this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2024
-25 points (26.4% liked)

politics

19144 readers
3414 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
 

AI Generated Summary (I've been expirimentign with it):

  • Kamala Harris had a tough day in the forecast despite gains in national polls.
  • She leads by 3.8 points nationally but has a 47.3% chance of winning the Electoral College.
  • The model adjusts for convention bounce, assuming her polls are inflated.
  • Harris’s numbers may improve if she maintains her current standing.
  • A concern is the lack of polls showing her ahead in Pennsylvania, a key state.
  • Recent polls show Pennsylvania as a tie or slightly favoring Trump.
  • Harris has a 17% chance of winning the popular vote but losing the Electoral College.
  • RFK’s dropout and endorsement of Trump may impact her in Rust Belt states.
  • Tim Walz has had a strong rollout as Harris’s VP, but there’s speculation about Josh Shapiro.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

Wasn't 2016 enough to show this fucking degenerate doesn't actually know what the fuck he's talking about?

He's too busy jerking off people like Peter Thiel and Marc Andreesen to be a serious commentator.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Not disputing the he’s an idiot, but 28% likelihood events happen about once out of every three times on average.

The image below is not direct an indication that he’s an idiot. That stuff that he writes in his book and that pours out of his mouth, yes, that’s another matter.

[–] AbouBenAdhem 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Yeah, I think people confuse win probabilities with polling percentages.

If a pollster predicted that ten races each had a Democratic win probability of 70%, and the Democrats won all ten of those races, that prediction would be wrong—as wrong as if the Republicans won six of the races.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

He (and the rest of 538, where he was at the time) were criticized at the time for giving Trump much better odds than most. They were still wrong, but less so than the rest.

[–] randon31415 1 points 2 months ago

This sounds like conservatives who said Fauci was an idiot because he first said not to use masks, then to use masks all the time, then to use them if you are indoors or have a compromised immune system.

Making mistakes and correcting them with new data is a sign of intelligence not stupidity.