this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2024
124 points (91.9% liked)

politics

19145 readers
2854 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Nate Silver's polling has been wrong before and it will be wrong again.

[–] triptrapper -5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

He's wrong very frequently. He had a couple amazing parlays and people think he has some special sauce.

[–] lennybird 23 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

People who say this don't ever really back this up. Nate Silver has pretty consistently maintained >90% accuracy across not just presidential races but primaries, gubernatorial, and congressional races. Ultimately thousands of races. Remember, he his probability != a prediction. Just because someone has 70-30 odds doesn't mean they win 100% of the time. It means if that race was run 100,000 times, 30,000 times would be a loss. Accuracy can be determined by grouping a sample of such 70-30 races to see if they follow that trend. Lo and behold, Nate's algorithm generally does.

Obviously events change and predictions cannot rapidly factor in, say, Comey's October Surprise...but in this era of absurdity, I'm not sure we really have any more shocking surprises that can top what we've already seen and know.

These are good markers to see how messaging and strategy for each side is working and whether a change needs to happen. It should have zero bearing on voting which everyone should do whether you're winning in a landslide or not.