this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
92 points (81.1% liked)

politics

30994 readers
1994 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 50 points 2 years ago (3 children)

In 2022, Dem strategist Simon Rosenberg flatly asserted that there would be no "red wave" and the Dems would overperform expectations.

Nate Silver said the only way Rosenberg could come to that conclusion was that he'd been ingesting "hopium."

Rosenberg was right. Silver was wrong (though he'll die before admitting it).

Then Rosenberg started The Hopium Chronicles, which I suggest you read

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Party strategists always say their party is going to do well. It’s part of their job. I don’t think this is particularly meaningful, unless you think there’s some particular methodology he has access to that’s better than Silver’s.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

His methodology was better since he was right and Silver was wrong.

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This is a perfectly succinct, textbook example of Outcome Bias.

Betting $1 with a 1 in 3 chance to win $2 is objectively a bad idea; the odds are against you. It doesn't cease to be a bad idea if you happen to win the $2 after 1 bet.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 14 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Lol no that’s not how any of this works. If I flip a coin and correctly pick the outcome in 2024 will you start paying me to forecast elections?

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Dem strategists are either stupid or malicious.