and he's also winning the "not being a black woman" race with enough voters to push him over the edge. So shut up brain, you should know better by now.

The bottom line is that I know I'm a pessimist, but I think the last 8 years have merged that Venn diagram with the one for "realist." I wish America was smarter, better, and more worthy, but it's probably not. I hope so hard that I'm wrong, and that everyone votes.

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

If it makes you feel better, Harris is now well within the margin of error for the popular vote as well, so she could even possibly lose that.

[–] unconfirmedsourcesDOTgov@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Huh? Which pollster is claiming that? This article from 3 days ago seems to indicate the opposite - Harris is highly unlikely to lose the popular vote but the EC is very much still up in the air.

California has a lot of people who vote, it's tough to make up that margin.

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world -2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Nate Silver's model, which is literally the first linked model in the article you shared, has Harris up by 1.5% in national polling. The margin of error is 3%. That's called being "well within the margin of error."

The same model has Trump with a 5.9% higher chance than Harris of winning the electoral college.

[–] unconfirmedsourcesDOTgov@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

National polling isn't the same as a poll designed to predict the popular vote. Biden won in 2020 by 7 MILLION votes. Even Clinton beat Trump by nearly 3 million votes. The popular vote and the election results are decided by completely different factors, pollsters aren't soliciting people outside of swing states right now because nobody gives a fuck what a random Californian or Missourian thinks at the moment.

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago

What are you even talking about? Yes, Biden led in the popular vote by seven million, by over 4%. He actually win, i.e. in the EC, by about 80,000 votes. Harris is currently polling significantly worse than Biden across both categories.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 41 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Seems to me the polls are contaminated with politically motivated polling becoming more common.
If you have the right to vote, use it. Nothing is decided until the votes are counted.

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago

Nothing is decided until the votes are counted.

And then, depending on the result, things might still not be decided... You guys will have a merry end of year by the look of it.

[–] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 38 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Regardless of what happens in this election, the Democrats MUST commit themselves to abolishing the electoral college. Yes, I know that will require a constitutional amendment. Yes, I know that will be extraordinarily difficult, some might say impossible, but it must be done. Not because it is easy, but because it is hard, and, most importantly, because it is absolutely necessary.

I am not a liberal, but I am a democrat, as in: an advocate for democracy. I believe the people should rule. If you agree, then you surely see why the electoral college must be abolished. It is undemocratic.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 22 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes, I know that will require a constitutional amendment. Yes, I know that will be extraordinarily difficult, some might say impossible

There's a shortcut

States have the ultimate say over how their electors for President represent the will of the people. The NPV movement asks states to assign EC votes based on the result of the National Popular Vote. Several states have passed laws mandating this once enough states pass it to constitute an EC majority.

It has been passed in states making up 209 electors, and proposed in states making up 50 more. If those states passed it, and they get 11 more electors (perhaps Arizona?), then they will have the 270 votes necessary to guarantee the EC will vote in line with the popular vote. Still a hard problem, but now the problem has been confined to a handful of states.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

[–] MajinBlayze@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Let's say it gets passed in enough states to matter and there's an election where it changes the result. In every state where the loser would have gotten the votes of that state, but didn't, there will be an immediate campaign to withdrawal from the pact, and it will get popular support within that state.

I don't think it's possible for the napovointerco to ever effect more than one election.

[–] DomeGuy@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Politics doesn't happen in a vacuum.

When the NPVC goes into effect, both major parties will run whole-country campaigns and swaths of the nation that are currently ignored will get actual attention. While some states may have pullback campaigns, its also likely that other states will react by joining the compact to preserve the new status quo of not being ignored.

(the compact itself does allow for states leaving, and even sets a nice 6-month time offset. )

[–] MajinBlayze@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

While i think that's true to an extent, I'm not convinced that the pressure within a state to encourage campaigning will overcome the establishment party's desire for power.

I would love to be proven wrong on this though

For context, I say this as a citizen of a very, very GOP dominated state. I really can't see us joining the compact and then maintaining that in any hypothetical near-future political environment where any non-republucian wins the popular vote, and gains our electors through the compact.

[–] DomeGuy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Depending on your state that's probably true... Unless, like Georgia (or maybe Texas soon) you have an even where a Red-controlled state goes Blue by a thin majority and the NPV keeps special attention away from them.

I can honestly see Texas republicans joining the NPV if they go POTUS-blue just once. Especially if there's any downballot effect.

[–] linearchaos@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago

Well democracy, we had a good run buddy, I'm off to find a nice quiet corner of the earth where I can live out the rest of my days and my family can prosper a little ways until the nuclear winter falls

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 weeks ago