Is this graph even realistic? The only way it makes sense is if they poll the same voters over and over again that keep switching sides for whatever reason. I don’t think a realistic polling graph would have such a defined pattern.
this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2024
1 points (51.2% liked)
politics
19096 readers
3216 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
Polls don’t just keep asking the same people — they sample different groups to reflect the broader electorate, which is constantly evolving. People change their minds based on new information, campaign events, and media coverage. Suggesting that the graph isn’t "realistic" because it shows fluctuations is naive. Voters aren’t locked into their decisions months in advance, and it’s ridiculous to expect a smooth, static line. Polling is supposed to capture the fluid nature of public opinion. The fact that you think a realistic graph shouldn’t show this ebb and flow shows a complete misunderstanding of both polling methods and voter behavior. The defined patterns you’re questioning are exactly what you should expect in a competitive, dynamic election.
You misunderstood my comment. My exact problem with the graph is that its 2 mirrored lines. You’re right people change their minds all the time. The data from the graph suggests that as 1 person shifted to from trump, they went to Kamala and vice versa. That wouldn’t be the case unless they polled the same group of people over the year.
A trend of the same sample of people is meaningless over the course of a year. All this graph shows is this group of people are undecided voters and will continue to be undecided going into November.
Edit: didn’t realize this graph is a model and doesn’t reflect any polling. It’s a meaningless graph.
The lines don't show popular vote, but chance to win. And either Trump or Harris is going to win, so p(Harris) = 1 - p(Trump). The lines must mirror each other. Since polls always have uncertainties and current events influence voting behaviors, of course the exact percentages fluctuate.
Your response shows that you’re still fundamentally misunderstanding how polling models and graphs work. The mirrored lines don’t imply that the exact same people are shifting back and forth between Trump and Harris. Polling aggregates track the broader electorate, not individuals, and as different groups are polled, the graph reflects overall trends in public sentiment. It’s not about a fixed sample of people being tracked throughout the year.
When one candidate rises while the other falls, it doesn’t mean voters are just switching between the two in a perfect one-to-one ratio—it shows that overall support for each candidate is fluctuating as a result of multiple factors, including undecided voters making up their minds, shifts in enthusiasm, and reactions to campaign events. You seem to be imagining this graph as a static sample over time, but it’s capturing a much larger and more fluid electorate. Reducing it to just a few undecided voters misses the entire point of tracking these dynamics across the country.
Claiming that this graph “just shows undecided voters” is a massive oversimplification and shows a lack of understanding about how public opinion tracking works. This isn’t about a small group flipping back and forth; it’s about broader shifts in voter sentiment that polling aggregates are designed to capture.
I am a millennial democrat—I have been polled once and I didn’t respond to the text because 1) I didn’t like the tone of how it was written and 2) assume any unbidden text is a phishing attempt.
That 'momentum' is voter apathy starting since Harris moved her campaign to the right to court the ever elusive centrist voters. Imagine the lead if she doubled down on Walz' popular policies instead of Biden's unpopular policies.
You get downvoted for it, but it's absolutely true. She had a real opportunity to distinguish herself from Biden, and for a brief moment I thought she would. Then she shifted to the right to draw in centrists.
Users here can stick their heads in the sand all they want, but like with the Clinton campaign, it won't change the election outcome.
She's handing Trump the race by imitating Biden. I say this as someone who will likely vote for her anyway: this is becoming a disaster for her. She cannot afford to lose Muslim voters in Michigan, and the continued bleeding of Hispanic voters spells even longer-term problems for the party.
Definitely. If Harris loses, it's entirely on her campaigning strategy. I won't blame the voters. She has had every opportunity to advocate for popular policies that would significantly boost her support and galvanize more voters. Especially on Israel Palestine.
Trump is historically unpopular. His approval rating has stayed steady for years. Even multiple assassination attempts didn't move the needle, unlike every other instance in American history. People don't like Trump. But there are only so many voters that will go out of their way to vote for not-Trump.
Walz is a great example of how people respond to popular progressive policies that can meaningfully improve their lived experience. So is Bernie, he's still popular for even Republican voters, because even they can recognize how those policies like Medicare for All, Raising Minimum Wage, and investments in public services will improve their lives.
Hey @[email protected], you seem like someone that might have a good perspective on a question I have. While I've always noticed a habit of people to down vote news they don't like on Lemmy, I feel as though there has been a lot more of this occurring in the last, say, two weeks around election news.
Anything that seems to indicate bad news for Harris or is critical of democrats tends to get rapidly buried, often with little engagement. I worry this is symptomatic of a broader denialism on the left/Harris wing, and that it might lead to another election where people are caught by surprise by something that was a very plausible possibility the whole time.
Since you see a lot more posts than I do week in and week out, does that phenomenon seem to be intensifying over the last week or two, or have I just been noticing it more and it's always been happening?
Oh, it's been going on long before now. Negative news about Biden and Biden polling was being buried before, that didn't really stop until his train wreck of a debate performance.
Who did the burying?
On this site? Users of Lemmy in denial of her alienation of voters. She started strong and then pissed all of that good will away by announcing she's just going to be a continuation of the Biden Israel policy.
And before anyone says "oh, the Biden administration is pushing for a ceasefire". Nobody takes that seriously. You can't push for a ceasefire and rhetorically and materially enable the annihilation of Gaza and the invasion of Lebanon. Any ceasefire proposals are performative.
The hive mind, mass downvotes and reports.
This you fam?
Yup! That's me! Ozma was out of line and repeatedly warned.
Another interpretation of the situation is that through the suppression of a point of view, that while unpopular, was objectively true; ultimately does have an editorial impact on what conversations do or do not happen. So when it comes to "the hive mind, mass downvotes and reports", you quite literally made an editorial decision to suppress a particular point of view. Nothing Ozma was posting was out of line, but you took editorial issue with his posts and banned him.
That editorial moderation literally curated a culture of "the hive mind, mass downvotes and reports", that poisons this forum to today, and has furthered a discussion culture which is dismissive/ in-denial of objective reality when it disagrees with their personal sentiment.
For better or for worse, you are the leader of this space. And I do see your logic in why you thought what you were doing was appropriate. However, a leader is ultimately responsible for outcomes.
You can say what you want about @[email protected], and you'll have no concerns about doing so, but I consider him to be a very careful and judicious moderator. I don't always agree with him, but he would be very, very low on my list of troubling moderators. I would even say that he's a moderator that honestly tries to hold himself to a fairly consistent standard. He also explains himself readily if asked. You might disagree with his decisions or opinions, but I generally take him in good faith because he's also very consistent in his moderation.
This comment is taking a very simplistic and, frankly, cheap shot at blaming one moderator for the collective behavior of an entire community. Moderation isn't some magical lever that controls the thoughts and actions of thousands of people, yet the you try to pin the rise of "the hive mind, mass downvotes, and reports" squarely on one person's decision -- as though this behavior isn't broadly distributed in society as a whole. It completely overlooks the natural evolution of any online forum, where people tend to form echo chambers, not because a moderator is pushing buttons behind the scenes, but because that’s just how group dynamics tend to work over time. Blaming it on a single moderater is an easy, surface-level explanation that ignores that fact.
A moderator’s role is to ensure conversations follow the rules and don't spiral out of control, not to curate the perfect philosophical debate. Forums are shaped by their users as much as, if not more than, by their moderators. People downvote what they disagree with, reports happen because of collective sentiment, not because one person is playing puppet master behind the scenes. The real issue isn't a ban or a moderator’s leadership—it's the way communities tend to self-regulate and often become more insular on their own.
I think every thing you said is very fair and generally accurate.
I disagree specifically with what I consider a major moderation decision.
A decision from which you've concluded that it "literally curated a culture of 'the hive mind, mass downvotes and reports', that poisons this forum to today, and has furthered a discussion culture which is dismissive/ in-denial of objective reality when it disagrees with their personal sentiment."
That seems pretty unlikely, don't you think?
Yes, Trump appears to have momentum, but it also appears to be a phantom momentum driven by right leaning polling organizations.
https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/the-hungry-harris-campaign-early?utm_source=publication-search
"I now count 27 Republican or right-aligned entities in the polling averages:
American Greatness, Daily Mail, co/efficent, Cygnal, Echelon, Emerson, Fabrizio, Fox News, Insider Advantage, McLaughlin, Mitchell Communications, Napolitan Institute, Noble Predictive, On Message, Orbital Digital, Public Opinion Strategies, Quantus, Rasmussen, Redfield & Wilton, Remington, RMG, SoCal Data, The Telegraph, Trafalgar, TIPP, Victory Insights, Wall Street Journal.
In September 12 of the 24 polls of North Carolina were conducted by red wave pollsters. Check out the last 4 polls released in PA on 538. All are red wavers."
Amazing. Thank you for your hard work!
a few things.
Nate Silver is not fivethiryeight. Silver Bullets is a totally different thing. Nate departed fivethiryeight over contract issues years ago. Since then their models have gone off the rails.
Second, you are fooling yourself if you ignore the reality that Harris has lost all momentum and is backsliding. It's in all the polling data, and when Nate references high quality polls, none of them vary significantly from the aggregate. Even Quinipiac shows her on her heals.
Third, almost none of those polls (that you mentioned) are used in Nates analysis. I think Fox and Trafalgar and TIPP, but that's it.
So like, conflating 538 with Nate Silver is an issue. I mean 538 had Biden at 60% to win when he was polling at 38%. Don't get rely on 538 for anything. Also, there is no significant differences between the so called RW pollsters and everyone else among high quality polls. I can drop that analysis for for you.
Reality is that Harris bungled the campaign thinking she could claim the center and this would motivate voters. America is divided as ever and no one is changing sides. Harris isn't in a race against Trump and she never has been. She's always been racing against apathy and the couch, and her rightward shift during and after the convention are what people will see in hindsight as obvious mistakes.
There are still two weeks left. But she blew off Muslim and ME voters early on. And now she's struggling with black and brown voters who are the apartheid that Palestinians live under as commiserate with their lives experience. I just don't see how she wins with effectively a prozionist foreign policy in today's political atmosphere. And it may only be 3-5% of typically democratic voters who are moved in that issue, but that's more than enough to lose this election, and it's been a clear signal in the data since the first or second week of September.
If Harris doesn't distance her self from the foreign policy disaster which has been the administrations support for Israel, I don't see her pulling this one out.
I don't see disagree about what you said regarding the polls, but by that same token, the fact that they are in a virtual tie should read to you she has a way to win just as she is.
Harris needs to be +5 in the aggregate of national polling to be tied. Her being in a virtual tie, is her losing badly. This is just established fact as a function of the American electoral system.
The polling in question is based on electoral math.
If only there was a prominent issue she could change on that would net a +5 swing in her favor...
If only there were some block of voters, who are still "uncommitted", that she could offer a concession to get them to commit...
This is part of the plan, to induce doubt. "We couldn't possibly have lost a fair election! We were ahead!"
Hopefully.
He makes a pretty convincing case for both the idea that "momentum" is kind of meaningless, but also that Trump slowly gaining for the last 30 days is not. Part of what pushed it over the line (Silver is quick to point out that 49.8 and 50.2 is basically meaningless like the difference between a 49th and 50th birthday; we like round numbers) is the Fox News poll.
As he demonstrates, there is no detectable right-wing bias in Fox News polling despite the obvious bias of their news reporting. I can't speak to the others, but I'm not ready to dismiss all polls based on the political identification of the organization, if the polling is of high quality.
My gut tells me Trump is going to pull this out somehow. But, then again, my gut literally has shit for brains.
My personal opinion is that it's going to be far closer than anyone is really comfortable with.
I mean, look at 2020... BOTH candidates got more votes than any other candidate in history. 74 million people out of 330 million voted for Trump. 22.4% of the entire population went "Yeah, he looks good!"
Reminds me of that comedy video with the dude in a hospital bed who can't decide between having a surgeon or a clown do his life-saving surgery (spoiler: he chooses the clown because he's something different and he felt hospitals need that).
The news source of this post could not be identified. Please check the source yourself. Media Bias Fact Check | bot support