Burnwinter i dont think polling is inherently bad, i think people just do not understand the basics of polling, and more specifically, probability and things like margin of error. a poll that has a margin of error of 5% that shows trump +1 could be anything from trump +6 to harris +4. thats a really broad range of outcomes. too many people only look at the top line number and dont understand the specifics. polling also is not really "scientific" when the core of your sample is derived from people answering a phone call from an unknown number in the year 2024
2024 US Election
mdgoonah41 Sure people are illiterate concerning estimation, but I think polling is also generally less accurate since the advent of the internet and especially social media. Sentiment is more volatile and less uniform than it was once.
Actually (at least in the US) sentiment has hardened. 49% of the vote will be democratic. 45% of the vote will be republican. So pollsters are trying to figure out what that remaining 6% will do. And these people are not "centrists." They're low information, low engagement, low probability voters. Who don't answer the phone and who don't tell the truth. But everyone else's mind was made up a long time ago.
RowJimmy agree with this. people are only undecided in the sense that they havent decided whether or not they are actually going to vote.
RowJimmy Interesting. What's your source?
Obsessively trying to understand how my country can be about to reelect a sociopath whose fascism is only tempered by his short attention span.
I read a lot of "how to understand the polling" stuff. I like Nate Cohn in the NYT. It's not my field, and my technical abilities in statistics are weak. But I think I've developed a better sense than most people of the fact that a 60% probability only differs from a coin flip if you get to repeat the exercise fifty times.
hoegan just ends up agreeing with his guests.
RowJimmy Fair enough. Of course polling numbers (eg "57 to 43 with a 5% margin of error") can't be transformed without further modelling into reliable election victory odds at all, and especially not in the US due to the madness that is the college system.
Burnwinter the term sometimes used is “calcification” to describe this hardebining of most of the electorate in one camp or the other.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/09/16/midterms-2020-election-polarization/
- Edited
Qwiss yep. peter thiel was on his show recently and he just nodded along with everything
, despite thiel being a conspiracy-tards wet dream. no questions about palantir or its CIA connections, nothing about his connections to JD Vance. he nibbled at Epstein stuff but seemed to back off once thiels sweat levels spiked. he doesn't really hammer his guests often
based on all the polls over the last week or so, and the scary reports about early voting in places like nevada, it looks like we are getting 4 more years of trump. not sure what will be left of this country after that, but i can virtually guarantee that dems will learn zero lessons, and they will actually move even further to the right than they already are. truly bleak, soul crushing stuff.
mdgoonah41 sorry.
everyday through this process, it's more apparent just how right-leaning the US is.
Not about leaning right or left it is about who the Democrats put forward. Democrats have known for years Biden should not stand again but buried their heads in the sand and only pushed him out when it was too late. I think that error has cost them the election.
The fact it is so close even with Kamala shows this election was winnable for the Democrats. Barring a miracle she is probably going to lose and imo the main reason for that is because she comes across as incompetent. The fact she got knocked out so early in voting 4 years ago I think shows the Democrat voters don't really like her but she has been forced upon them.