maryportfuncity 10,589 Posted Tuesday at 19:58 27 minutes ago, The Old Crem said: I don’t see the rally having any effect on voters. Everyone has already long decided who they voting for . More or less, though lately some who feel strong Puerto Rican identity seem to be having second thoughts! 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gcreptile 10,926 Posted Tuesday at 20:00 59 minutes ago, Mango said: Mine and Nate Silver's tells me that Trump wins relatively comfortably. I read that and was curiously comforted. Nate Silver's gut is a pretty good indication that the opposite will happen. If Nate Silver isn't dealing with numbers, he's terribly lost, like when he thought that Gavin Newsom might get recalled, or when he said that NYC mayor Eric Adams might be the future star of the Democratic Party. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mango 154 Posted Tuesday at 20:14 14 minutes ago, gcreptile said: I read that and was curiously comforted. Nate Silver's gut is a pretty good indication that the opposite will happen. If Nate Silver isn't dealing with numbers, he's terribly lost, like when he thought that Gavin Newsom might get recalled, or when he said that NYC mayor Eric Adams might be the future star of the Democratic Party. Except it isn't, since his gut feeling in 2020 was that Biden would win, which he did. His model has Trump at a 54% chance to win. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gcreptile 10,926 Posted Tuesday at 20:19 Just now, Mango said: Except it isn't, since his gut feeling in 2020 was that Biden would win. His model has Trump at a 54% chance to win. Not a comparable situation. There wasn't a single bit of doubt that Biden would win. And the 54% are nothing substantial. Nate himself keeps a race in the toss-up category if the win chance is below 60%. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
prussianblue 990 Posted Tuesday at 20:30 On 23/10/2024 at 22:46, prussianblue said: On that, worth quoting Silver/538: 'Still, a word of caution: You might be tempted to make a big deal about our forecast “flipping” to Trump, but it’s important to remember that a 52-in-100 chance for Trump is not all that different from a 58-in-100 chance for Harris — both are little better than a coin flip for the leading candidate. While Trump has undeniably gained some ground over the past couple weeks, a few good polls for Harris could easily put her back in the “lead” tomorrow. Our overall characterization of the race — that it’s a toss-up — remains unchanged.' From the distant past of 6 days ago. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mango 154 Posted Tuesday at 20:37 20 minutes ago, gcreptile said: Not a comparable situation. There wasn't a single bit of doubt that Biden would win. And the 54% are nothing substantial. Nate himself keeps a race in the toss-up category if the win chance is below 60%. He was the only forecaster who gave Trump more than a 1/4 chance to win in 2016. Clearly, his gut told him that Trump was being underestimated, and he was right. In all likelihood, he'll be right again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gcreptile 10,926 Posted Tuesday at 20:42 5 minutes ago, Mango said: He was the only forecaster who gave Trump a more than 1/4 chance to win in 2016. Clearly, his gut told him that Trump was being underestimated, and he was right. Yes, but that was not his gut, that was his actual model. I know that because I've been following him since 2008. As I said, he's good with the numbers, but terrible with the vibes, or his gut. In fact, his gut was more bullish on Clinton than his model: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-probably-finished-off-trump-last-night/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mango 154 Posted Tuesday at 21:21 38 minutes ago, gcreptile said: In fact, his gut was more bullish on Clinton than his model: Not a comparable situation. He's never been bullish about Trump. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gcreptile 10,926 Posted Wednesday at 04:01 6 hours ago, Mango said: Not a comparable situation. He's never been bullish about Trump. WTF?? Didn't we start this conversation because you said that Nate feels bullish about Trump? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mango 154 Posted Wednesday at 09:13 (edited) 8 hours ago, gcreptile said: WTF?? Didn't we start this conversation because you said that Nate feels bullish about Trump? No, I pointed out that it was his gut feeling. That's another thing entirely. @Toast If you read what I actually said, I never said he was bullish. Edited Wednesday at 12:46 by Mango 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gcreptile 10,926 Posted yesterday at 00:05 Harris leads in the highly regard Selzer poll of Iowa by 3 points: https://eu.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2024/11/02/iowa-poll-kamala-harris-leads-donald-trump-2024-presidential-race/75354033007/ Always the standard for the polling industry, everybody was waiting for this poll because the quality of the polling this year was not very good. As I mentioned in the previous page, pollsters have been polling very defensively, always giving ties or at most very small leads. Now, a couple of days ago, polling experts Nate Silver and Nate Cohn (of the NYT) joined the complaints: https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris-underestimate-polls-wrong-election-donald-trump-1979080 https://www.thedailybeast.com/nate-silver-cheating-pollsters-are-putting-finger-on-the-scale/ Ann Selzer's traditional Iowa poll is regarded as being above these concerns, because of its stellar track record. And this poll almost proves that lots of pollsters have been giving better results for Trump out of fear of being wrong (again). Instead, Harris might in fact be heading towards an Obama 2008-sized victory. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mango 154 Posted yesterday at 00:18 It's an obvious outlier. Trump leads by over 10 in the similarly highly-regarded Emerson poll. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gcreptile 10,926 Posted yesterday at 00:24 No, Emerson is not as highly regarded as Ann Selzer's polls. No other poll actually is. Besides, some people are already suspicious that this poll was released basically at the same time at the Selzer poll, supposedly conducted in the past two days. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mango 154 Posted yesterday at 00:31 Emerson has a higher rating on 538. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gcreptile 10,926 Posted yesterday at 00:33 Yeah, 2,9 vs 2,8... that's nothing. However, Iowa is Selzer's home market. This is THE poll for Iowa. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mango 154 Posted yesterday at 00:37 She's obviously not infallible. She had Kerry winning in 2004. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MortalCaso 1,618 Posted yesterday at 00:48 13 minutes ago, Mango said: She's obviously not infallible. She had Kerry winning in 2004. Do you live in the US? Did you have political interest pre-2020? @gcreptile is right about that Iowa poll. It will be all over traditional news outlets tomorrow... 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mango 154 Posted yesterday at 00:50 1 minute ago, MortalCaso said: Do you live in the US? Have you ever had political interest pre-2020? @gcreptile is right about that Iowa poll. It will be all over the traditional news outlets tomorrow... I've been following US politics for decades. It's literally one poll, and one that's already been contradicted by a highly rated pollster. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dimreaper 668 Posted yesterday at 01:03 On 29/10/2024 at 16:14, Mango said: Except it isn't, since his gut feeling in 2020 was that Biden would win, which he did. His model has Trump at a 54% chance to win. Deleted. Quoted outdated info. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RoverAndOut 4,694 Posted yesterday at 09:56 We can argue over which poll is more significant and why a 52% lead is better than a 58% lead until we're blue in the face, simple fact is it all ends on Tuesday and millions of ballots have already been cast. And, essentially, we know absolutely nothing about who is going to win. More than 60 million votes have already been cast, the election will essentially be decided in just 7 key states and Trump has lost the popular vote already twice over and still won one of those 2 elections. I worry that the trend seems to be slightly back in Trump's favour, and I still wonder if some of those key voters in the battlegrounds are prepared to vote for a woman. I think the two big polling unknowns are, rather than how many of their target voters they can get to the polls, how many independents and moderate Democrats are quietly intending to vote for Trump but not vocalising it due to the toxic political climate, but vice versa, how many Republicans in the privacy of the polling booth are going to decide that enough is enough, the circus has to end and they cannot continue to support someone actively destroying their party and so vote for someone other than Trump, safe in the knowledge nobody in their party will know. Whether either of those groups is enough to tip the scales I have no idea, but given lots of states may be decided by less than 100,000 votes, it could make the difference. We could have any result from a Harris blow out to a Trump blow out, or even a mythical tie. Nothing would surprise me anymore. But the idea of (at least) 4 more years of Donald Trump is terrifying to any sane, rational human being. 5 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Old Crem 3,544 Posted yesterday at 10:15 It’s just hard for me to see anything but Trump winning every state he did in 2016 plus Nevada. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Old Crem 3,544 Posted yesterday at 10:28 The NYT final polls are not particularly good for Harris but if they did some out all turn out to be accurate she would narrowly win. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mango 154 Posted yesterday at 14:16 4 hours ago, RoverAndOut said: But the idea of (at least) 4 more years of Donald Trump is terrifying to any sane, rational human being. The idea of (at least) 4 more years of Kamala Harris is terrifying to any sane, rational human being. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MortalCaso 1,618 Posted yesterday at 14:30 14 minutes ago, Mango said: The idea of (at least) 4 more years of Kamala Harris is terrifying to any sane, rational human being. Why? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mango 154 Posted yesterday at 14:55 26 minutes ago, MortalCaso said: Why? She's the American Liz Truss. 1 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
