While election almost certain to be decided by swing states, pollsters explain why growth in national polls is meaningful

While election almost certain to be decided by swing states, pollsters explain why growth in national polls is meaningful

🗳️ Register to vote: https://vote.gov/

  • paf0@lemmy.world
    48·
    25 days ago

    It only matters in the swing states. The ones where they’re trying to purge the voter registrations, sometimes successfully. The system is broken.

    • radiohead37@lemmynsfw.com
      4·
      25 days ago

      “There’s growing evidence to support a surprising possibility: [Trump’s] once formidable advantage in the electoral college is not as ironclad as many presumed. Instead, it might be shrinking,” Cohn argued.

      • ClanOfTheOcho@lemmy.world
        1·
        25 days ago

        I’m in a red state. I’m in a neighborhood with a lot of of retired Republicans. I don’t see a single Trump sign, but there is a growing count of Harris signs, including “Republicans for Harris.” ymmv

    • Ben Hur Horse Race@lemm.ee
      4·
      25 days ago

      kamala harris isn’t hillary, though. I heard a recording of myself from like 2005 and a someone was saying “yeah hillary clinton can unite people” and I said “…against her” and I barely cared about politics back then.

    • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      24 days ago

      Does no one remember Jame Comey, Director of the FBI, coming out just before the election and saying they were reopening the investigation regarding her email server?

      The polls were right, at the time.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      2·
      23 days ago

      Really? Because I remember:

      People learned the wrong lesson from 2016 polling.

      • lennybird@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        25 days ago

        Many of the keys are subject to arbitrary interpretation; Nate Silver criticized his process and arguably has a better probability model with more consistent accuracy across thousands of races somewhere around 90%. Key 2 was given to Biden despite the writing on the wall that 2/3 of Democrats wanted a contest both before and after the primaries. Key 3 Incumbency these days is more of a liability with both candidates distancing themselves. Key 9 Scandals have lost a lot of meaning in the Trump era.

        Should be noted that he gave a full-throated endorsement of Hillary Clinton… only to predict she’d lose. The thing is, he had originally referenced in two different publications ahead of that prediction that she would specifically lose the popular vote. She didn’t. He then changed his model.

        Also I’m not a fan of this guy because he belittled with insults those who called for Biden to step down… Despite not giving a prediction on Biden at the time.

        • FlowVoid@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          24 days ago

          arbitrary interpretation

          They aren’t as arbitrary as they seem, it’s just that the media don’t go into the full detail.

          For example, key 2 is actually “The candidate is nominated on the first ballot and wins at least two-thirds of the delegate votes”, which is clearly true

          Furthermore, the entire point of this method is that it ignores opinion polls. So it makes no difference whether the public actually wanted a primary contest or not. Likewise, it doesn’t matter whether scandals have “lost meaning”.

          • lennybird@lemmy.worldEnglish
            0·
            24 days ago

            His entire methodology is contingent on history repeating itself. But we know we live in times of historical firsts that defy extrapolation.

            With key 2 it’s less about the definition and more about the allotted weight of importance. Like, imagine if the DNC simply said that “we are unilaterally awarding all delegate votes to Biden and skipping a Primaries voting process for our Democratic voters.” Yes, the key would still be True, but would that mean jack shit? Not really. And again, Incumbency is more a liability when the incumbent President’s approval rating matches Jimmy Carter. His Charisma keys are another example of subjective interpretation and which itself is clearly reflective of opinion polls.

            For all our sake, I hope he’s right. But his prediction is just as if not more useless than the aggregation of A+ polls in moments of time that can actually adapt to changing circumstances, including things like impactful scandals, military success / failures, and social unrest.

            At the end of the day Perception is Reality; even if the economy is doing well in short and long-term on paper, we again unfortunately live in unprecedented times where that is not being felt by the actual people who are, you know, going to the ballot box.

            • FlowVoid@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              24 days ago

              His entire methodology is contingent on history repeating itself.

              Any prediction is based on history. Even pollsters believe the history of polling results before an election can predict how people will actually vote on election day.

              What people usually don’t realize about the “keys” is that they aren’t advocating some political position, like “incumbency is good”. It is more like a retrospective clinical study, where you look at a bunch of factors (smoking, exercise, TV watching, eye color) and see which ones best predict some outcome of interest (lifespan). If smoking has an association with lifespan and eye color doesn’t, then smoking is a predictor and eye color isn’t.

              It doesn’t matter if people don’t understand why smoking would affect lifespan. It doesn’t matter if people think eye color should be more predictive than smoking. It doesn’t matter if people think cigarettes today are not the same as they used to be, so smoking should no longer be a predictor for lifespan. Predictors are predictors until they actually fail to predict.

  • Phegan@lemmy.world
    6·
    24 days ago

    We need to win by a lot more than razor thin margins, republicans are going to try and steal this one.

  • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.worldEnglish
    6·
    24 days ago

    Yesterday, I saw a few of donnie’s loyalists standing out on a corner at a place with steady traffic, trying to get cars and pedestrians to honk/give them a thumb’s up. In the hot sun. No idea if they were paid or not. They were way up in years and probably could be doing almost anything else but that. But these people love dimbulb donnie, no matter how much of a disaster he’ll be. The worse off it is for the country, they’ll cheer it on, as long as they believe donnie is going to hurt the right people.

    Just made me look forward to filling out my ballot all the more. But definitely, everyone: go vote. Don’t believe the polls.

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    5·
    25 days ago

    Is that like rubber bands, it’s the same amount only stretched? Like we changed the scales on the graph to make it look bigger.
    Is it really normal to write like that headline in English? Because to me it sounds stupid.
    Seems increases would be the “normal” word to use.

    • A_A@lemmy.world
      2·
      25 days ago

      i agree but the title would become :
      “Harris stretches increases lead over Trump in what could be significant increase”
      … so then you have twice this same word in the title, which doesn’t sound so good.

    • makyo@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      25 days ago

      Semantics but I mean it does actually indicate more people polling for her instead of Turnip so it’s not stretching in that sense.

      I think they use that word because in American politics things are so polarized that it really feels like any gain really does seem like stretching the tiny group of people that can be won over like a rubber band.

    • Tired and bored@lemmy.world
      0·
      25 days ago

      As a non-american this scares me.

      What the fuck does Trump have to offer to the average citizen? He is basing his campaign on

      • tax cuts for the extra rich
      • iMmIgRaNtS (who Harris wants to stop anyways)
      • licking the ass of Putin and Nethanyau
      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        2·
        23 days ago

        So they believe that Democrats automatically means higher taxes for them, regardless of income level.

        Should you manage to get them to consider the taxation would only target the wealthy, they are afraid the wealthy class will fire them due to the loss of money. Similarly afraid that stronger worker protections would just lead to the jobs going away. They think the benefits achieved by Democrats favor cities and rural areas don’t see their moneys worth. Now they didn’t spend that much money on taxes and they do get great benefit, but they see the cities get bigger stuff and that leaves an impression.

        Speaking of jobs going away, they fear immigrants. Both on racist grounds and the general perceived increase in labor competition.

        Fewer arms to Ukraine because they see it as wasting money on a cause that has nothing to do with them. More arms to Israel because they are afraid of Muslims.

        Particularly dangerous as key people recognize this is a lot of people, but not the majority. So there’s a great fear that democratic voting means they would ultimately be marginalized. So they also are the party most inclined to game the vote however they can, mapping districts, limiting voting access, stalling absentee ballots.

  • Cyrus Draegur@lemm.eeEnglish
    2·
    24 days ago

    For fucks sake this should not be tight or close. It should be a gods damned CURB STOMP that destroys the Republican party for the rest of history DAMMIT.