this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2024
-24 points (26.9% liked)

politics

18870 readers
3763 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
-24
Pennsylvania may be a problem for Harris (www.natesilver.net)
submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
14 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

AI Generated Summary (I've been expirimentign with it):

  • Kamala Harris had a tough day in the forecast despite gains in national polls.
  • She leads by 3.8 points nationally but has a 47.3% chance of winning the Electoral College.
  • The model adjusts for convention bounce, assuming her polls are inflated.
  • Harris’s numbers may improve if she maintains her current standing.
  • A concern is the lack of polls showing her ahead in Pennsylvania, a key state.
  • Recent polls show Pennsylvania as a tie or slightly favoring Trump.
  • Harris has a 17% chance of winning the popular vote but losing the Electoral College.
  • RFK’s dropout and endorsement of Trump may impact her in Rust Belt states.
  • Tim Walz has had a strong rollout as Harris’s VP, but there’s speculation about Josh Shapiro.
all 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Oh, Nate Silver? The guy who is a degenerate gambler who was gambling up to $10k a day while he was in charge of 538, and only took the shutdown as a sign he should back off... Not that he needed some serious self reflection for an obviously serious problem and that he failed his employees? That Nate Silver?

Nate Silver's new book makes clear he has a gambling problem, is obsessed with it, and isn't even as smart or clever as others who have written about it.

Bsky thread on the book: https://bsky.app/profile/davekarpf.bsky.social/post/3kzwvdiolld2a

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

Poll showing Harris winning: c/politics needs this!

Pot showing Harris behind anywhere: get this fascist garbage out of c/politics!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Current polling shows basically a tie.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/pennsylvania/

Which is an improvement from Trump +4/+5 vs. Biden.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

Undoubtedly Harris is an improvement compared to Biden.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

What AI summarizer are you using?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

I used M365's' Copilot. And I asked it to bullet point summarize the article's text.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

Confused. It says she has less than a 50/50 shot at winning the electoral college, but then "a 17% chance of winning the popular vote but losing the Electoral College"

I'm not a statistician, but what fucking math is showing any reasonable chance that Harris loses the popular vote? Because that's the only way that math checks out.

Electoral win: 0.473

Electoral loss: 1 - 0.473 = 0.527

Electoral Loss + Popular Win = 0.17

I can't lookup the formula right now, but this indicates that the chance of Harris losing the popular vote is significant

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

RCP has Harris at a 1.8% favorite in its polling average. At the beginning of this month Trump was winning in these polls (granted partially because of Biden's degraded mental state). So opinions could legitimately change.

Additionally, Kennedy is still at 4.5%, and generally 3rd parties support degrades the closer to the election it gets. It's difficult to say where that support will degrade to. If Trump's support falls to 1% and Trump takes 3% of that support, he'll be ahead in the polls.

Finally, all the national polls have a margin of error between 2-3%. It's just as possible that Harris is up by 4.8% as it is that she's down by 3.8%.

So the chance of Harris losing the popular vote is significant.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

Wasn't 2016 enough to show this fucking degenerate doesn't actually know what the fuck he's talking about?

He's too busy jerking off people like Peter Thiel and Marc Andreesen to be a serious commentator.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Not disputing the he’s an idiot, but 28% likelihood events happen about once out of every three times on average.

The image below is not direct an indication that he’s an idiot. That stuff that he writes in his book and that pours out of his mouth, yes, that’s another matter.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Yeah, I think people confuse win probabilities with polling percentages.

If a pollster predicted that ten races each had a Democratic win probability of 70%, and the Democrats won all ten of those races, that prediction would be wrong—as wrong as if the Republicans won six of the races.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

He (and the rest of 538, where he was at the time) were criticized at the time for giving Trump much better odds than most. They were still wrong, but less so than the rest.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

This sounds like conservatives who said Fauci was an idiot because he first said not to use masks, then to use masks all the time, then to use them if you are indoors or have a compromised immune system.

Making mistakes and correcting them with new data is a sign of intelligence not stupidity.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 weeks ago

The news source of this post could not be identified. Please check the source yourself. Media Bias Fact Check | bot support