U.S. Presidential Election

[steviewevie]

21 minutes ago, charlierc said:

I guess this is why I'm puzzled by the one above saying Trump is crushingly likely to win. Anything above 55% either way seemed out of keeping with a still pretty even debate on the Presidency, not least given a lot of battleground states are still on paper-thin margins and a lot could well pivot on how Tuesday's debate proceeds. 

 

Kind of an achievement given Trump's campaign seems increasingly ropey, with Vance saying "Accept school shootings will happen" after one in Georgia this week being a particular low point.

as was always the case it's all about a few hundred thousand voters in a few states. That is what the battle is over. Harris could win the popular vote by a fair margin, but still lose the presidency.

I guess this Nate Silver has projected where this could end up by November, but as he said in the link posted by clarkete above there are so many unknowns that it could still go either way.

Going to be an intense few months.

Edited September 6 by steviewevie

[charlierc]

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

as was always the case it's all about a few hundred thousand voters in a few states. That is what the battle is over. Harris could win the popular vote by a fair margin, but still lose the presidency.

I guess this Nate Silver has projected where this could end up by November, but as he said in the link posted by clarkete above there are so many unknowns that it could still go either way.

Going to be an intense few months.

538 isn't his site any more, worth noting. He now has his own thing called Silver Bulletin.

 

But I'm aware of the precedent that Harris could win the popular vote and still lose on electoral college. It's literally what Hillary Clinton and (if to less of an extent) Al Gore did.

[FloopFiller]

4 hours ago, steviewevie said:

 

This dude’s whole thing was bought out by Peter Thiel, Republican Billionaire and the guy who has paid and paved the way for JD Vance’s entire career, so it seems his polling isn’t as admired as it once was due to likely bias. Literally only his forecast looks anything like this. 

[steviewevie]

update. 😄

 

[steviewevie]

Bring Back Biden.

[charlierc]

28 minutes ago, FloopFiller said:

This dude’s whole thing was bought out by Peter Thiel, Republican Billionaire and the guy who has paid and paved the way for JD Vance’s entire career, so it seems his polling isn’t as admired as it once was due to likely bias. Literally only his forecast looks anything like this. 

Quite something how this was followed up by a post showing the charts doubling down on the flawed methodology.

[steviewevie]

20 minutes ago, charlierc said:

Quite something how this was followed up by a post showing the charts doubling down on the flawed methodology.

I think wrong to just write it off to be honest.

Let's see what other polling/methodology people say over the coming weeks...and that all important debate. Harris and her team need to work out how they're going to come back at Trump and his shite...he's very good at this, and can get away with stuff that she won't be able to....and he'll be able to point at cost of living, crime and immigration in his attacks...what she has is the pro choice stuff...but this is America..weird place.

Edited September 6 by steviewevie

[steviewevie]

 

[charlierc]

11 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

I think wrong to just write it off to be honest.

Let's see what other polling/methodology people say over the coming weeks...and that all important debate. Harris and her team need to work out how they're going to come back at Trump and his shite...he's very good at this, and can get away with stuff that she won't be able to....and he'll be able to point at cost of living, crime and immigration in his attacks...what she has is the pro choice stuff...but this is America..weird place.

See, I'm aware the chance of a Trump victory is higher than zero almost in spite of an increasingly ill-disciplined campaign tying itself in knots behind a candidate that looks unfit for office. I think I even declared I'd be more confident of a Republican Presidential winning this election if it wasn't this one. So I'm aware that he's still got more than a chance - certainly more than in 2016 when he won despite election morning polls suggesting it was a 1 in 3 relative longshot.

 

It's more than I'm unsure you can be so bold at this time to say either candidate is a nailed-on winner, or at least right now. By which, I mean an over 60% chance as cited here is quite a bold gambit to be making, and given the data is showing such slim margins elsewhere, are they able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the method they're reaching to get there so soon when other polls are suggesting the chances are still more in the 50-55% either way bracket I'd expect them to be?

 

Maybe it doesn't help that there's a billion polls out there I dunno...

[steviewevie]

[clarkete]

4 hours ago, steviewevie said:

update. 😄

 

 

 

I'm slightly confused who Interactive Polls are and the relationship between them and either https://www.natesilver.net/ (his current site) or https://abcnews.go.com/538 (his old site which uses a slightly different model). 

 

I understand that this year he's also become a "consultant" to polymarket - but don't know how much input if any he has to their analysis. 

 

There are some who think the forthcoming debate will have limited impact, yet others counter that biden's performance obviously was hugely significant. 

 

He's been doing lots of telly, allegedly as they have less budget or have splurged it in PA and other places, she's done far less so it will be genuinely interesting and it's conceivable it could reach 50-60m.

 

Exciting times. 

[clarkete]

I don't even undrestand why if I click on their link the numbers on polymarket are very different to those shown on their tweet.  

https://polymarket.com/elections

[clarkete]

 

Seems that polymarket is as it sounds, rather than a poll, also part owned by Thiel.  One of the folks linking to it two days ago is the guy pictured in the beeb link. 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharyfolk/2024/05/14/peter-thiel-invests-in-polymarket-political-betting-platform-but-the-future-of-gambling-on-elections-remains-unclear/

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crrlv7jdnq8o

[FloopFiller]

8 hours ago, steviewevie said:

Just goes to show how far the Republican Party has fallen when this guy voting Dem barely even rings as news or surprising. So interested to see where they go from here if Trump loses as it seems like they’re damaged beyond repair, at least whilst MAGA still consumes them.

 

Also insane how going in to the debate it’s Kamala’s to lose whereas there’s almost nothing Trump can do that will move the needle. Trump will spew a bunch of unintelligible nonsense and everybody will think ‘business asusual’ whereas Kamala will make one minor gaff or possibly controversial statement and it’ll be picked up by everybody as the end of her campaign. 

Edited September 7 by FloopFiller

[steviewevie]

4 hours ago, clarkete said:

 

Seems that polymarket is as it sounds, rather than a poll, also part owned by Thiel.  One of the folks linking to it two days ago is the guy pictured in the beeb link. 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharyfolk/2024/05/14/peter-thiel-invests-in-polymarket-political-betting-platform-but-the-future-of-gambling-on-elections-remains-unclear/

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crrlv7jdnq8o

yeah..I mean I don't know the biases. People are having a field day with the Nate Silver and Thiel conspiracy stuff, and who knows it could be right and it's all dodge.

Or this Nate Silvers is just using a different modelling thing and it's giving these results based on a bunch of data and projections that could and will change.

It would not be a surprise that Harris enjoyed a bounce in the polls after getting the candidacy and the DNC, the whole vibe thing was very good. But that bounce could be over now and people are more interested in what her actual policies to fix  America's problems are and how fit for office she actually is, so she's going to get lots more scrutiny and she can't just rely on Trump is weird and she's fun thing.

 

Anyway, that poll tweet lot did a breakdown...and Nate Silver is definitely on his own, but he is well respected and well known and that is what has got people all jiggy with it and why maybe he's doing it and why maybe I'm posting it!

 

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

yeah..I mean I don't know the biases. People are having a field day with the Nate Silver and Thiel conspiracy stuff, and who knows it could be right and it's all dodge.

Or this Nate Silvers is just using a different modelling thing and it's giving these results based on a bunch of data and projections that could and will change.

It would not be a surprise that Harris enjoyed a bounce in the polls after getting the candidacy and the DNC, the whole vibe thing was very good. But that bounce could be over now and people are more interested in what her actual policies to fix  America's problems are and how fit for office she actually is, so she's going to get lots more scrutiny and she can't just rely on Trump is weird and she's fun thing.

 

Anyway, that poll tweet lot did a breakdown...and Nate Silver is definitely on his own, but he is well respected and well known and that is what has got people all jiggy with it and why maybe he's doing it and why maybe I'm posting it!

 

bit small, try again

[charlierc]

3 hours ago, steviewevie said:

bit small, try again

This does prove my point about asking what if the maths in the background is a little off piste. I'm not saying it has to be in line with everyone else, but I didn't think anyone had really done anything in the last 2 weeks to take this away from essentially a 50/50 shot that either major candidate will win in November and I'm a little surprised they have this much conviction.

 

But I guess everyone's in a holding pattern waiting to see if Tuesday night's debate does anything to tilt the scales.

[steviewevie]

55 minutes ago, charlierc said:

This does prove my point about asking what if the maths in the background is a little off piste. I'm not saying it has to be in line with everyone else, but I didn't think anyone had really done anything in the last 2 weeks to take this away from essentially a 50/50 shot that either major candidate will win in November and I'm a little surprised they have this much conviction.

 

But I guess everyone's in a holding pattern waiting to see if Tuesday night's debate does anything to tilt the scales.

I guess it just takes one or two states going either way that will make all the difference. 

[clarkete]

5 hours ago, steviewevie said:

yeah..I mean I don't know the biases. People are having a field day with the Nate Silver and Thiel conspiracy stuff, and who knows it could be right and it's all dodge.

Or this Nate Silvers is just using a different modelling thing and it's giving these results based on a bunch of data and projections that could and will change.

It would not be a surprise that Harris enjoyed a bounce in the polls after getting the candidacy and the DNC, the whole vibe thing was very good. But that bounce could be over now and people are more interested in what her actual policies to fix  America's problems are and how fit for office she actually is, so she's going to get lots more scrutiny and she can't just rely on Trump is weird and she's fun thing.

 

Anyway, that poll tweet lot did a breakdown...and Nate Silver is definitely on his own, but he is well respected and well known and that is what has got people all jiggy with it and why maybe he's doing it and why maybe I'm posting it!

 

 

Yes, I think it's better in the graphs but for 6 particularly what is that? 

 

Is it Nate or 538?  It can't be both and I don't think either match those figures

 

Do you know who the org is that does the v tweet?  Try as I might I couldn't find them

 

You're often like a mini news aggregator for me, digging stuff out I miss, but in this case I'd just like to be able to find the numbers anywhere 

Edited September 7 by clarkete

[steviewevie]

3 hours ago, clarkete said:

 

Yes, I think it's better in the graphs but for 6 particularly what is that? 

 

Is it Nate or 538?  It can't be both and I don't think either match those figures

 

Do you know who the org is that does the v tweet?  Try as I might I couldn't find them

 

You're often like a mini news aggregator for me, digging stuff out I miss, but in this case I'd just like to be able to find the numbers anywhere 

6 is Nate. 1 is 538. Some reason he still has 538 in his twitter name. 

 

What do you mean by v tweet?

 

Anyway, Nate Silver one is the outlier, and he now is linked with polymarket who are linked to this Thiel guy who is a bit of a libertarian type, but don't know how stinky dodge it all is. 

[clarkete]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

6 is Nate. 1 is 538. Some reason he still has 538 in his twitter name. 

 

What do you mean by v tweet?

 

Anyway, Nate Silver one is the outlier, and he now is linked with polymarket who are linked to this Thiel guy who is a bit of a libertarian type, but don't know how stinky dodge it all is. 

 

Good point about his nick, thanks. 

 

Have you seen anything from him that refers to anything like 62/38? 

 

I haven't, all far more modest (maybe 55/45) but I'm far too cheap to take out a paid sub

Edited September 7 by clarkete

[steviewevie]

21 minutes ago, clarkete said:

 

Good point about his nick, thanks. 

 

Have you seen anything from him that refers to anything like 62/38? 

 

I haven't, all far more modest (maybe 55/45) but I'm far too cheap to take out a paid sub

All we have is screenshot posted.. it's all a bit opaque...but basically he is weighing polls differently to others and then throwing in a bunch of assumptions.

 

[steviewevie]

 

[Kurosagi]

Here you go, some Sunday afternoon reading for you. It's Freedman's analysis of where the US election is right now.

 

It's about 3000 words so too big to post the text, but I'll put it up as a pdf and hopefully it'll show up for people.

 

Here's a link to his substack, well worth subscribing to if you get on with his analysis:

 

https://samf.substack.com/

 

State of Play 2024-09-08.pdf

[steviewevie]