It’s starting
-
-
So many people publicly criticizing a fascist just before he might come to power. I don't even know how evolution selected for such people. There's a good chance they'll all be in concentration camps in a few months, and they could have chosen so simply to avoid that fate - by simply not criticizing Trump. It's a wonder how they are the result of an unbroken chain of descendants.
Maybe they are just so courageous, that they accept the personal sacrifices they have made, in the name of truth, empathy, and democracy. I guess that must be it.
-
RCP just went Trump +.1 on the popular vote.
-
RCP just went Trump +.1 on the popular vote.
-
It’s not close, we just can’t be sure who is the beneficiary of the large polling error.
The lack of outlier polls kind of points yo the fact that something’s wrong.
-
@jon-nyc said in It’s starting:
Going for the photo finish.
Yeah… Looks like Tim Walz’s genetic code…
-
@George-K said in It’s starting:
All well within the margin of error. And I have a hunch it’s not going to be even close to the margin of error. I have no idea which way the error goes, though I think the increase in Republican registrations in swing states bodes well.
I don’t think Harris wins Georgia or NC…
-
https://www.natesilver.net/p/a-shocking-iowa-poll-means-somebody
Another such maverick is Ann Selzer of Selzer & Co. (Selzer and NYT/Siena are our two highest-rated pollsters.) As my former colleague Clare Malone wrote in 2016, Selzer — like NYT/Siena — has a long history of bucking the conventional wisdom and being right. In a world where most pollsters have a lot of egg on their faces, she has near-oracular status.
So Selzer’s new poll of Iowa tonight was highly anticipated by polling junkies, despite Iowa being unlikely to be a decisive state. In June, Selzer’s poll for the Des Moines Register showed Donald Trump with an 18-point lead over Joe Biden in Iowa — surprisingly big, even considering how much Iowa has trended red over the years. (It voted for Trump by 8 points in 2020.)
In September, her survey had Kamala Harris just 4 points behind Trump — considered an outlier at the time.
Her new poll? It shows the state trending even bluer, with Harris leading in Iowa 47-44.
I have been every so often looking at the virtualtout polling, which is based on betting markets, etc. referrenced here:
I dont see why VP Harris is showing a sudden increase in poll numbers. I still think that President Trump will win.
-
-
Wonder how much the NYT poll affected the graph?
-
@Jolly said in It’s starting:
Wonder how much the NYT poll affected the graph?
Click the link ... ol' Nate and his people tell you what polls most affected their last model update.
https://www.natesilver.net/p/nate-silver-2024-president-election-polls-model
-
@Horace said in It’s starting:
Paywall.
That parts not behind the paywall. Here’s a sheet with the influences for the National Popular Vote Count- https://static.dwcdn.net/data/6dLqU.csv
Here’s PA - https://static.dwcdn.net/data/uyZgi.csv
Michigan - https://static.dwcdn.net/data/p0MR1.csv
AZ - https://static.dwcdn.net/data/2TzV1.csv
NV - https://static.dwcdn.net/data/FwSWu.csv
NC - https://static.dwcdn.net/data/LW63I.csv
GA - https://static.dwcdn.net/data/zLfhh.csv
WI - https://static.dwcdn.net/data/PMbPp.csv
It’s all useless though. Either all the polls have for the first time in history gotten EVERYTHING absolutely correct (which has never happened once by even one pollster) or they are all very flawed and have p-hacked their polls to show a 50/50 shot. The fact that there are no outliers at all strongly indicate the latter.
I will lay out a moderate bottle of whiskey that the results are well outside the margin of error. 4% separation in the swing states or more.
