this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2023
89 points (76.6% liked)

politics

18044 readers
3442 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A year away from Election Day 2024, former President Donald Trump is set to testify in a civil fraud trial and separately faces more than 90 criminal charges, setting up the possibility that a convicted felon tops the Republican ticket next November.

But it’s President Joe Biden’s political prospects that are plunging.

In another extraordinary twist to a 2024 campaign season that is more notable for court hearings than treks through early voting states, Trump is expected to be called to the witness stand in New York on Monday. This is hardly typical activity during a post-presidency. But Trump was, after all, the most unconventional president.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rustyfish 18 points 7 months ago (13 children)

You guys give a hoot about polls since 2016?

[–] Viking_Hippie 40 points 7 months ago (9 children)

Still talking about the Hillary polls?

The polls correctly predicted a high likelihood of her winning the popular vote. It's not the fault of the polls that the actual decider is an anti-democratic and unpollable system that disproportionately favors empty land over people.

[–] weedazz 10 points 7 months ago (4 children)

There were several models from sources like 538 that took the electoral map into account and still got it wrong. People didn't admit their cult membership back then, today they are afraid to hide it.

[–] AbidanYre 11 points 7 months ago

538 said Trump had about a 30% chance of winning.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

In what way did they "get it wrong?"

[–] Viking_Hippie 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

That's partly true. 538 in particular has a tendency to be overly sure of itself and too cute by half.

A lot of what they do includes much more educated guesswork than actual polling, though, so "538 got it wrong" ≠ "the concept of polling got it wrong"

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

I think you're mistaken about "getting it wrong" here. If a statistician says "Candidate A has a 99 % chance of winning", and the candidate loses, that doesn't mean the statistician was wrong, just that the improbable happened. If you have a repeatable experiment you can do the experiment many times to see if Candidate A wins 99% of the time, if they don't then the statistician is wrong.

Problem is: We can't do multiple, uncorrelated elections to test, so we can't ever disprove the statistician. What we can do, is look at a bunch of prior elections, the predictions made, and see if we prefer trusting the statistician over not trusting them.

I think if you look at a bunch of election results and predictions, and take confidence margins into account, that you'll find the statisticians are more often right than wrong. But you need to interpret the statistical predictions correctly.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)