She needs better than +2% (typically) to beat the EC bias.
this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2024
191 points (98.5% liked)
politics
19138 readers
3318 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
AND HERE THEY COME DOWN THE FIRST CORNER, IT'S TRUMP BY A NOSE WITH HARRIS CLOSING THE GAP
OH MERCY ALL OUR FREEDOMS AND THE FUTURE OF THE DEMOCRATIC EXPERIMENT ARE ON THE LINE! AND IT'S HARRIS MOVING UP NECK AND NECK! WHAT AN EXCITING RACE LIKE AND SUBSCRIBE
Me in Jan 2016: "This election ought to be interesting. Hope we can do better than Obama, if at all possible."
Me in July 2024:
Come on Harris, come on Harris... poppa needs a new filling!
I figured she was OK because she is obviously better than the Trump MAGA weirdness. And I figured she would have better chance of winning than Biden.
But honestly she has been quickly gaining a lot beyond that on me, Harris is actually quite good IMO on any political view she has mentioned since Biden withdrew.
Also some of the old smear against her, has been thoroughly debunked, I really hope she wins.
It's been a week. I'd have been shocked if she was ahead already. Some of the polls in this aggregate were even taken before Biden stepped down, for Christ's sake.
The momentum is going in the right direction, but there is still a lot of work to be done. She has had a fairly quiet Vice Presidency, while Trump is a household name. It's a good thing she's gotten all those campaign fund donations, because she's going to need them.
She polls a head. He polls a head. There are inherent problems with polling and sample bias.
But good. Grab him by the polling girl.
That's exactly what I came to say. It's kind of annoying honestly, every other article is "Trump ahead" "Kamal ahead" "Trump leads!" "Kamala gains on Trump!" Like wtf
What they don't tell people is that the margin of error is like 6% for these polls, everything within that margin is up to interpretation.
But good. Grab him by the polling girl.
According to Stormy, there's not much to grab by.
This comment could mushroom.
The gambling markets shift enormously as elections approach and people start worrying about their money. In 2020, they were consistent for a long time that Trump would win, then shifted to match reality late in the election.
Especially this early in Kamala Harris' run, I wouldn't pay much attention to the gamblers.
Well if Nate Silver says so!
He posted an essay on the topic a while back. He gets a lot of shit for getting things wrong using the same data everyone else was using and who also got things wrong; I think the second time, he really started to look into the problems with polling and, in particular, how other predictors were performing.
He was unfortunately the face of the polling failures in 2016, but he's a first class statistician. People easily forget part of the reason he was so vilified is because, until 2016, 538 was the reliable source for predictions, which speaks as much to how good he is as the subsequent failures. Something went really wrong with polling in the mid-2010s.
Something went really wrong with polling in the mid-2010s.
It became much easier to ignore pollster calls. People were dropping land lines entirely, and gained the capability of automatically ignoring unknown callers. When I was younger, if the phone rang, you answered it. Voice calls simply don't carry that kind of importance with younger generations, so the respondents to pollsters are going to skew towards older people (and probably some other demographics).
The problem with cold-call polling is that the respondents are necessarily "people who answer the phone for an unknown caller" and then "actually interact with that caller." How do you weight your polling to consider the opinions of people you cannot get responses from?
The lack of FCC enforcement has virtually made it a necessity. I get anywhere between 8-12 scam calls a day, and it'd be more if I actually answered them. I use the google call screener these days, but yeah, if I answered ever unknown call, I'd go barking mad.