this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2024
811 points (97.8% liked)

News

23403 readers
4585 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 right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


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.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


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 or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. 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.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Donald Trump’s running mate JD Vance has dug in on his claim Haitians in an Ohio community are abducting and eating pets, even as the state’s GOP governor and other officials insist there is no evidence of such behavior.

But the salacious claim was easily debunked.

“The Vance campaign provided the Wall Street Journal with a police report to prove their claims about cat-eating Haitians in Springfield. The WSJ spoke to the woman who filed it, who said she later found her cat alive and well in her basement. She also apologized to her Haitian neighbors.” Justin Baragona posted to X with a link to a story in The Wall Street Journal.


🗳️ Register to vote: https://vote.gov/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 29 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

There's no one single model doing projections.

Five Thirty Eight's, which is one prominent one, has favored Harris somewhat for a while.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/

Harris wins 64 times out of 100

in our simulations of the 2024 presidential election.

Trump wins 36 times out of 100.

There is a less than 1-in-100 chance of no Electoral College winner.

Nate Silver -- who started Five Thirty Eight and is now off doing his own thing and runs a fork of the model that Five Thirty Eight used to run -- had them, last I looked, had Harris and Trump at about about even chances.

Both Silver's model and Five Thirty Eight's model agreed that the debate improved Harris's chances.

[–] SeriousMite 17 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Important to note that Nate Silver works for Peter Theil, who has donated heavily to Trump pacs, and is responsible for giving us JD Vance.

[–] OlinOfTheHillPeople 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Do you have a source on Silver working for Thiel?

[–] leadore 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] OlinOfTheHillPeople 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Interesting.

Tl;Dr: Nate Silver is an "advisor" to Polymarket, a gambling platform based on real world events. Peter Thiel is an investor for Polymarket.

It seems like a stretch to say that "Nate Silver works for Thiel," but it's pretty sad to see Nate Silver working for a likely illegal crypto scam.

[–] nomous -1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

It seems like a stretch to say that "Nate Silver works for Thiel."

Nate Silver is a paid advisor to a company that Peter Thiel runs, it's not a stretch at all, wake up.

[–] OlinOfTheHillPeople 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The Wikipedia link above mentions nothing about that. Do you have a different source?

[–] nomous 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Nah, just pointing out a possible conflict of interest.

[–] OlinOfTheHillPeople 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

So "Peter Thiel runs Polymarket" is a fact that you made up?

[–] nomous 0 points 2 months ago

Nah you're right it's just a billionaire funding a company that just coincidentally hired Nate. Nothing to see here, billionaires can be trusted.

[–] blazeknave 2 points 2 months ago

I do that for a lot of Thiel types. Believe me, I don't work for them, and I'm vocal about my opposite values from them

[–] blazeknave 3 points 2 months ago

You should go through crunchbase. Anyone in tech has worked at a place with evil investors. They just care whether you hit your numbers after finding product market fit. I'm a conspiracy theorist. This is not it.

[–] WoahWoah 6 points 2 months ago

Just a clarification, Silver doesn't run a fork of the old 538 model. He took the model with him. 538 developed their own after he left.

[–] WoahWoah 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Crazy that is already 60% instead of 64% since you posted this. No deeper comment there other than just noting how fluid this election is. We are one Harris mistake (and remember, mistake tolerance for Harris is significantly lower than Trump; Trump is basically one long series of mistakes that has little effect on his numbers; if Harris mispronounces Gaza once she loses 5%), one unexpected event, one butterfly-wing flap from those numbers going to even or worse.

40% of the time Trump wins. 40% of the time, an authoritarian leader assumes the presidency of the most powerful country in the world.

I stand by my statement that no Harris supporter should feel confident or comfortable. That's... frighteningly high.

[–] rayyy -3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Five-thirty-eight is a joke. Who did Five-thirty-eight project to win in 2016? Yeah.
Who did professor Allan Lichtman predict to win in 2016? The winner! He uses a strange science technique that have retrospectively lined up with presidential winners since 1860. He has an impressive tract record of ten successful predictions - note he predicted Gore in 2000 but there is very persuasive evidence that Gore actually did win had the vote counts been honestly counted. Hence the Brooks Brothers riot that threw the election to the Supreme Court.
Republicans are now positioning for that to happen again in 2024.

[–] CoggyMcFee 8 points 2 months ago

This is the ignorant “I don’t understand statistics” take. If Nate Silver had given Clinton a 100% chance to win, then maybe you’d have some sort of point. But, in fact, the 538 projection gave Trump a much higher chance than most of the major election models, to the point that I remember Nate having to defend himself against angry people on Twitter over and over. He wrote an article ahead of the election pointing out that if an outcome has a 30% chance of happening, not only is it possible, but in fact you expect it to happen 3 in 10 times. I was very nervous on Election Day 2016 specifically because I had been closely following 538 projections.

[–] WoahWoah 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

This post is further evidence that everyone should be required to take a statistics course. It's like saying "statistical probability says there is a 66.6% chance of me rolling this six-sided die and getting a 1, 2, 3, or 4, but I rolled a 5, so that model is WRONG!!"

I hope you can see how dumb that sounds.

Additionally, Lichtman referred to the popular vote in his book, essay on the topic (neither of which I assume you've read), and in all previous predictions. So he was actually wrong about his 2016 prediction given Trump lost the popular vote, much though Lichtman has tried to revise history since then.