90
submitted 3 days ago by cyd@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] TheDannysaur@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

ITT: People not understanding probabilistic forecasts.

Nate Silvers models are not perfect, but pretty close. You can do retro analysis on them to see. If someone with a 5% chance to win actually does win, that doesn't mean the model was wrong... That just needs to actually happen only 5% of the time.

Getting elections"wrong" as people are talking about here shows they don't really know how these models work. If you haven't looked at the retrospective analysis on these results, then you are likely unqualified to declare that they are useless or wrong.

[-] rodneylives@lemmy.world 17 points 2 days ago

Remember, Nate Silver predicted that Hillary Clinton would win in 2016, and when Trump won instead, it was chalked up to the fact that it really was a random chance.

Don't panic about this. Keep quiet and keep doing the work to get Trump thrown out. And charge your mental health bills to the Democrats, for putting up an old man up for election in 2020, one who's even older than Trump, in the first place.

[-] tko@tkohhh.social 11 points 2 days ago

I don't remember him predicting that she would win. His model (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/) gave her a 71% chance of winning. 71% is a long way from 100%, and the result of that election definitely fit within the model.

That said, you are absolutely correct... we need to keep shining a light on the realities of each of these candidates, because in the light of day Biden is a much better choice than Trump.

[-] butwhyishischinabook@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yeah, his model gave her less of a chance than most others and their podcast constantly, over and over, warned people that this means Trump wins three elections if you run it ten times. People who wrote 538 off because it didn't call the election for Trump are some of the dumbest mouthbreathers you'll run into.

[-] Lasherz12@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

Which would make it a more extreme position than his position in this election, so the point stands.

[-] tko@tkohhh.social 6 points 2 days ago

I agree... I was simply clarifying that Nate Silver did NOT predict that Hillary would win (nor is he predicting that Trump will win this election), which is a common misunderstanding about probability. For these types of models to be meaningful to the public, there needs to be literacy on what is meant by the percentages given. Really, I'm just reinforcing rodneylives' point from another angle!

[-] Zink@programming.dev 4 points 2 days ago

Iirc, didn’t he give Trump a much higher chance of winning than other outlets, even though it was still a small chance compared to Hillary?

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

Yeah well there was also that nice October surprise. Prediction models don't work well with stuff like that.

[-] randon31415@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Is that a 65% chance of a Trump electoral college or popular vote victory? I think last time it predicted that Hillary would win the popular vote. Then she did.

[-] tko@tkohhh.social 2 points 1 day ago

It was not a prediction of victory... it was a 71% chance of winning the electoral college. Said another way, they gave her a 29% chance of losing.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

[-] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 76 points 3 days ago

Trump does still lead in our national average — however narrowly. But the bigger problem for Biden though is that elections in the United States aren’t determined by the popular vote.

That's a problem for all of us. If the president were elected by popular vote, Trump would never have been president.

[-] kescusay@lemmy.world 50 points 3 days ago

Neither would George W. Bush. Republicans have won the popular vote only once in the last 32 years, and that was Bush as the incumbent in 2004 - which wouldn't have happened had Gore been the incumbent.

This is a center-left country, with an election system that gives extreme right-wingers oversized influence.

[-] anticolonialist@lemmy.cafe 1 points 1 day ago

This far from being a left center country.

[-] kescusay@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

The left is larger than the right, here. How does that make it not a center-left country? We're sure as hell not a right-wing country, and much of our government is an accident of antiquated and stupid systems, not a true reflection of the people.

[-] Turun@feddit.de 1 points 1 day ago

The election system distorts the vote quite dramatically in the US, that's true.

However, depending on where you're from left has quite a different meaning from what Americans mean when they say left. E.g. the Democrats don't want to dismantle capitalism or expropriate real estate companies (the city of Berlin seriously looked into this option). Center left has a similar shift in meaning in other countries.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 49 points 3 days ago

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

[-] ikidd@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Dem strategists are either stupid or malicious.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] ptz@dubvee.org 68 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I just put together a model, and it predicts a 77% chance of the Hamburgler winning in 2024.

Go vote. That's the only thing that matters.

[-] Delusional@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

Well if we could only fix the voting system..

Republican voters are wildly over represented.

[-] rbesfe@lemmy.ca 47 points 3 days ago

Young people don't answer polling calls, and I'm personally expecting the highest under 30 vote turnout ever. No one can predict where this will go.

[-] noisefree@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

I agree that polling has been off the last several cycles because it skews older and with that in mind I am asking out of sincere interest - what leads you to expect record turnout in the under-30 demographic?

[-] Today@lemmy.world 18 points 3 days ago
[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago

Vote or die!

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Nomecks@lemmy.ca 35 points 3 days ago

Nate's predictions turned to crap in 2018 and never came back. Polls don't work anymore and Nate is handicapping trash.

[-] Donebrach@lemmy.world 28 points 3 days ago

Got a text the other day to demand my support for Biden by completing a poll via some suspicious shortened link. Might’ve been legit, more likely a phishing attempt. The wording of it just made me think of the “Trade offer” meme.

Didn’t respond. If this is how pollsters operate they’re gonna be out of business within a decade (should be already) or just continue to get skewed results from braindead fools who click on suspicious links and also vote for blatantly unfit, deranged and dangerous candidates.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago

I've gotten two texts from two different numbers claiming I'm not registered to vote. Which is weird, because I voted in a primary a couple months back. So I checked my state's voter registration and I'm still there, still getting a mail-in ballot like I asked.

I did a bit of forensics on the links but they just redirect to a GCE instance that returns a 500 error, and the domain registration is anonymized so I can't get any info there. But I'm worried a lot of people are clicking a link that might take them off the voting rolls.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 33 points 3 days ago

Nate Silver has gotten weird in the past few years.

[-] triptrapper@lemmy.world 19 points 3 days ago

He's always been a fake. Claims to be "just calling balls and strikes" but actually has a center-right agenda. He had a good parlay in 2008 and people have been treating him like a sorcerer ever since.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago

Nathaniel Read Silver (born January 13, 1978) is an American statistician, writer, and poker player who analyzes baseball, basketball, and elections

Baseball, basketball, and elections. Sure.

[-] AsherahTheEnd@lemmy.world 21 points 3 days ago

I am legitimately scared for my safety with the upcoming election. I'm trans and if Trump tries to take my HRT away I will end my life. It would be the final straw so to speak. I will not be forced to live a lie.

[-] aodhsishaj@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago

2016 was dire, but Nate Silver is often wrong. Polling as it is done today is unreliable at best, and outright lies at worst.

Vote locally, build support networks and hopefully we can weather whatever comes.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 23 points 3 days ago

Same models from 2008-2020, at this point in the cycle, it had Hillary winning, and Biden winning, both by a decent margin.

I think it depends what the campaigns do with this information. Coast, or fight harder?

Vote vote vote. (Just once though).

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] just_another_person@lemmy.world 20 points 3 days ago

Nate Silver hasn't been correct since 2008, and I think that was the only time.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 11 points 3 days ago

Half credit for not giving Hillary the 97% chance everyone else and their dog did. But that’s it.

[-] MagicShel@programming.dev 20 points 3 days ago

I think there is a lot this fails to capture because certain things are unprecedented. Michigan's GOP is in utter disarray and it isn't the only one. And overturning Roe v Wade has energized the left and disillusioned whatever center remains.

Now these facts are baked into the polling already, so obviously that's a big concern, but I believe this means polling is too far right across the board. I think who makes up likely voters has shifted. RvW drew in younger voters and I think now that they are engaged they will remain so.

Time will tell. I've seen far less Trump support this year than I did in 2020, which yeah is anecdotal, but I think it's an indicator. Of course, even if I'm correct, Michigan isn't going to carry the election alone, and it looks like the rest of the rust belt is further to the right.

[-] LovingHippieCat@lemmy.world 11 points 3 days ago

Silver's model will only actually matter once voting starts. Until then he may as well be a poll aggregator. Which, if the polls are flawed, then his aggregation and model will be flawed.

[-] FunderPants@lemmy.ca 11 points 3 days ago

Well that's terrible for everyone.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
90 points (80.8% liked)

politics

18050 readers
2669 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!
  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

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS