703
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 25 Mar 2024
703 points (97.6% liked)
politics
19126 readers
1835 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
Has a chance? Sure.
"On track to win a historical landslide"? Not at all. Zero evidence for that.
That picture does not look promising or relevant.
Don't cast your assumptions on me to attack them; make up whatever throat-jumping stories you like, but leave me out of them.
The article doesn't claim that. It claims that a generic Republican would be on track to win a historical landslide. But not Trump because of his unfavorability.
I don't know which article you read, but:
"Donald Trump would be on track to win a historic landslide in November — if so many US voters didn’t find him personally repugnant."
That's exactly the case the article is making, and that case has no legs to stand on.
What? Did you read it? It shows generic R polling vs. Biden winning big but Trump v. Biden polling low. That indicates that the majority of Americans would be open to a Republican Presidency, just not a Trump presidency. They make the case with polling data.
Wow, hyperbolic polling "data" that is consistently inaccurate and being constantly manipulated and interfered with hypothesizing a fictional republican representative with zero adverse character traits?
Weird that people aren't giving that more weight...
Citation needed.
https://fortune.com/2022/11/16/pollsters-got-it-wrong-2018-2020-elections-statistical-sophistry-accuracy-sonnenfeld-tian/
Did you read that article? Their first example of a polling "miss":
Pollsters were actually calling that race a toss up (also 538's page ). There were several polls that predicted a slim Oz and several that predicted a slim Fetterman. Even the Republican leading pollster that was predicting a 1% the wrong way has a confidence interval of +/- 2.5 and had 4.9% other/undecided factor in the poll.
People are angry that they can't read polls. They're angry that a toss up is just that.
Did you read it? It goes on to describe larger polling errors(14%) that resulted consistently in multiple elections going the opposite way of the polls.
Polls are consistently inaccurate.
You can read the whole article instead of the first sentence.
This is the chunk you're complaining about? They didn't even refute the poll they just don't like that data. And that's after consistently complaining about polls that were marked as toss-ups.
Like please respond to the first one. Because the polls got Oz vs. Fetterman largely correct and it's the first example of a miss which should be the strongest one.
No, it isn't, and i responded to your first reply four days ago when you originally replied.
If you are expecting every single pull to be inconsistent by the exact same amount, you're going to be disappointed.
Some polls are off by 1% some are off by 15% some are off by more.
They're not all from identical elections, and there's not always an identical number of people voting or people being polled.
Polls are consistently inaccurate,is the point here.
If a pill has a +- of 5-7 percent with 90% confidence. And you have ten polls, You would expect at least one to be off by more that 5-7%. What your describing is expected.
Right, polls are consistently inaccurate and should not be counted on as foundational predictors of political conclusions.
If I tell you that a rocket is going to land withing a 20ft circle 90% of the time and land 9 rockets in the circle and 1 out of it; was I accurate or inaccurate in your mind?
Consistently inaccurate.
At least 10 percent of the time the rocket will consistently land inaccurately.
Further, if we more accurately pair your analogy with political polls determining an accurate election result, the rocket will consistently land inaccurately the other 90% of the time as well.
So you're complaint is that people are telling you, "You have this percentage chance of this being reality" and then you're mad that they're unable to be more accurate? It's polling it's not fortune-telling.
Where are you getting that I'm mad?
I'm not complaining.
People are drawing illogical conclusions from false premises.
I'm reminding people that drawing conclusions from flawed premises leads to flawed conclusions.
My apologies I misread your tone.