this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024
205 points (97.7% liked)

politics

19240 readers
3884 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

"The keepers of the averages insist that the impact is very minimal. Outfits like FiveThirtyEight; Split Ticket, the Times’ in-house polling tracker; and Nate Silver’s forecast all take methodological steps ostensibly to ensure that “garbage-in” polls don’t lead to “garbage-out” results. These include downgrading the “weight” of polls thought to be systematically biased so they have less influence on the averages than high-quality polls do. (FiveThirtyEight has detailed criteria for determining whether pollsters are high quality, including empirical accuracy and methodological transparency.) Another step is adjusting for a particular pollster’s “house effects” to downplay biases."

This has always been the thing that has me concerned. They may have fucked polls, but the aggregation methods have weights to shit pollsters so even if they did give shit polls, the overall result is still "accurate" (Kamala not doing well)

Another thing mentioned, I didn't actually consider, but is super fucked up:

They're trying to divert Democratic funding away from states by making them appear like a lost cause through shitty polling. Talk about absolute fucking scumbags...

The last thing mentioned is also infuriating in that Magoos will see a tight race that shows Trump slightly ahead, but if he loses they use that as evidence it was stolen!? So what the fuck happened with Hillarys 95% chance to win then!? Was that stolen? Oh sorry, silly me thinking similar logic should be used in similar situations... It's just whatever fits your narrative that is the only real valid thing, of course of course.... Ffs..

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

Consider this: given two options,

  • 10 polls with no bias, weighted by only past performance
  • 20 polls, half biased, weighted by an arbitrary secondary metric to remove bias (which only trends the data towards an average)

Which do you suppose would be more reliable?

[–] sandwichsaregood 1 points 1 month ago

This is the paradox of polling, there's no way to tell. Either could be better, both could be wrong, both could be right. There is no such thing as a poll with no bias, because the only way to take a tryly unbiased poll is to know the outcome of the race a priori.