170
Harris ups lead over Trump, although presidential race still on knife-edge
(www.theguardian.com)
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 21 Sep 2024
170 points (97.8% liked)
News
36569 readers
508 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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
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. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I mean, they are significant, and they're one of our better ways to get information about what's going on. But there are complexities, and you can't ignore them.
First, obviously, there's the issue that any polling thing has, which is the possibility for error. If you call people on phones, some people won't respond, and those people may not be an even cross-section of society.
Second, the Presidential election isn't a popular vote. What matters is what's happening in the swing states. So presenting the output of a national popular poll -- which for some reason, a lot of media organizations do, I can only imagine because it's simpler to understand -- isn't a very good metric for who will win the Presidential election. There's correlation, sure, but the difference can be quite significant in very close elections like this.
Third, voter turnout matters, not just who a voter prefers.
To compensate for various issues like this, you develop a model that takes input -- for which polls are one, but only one, source of inputs -- and then train it on past elections. You can model things like increased or reduced response rates to polls among various demographics.
That can be useful, but it's still not an oracle that can see into the future. Models always deal with a simplified view of the world, aren't omniscient. We won't know for absolutely certain how well a model performs in a particular election until that election. Maybe it turns out that there's a ton of hail on that day, and that there's a Twitter trend to not go out in hail, or something equally off-the-wall.
If you want to know for sure, the answer is wait for the election.
If you want to get our best guess, the answer is "we can make some predictions, using polling data, statistical analysis, and other historical information, though it'll inevitably have some level of uncertainty". Right now, I think that it's a pretty decent consensus that the race is pretty close, but that Harris has been generally improving her position. No legitimate person modeling the election is going to simply outright call the election at this point, though. They'll just give estimates as to likelihoods of outcomes.