88
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2023
88 points (76.5% liked)
politics
19239 readers
1429 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You guys give a hoot about polls since 2016?
Still talking about the Hillary polls?
The polls correctly predicted a high likelihood of her winning the popular vote. It's not the fault of the polls that the actual decider is an anti-democratic and unpollable system that disproportionately favors empty land over people.
There were several models from sources like 538 that took the electoral map into account and still got it wrong. People didn't admit their cult membership back then, today they are afraid to hide it.
538 said Trump had about a 30% chance of winning.
In what way did they "get it wrong?"
That's partly true. 538 in particular has a tendency to be overly sure of itself and too cute by half.
A lot of what they do includes much more educated guesswork than actual polling, though, so "538 got it wrong" ≠ "the concept of polling got it wrong"
I think you're mistaken about "getting it wrong" here. If a statistician says "Candidate A has a 99 % chance of winning", and the candidate loses, that doesn't mean the statistician was wrong, just that the improbable happened. If you have a repeatable experiment you can do the experiment many times to see if Candidate A wins 99% of the time, if they don't then the statistician is wrong.
Problem is: We can't do multiple, uncorrelated elections to test, so we can't ever disprove the statistician. What we can do, is look at a bunch of prior elections, the predictions made, and see if we prefer trusting the statistician over not trusting them.
I think if you look at a bunch of election results and predictions, and take confidence margins into account, that you'll find the statisticians are more often right than wrong. But you need to interpret the statistical predictions correctly.
Point taken.
so you agree the polls were wrong and inaccurate
No. They correctly and accurately measured likelihood of winning the popular vote.
That people misinterpret them doesn't make the polls wrong, it makes the people misinterpreting them wrong.
Its a lot easier to be wrong when you cant factor in things like cheating... you might want to take note that trump has been indicted for cheating in 2016 by Bragg, thats not something polls could have known or could have factored in. And the hush money case is just one we know about, I assume he and the repug cheated on all sorts of levels to get trump in, again none of those factors can be predicted accurately.
AND being WRONG about something is not the same as 'The Polsters were Lying in 2016' which is what the far right constantly asserts without proof. Polls are not lies just because they got one wrong once time, this is the main problem with all right wing thought, they cannot tell the difference between MSNBC getting something wrong once 12 years ago, and the proven in court fact that FAUX 'News" Lying right to their faces on a nightly basis.
Especially polls a year early.
Particularly when people are upset at Biden for Israel stuffs… the reality is, none of the progressives that support Palestine will ever support a republican
(and let’s be honest, trump probably would have had troops on the ground going into combat in Gaza too. Biden’s response is more moderate than that brand of Republicanism.)
And a lot of the people who, right now, are saying "we'll vote third party" or "we just won't vote" will change their tune if it comes to November and it's a close Biden vs Trump.
This isn't to say that Biden should take these votes for granted, of course. (Hillary made the fatal mistake of taking votes for granted.) However, it's a common occurrence for people to refuse to back one party's candidate a year out and then come back into the fold near election day. The Republicans will likely have a similar occurrence with people refusing to vote for Trump, but then deciding to do so in November 2024.