His model and 538s have both produced outcomes where one candidate gets 520+ EVs.
He assigns the quality ratings to polls himself and publicly announces them. They’re based on whether or not they predicted the outcome of the election.
It’s his very poll scoring system that causes polls to herd. Because even if they’re wrong, they’re wrong together.
He determines the weights of those polls and chooses how to apply them.
Nate has done plenty.
This dude thinks EVERYONE is thinking what he’s thinking and we just don’t say it out loud. He thinks ANY of us are one drunk post away from spewing the same garbage. In his mind he’s just guilty of posting under the influence because of that.
This is a junk comment. She’s the VP, so what you’re suggesting is that she just try and take control she doesn’t have right now. Either you’ve got no idea what you’re talking about or you’re just talking shit.
Yeah, it’s a terrible strategy for a number of reasons. The big one isn’t even that they can’t be courted - they CAN. It’s just that the thing that courts them isn’t “we can be really Republican, too!” - it’s actually progressive policy.
It turns out that being stridently pro-worker, pro-healthcare, pro-education, pro-small business, and pro-social safety are all incredibly popular stances with broad support. Time and time again, openly supporting these things draws Republican support. The noise that emerges online and in the outrage merchant pundit class is just that - noise, made up to try and steer the conversation.
Which is the big risk to doing any of this pro-worker stuff - it’s mostly about Fox News or the talk show host nutjobs branding it as evil and starting a propaganda war about it, and the rest of the media world just following along like insipid stenographers.
It’s a branding war, basically, the Overton window doesn’t need to shift further right at all.
She’s repeatedly said that she wants a ceasefire, and even said she’s trying to help press for one right now. Literally one rally after the one you’re talking about she paused her talk during a protest and spoke about it to talk about driving for a ceasefire, before resuming the rally.
There’s only so much that is going to happen during a campaign. I understand a degree of general mistrust for politicians overall, but it’s honestly out of her hands unless she gets elected.
Meanwhile the other guy is definitely pro genocide. No room for doubt at all there.
“Unilaterally halt 70 years of treaties, force a foreign country to obey your will, seize unlawful control of our military, and do it all in a few weeks while campaigning, all as VP” is quite the tall order to all of anyone just in exchange for votes that, let’s be honest, you weren’t going to give anyway.
If you’re going to threaten to stand aside and allow someone way worse to take over, and those are your criteria, then this is just online noise you’re making and not genuine at all.
If you’re looking for something less, such as statements - she’s made them. They’re pretty clear about being about stopping the genocide. So even in that direction, if it isn’t enough, then again this is just online noise you’re making, and not genuine at all.
You just don’t care.
The really optimistic-for-Harris forecast I’ve cited a few times has even odds for Harris and Trump on NC. Basically if we don’t see huge turnout numbers it’s Trump’s. The best we can hope for is that Robinson really, really put people off of voting.
According to some of the forecasts I’ve seen that suggest a strong chance for a Harris win (as in, 77% chance) she only has a 3% chance to turn FL blue. So, not really plausible, but there are a few scenarios that see her winning it.
Yeah, every time I wind up looking deeply at polls I find more questions than answers. I recognize they’re a snapshot of a segment, not representative of the whole segment but sort of a sampling of it.
For example, the 3 polls there from Franklin, and the 4 from Morning Consult: the same methodology and around the same sample size, conducted at the same time frame. Each poll with different outcomes from their sample set.
I also recognize that as long as X% are “undecided”, the poll can’t really show anything other than trend motions. And these polls are actually kind of static. Like if you plot them all out, they don’t seem to have an upper or downward trend trajectory.
It’s frustratingly ambiguous stuff.
Oh shoot, sorry, I meant 18-29. The groups are:
It’s worth mentioning that these groups are not equal! 18-29 is usually a very low representation, where 40-49 is pretty big, and 50-64 / 65+ are huge.
Watching early vote exit polls is kind of a tough game to play prognosticator on, but it begins to give us a sense of what the polls mean, because the info is a lot more concrete than polls. Basically, polls have a segment of responses that are undecided, meanwhile exit polls don’t. The idea as I understand it is that you can contrast exit polls with polls in order to discern what that undecided vote really seems to be breaking for.
In 2016, that undecided segment broke hard for Trump. It hasn’t in any election since.
Here’s what exit polls so far say about Trump (vs 2020) and Harris (vs Biden & Obama):
Obviously, again, exit polls are subject to swings and changes over time and so it’s all contingent on this continuing, but right now the early votes exit polls are at severe contrast with the aggregators. Like, embarrassingly severe.
One remaining thing from the exit polls worth mentioning - the last minute surge of support for Trump in 2020 was largely because the Republican leadership was stalwart in telling everyone to vote only on election day. That isn’t happening this year, though, which means that Republicans aren’t going to be able to expect the same kind of last-minute surge this year. Meanwhile, the opposite seems true for Harris: a lot of early votes for Harris are first time voters or infrequent voters, and not from the pool of 2020 early voters.
So, at this point the early vote is around 40m, or 25% of total votes in 2020. In order to get back to the “surprising Trump upswell” that we’re all worried about, this trend would have to not only stop, but AGGRESSIVELY reverse course. Either that or all the exit polls are horribly wrong.
What actions does that involve? Which treaties would that break? Which other treaties can we then be ready for others to assume we’ll break? How will we respond to that in a way that prevents cascading trust collapse? Is there any way to guarantee to other allies that we won’t turn on them when expedient? How can we guarantee peace is even on the table if we’re suddenly regarded by the whole world as a betrayer? As even less reliable than we’ve already become?
One of the options is “unilaterally subject another country to our will”. I take it that’s what you want?
You’re not going to jab me into thinking you’re contributing in good faith. You aren’t. There’s only a few reasons to dig at Harris and Democrats for something an entirely different country is doing.
None of them are good. None help those we do have the power to help. None deescalate.
Worse, you use the lives of those we can’t help as shelter to make your horrid stance against those we can help seem like it’s somehow a bad choice.
It’s awful. I can’t imagine how you got there, and I don’t want to.
It only comes up with Harris because you don’t care as much about the genocide as much as you do about scoring political points. It’s horrible of you.
I don’t think “kill fewer people” is splitting hairs. I think it’s gross to leverage Palestine for political points but only against Democrats.
Bezos is rich and we enshrine that in a lot of ways in the US, but it’s irrelevant to someone like Putin, who’s demonstrated time and time again his willingness to kill billionaires. The reality here is that Bezos is just a person and he can be a coward, and still command media empire. And right now there’s a lot for him to be afraid of.
Unfortunately the election isn’t about whether or not the USA stops supporting Israel. There is no vote for that.
It’s about whether or not you want USA to be doing what it’s doing right now under control of people who will dialog with you about it (Democrats) vs. people who are just waiting for a chance to annihilate you entirely so you’ll shut up and they can get more real estate (Republicans).
I think we might actually agree more than you imagine - I also think Harris is doing pretty damn amazing right now, and I also think it looks good for her.
I’m not suggesting the forecasts for things like the amendments were correct, they definitely missed, and hard. I’m saying they were wrong because they took in a lot of clearly biased inputs.
There were other polls that actually had a lot of this data in them, and showed a clear lean in the odds post-Roe. However, these polls were being weighted by aggregators against stuff like Rasmussen, and Trafalgar, which are absolute trash. The forecasters were applying weights they themselves invented to these polls and including the trash data, meaning it was trash data AND it was deliberately turned into something that biased the sample set towards a middle average.
What I’m saying is that cutting that chaff out of the results, and then being realistic about what a “+2 margin” means (it’s actually pretty good) results in a wholly different picture than the aggregators are giving us. One where Harris is more or less the clear pick.
Anyway, having said all that - it really, really does come down to turnout on this one. Trump’s base doesn’t really falter, and it’s around 65m votes every time. That can get flooded out but not without people showing up.
This seems to me like a signal that Democrats are formally cementing as a conservative / neoliberal party. Which makes sense. I guess maybe the upside is that maybe it will carve out room for an adjacent political body to the left as well, sort of like what happened with the tea party.