155
submitted 4 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] DavidGA@lemmy.world 89 points 4 months ago

Remember that it's not the popular vote that counts, it's the electoral college, and current polling gives Trump a 2-in-3 chance of winning the college:

https://www.economist.com/interactive/us-2024-election/prediction-model/president

[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 55 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Me reading this link getting 2016 flashbacks

[-] cmbabul@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

Dude I’ve been getting those vibes since it became apparent Trump couldn’t be kept from becoming the GOP nominee

[-] retrospectology@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

I'd say Biden is in an even worse position, his push to the far right on immigration, economics, genocide etc. because he thinks he has voters over a barrel has alienated and demoralized a lot of voters. He's quite literally to the right of Ronald Reagan at this point on so many issues, it's a tall order to ask non-conservatives to vote for him when he's literally just a Republican.

His inability to change course very well might cost him the election, and even if he does squeak out a win it guaruntees that the Democratic party will continue to see moving right and supporting genocide as the way to win elections.

US democracy is kind of a walking corpse at this point I think. People just don't want to acknowledge what the problems are and think kicking the can down the road some more will help.

[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

This is why things are shit and nothing changes. You can't just show up to vote for the president and then fuck off for four years. You have to vote in every local election too. Its not a walking corpse, the flies just know when nothing is around the shit.

[-] crusa187@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 months ago

You’re right that we need to vote in all elections to enable more progressive politics. The problem is even when we try to do that, establishment democrats come in with millions of dollars in PAC money to back the establishment candidate instead and keep the political outsiders out. Jessica Cisneros would have been amazing, but Pelosi did everything she could to keep the corrupt goon Cuellar in place, who is now indicted on 14 federal corruption charges. Of course Pelosi still backs him, full-throatedly.

It’s not going to get better until we stop the corruption and end the legalized bribes by getting money out of politics. Until then it’s just a dog and pony show to keep us distracted enough to not be in open rebellion in the streets over how badly the working class is getting robbed. And the elites are in a panic because they are losing that grip…it’s going to be a wild election season in America to say the least.

[-] crusa187@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago

Dems do have an amazing ability to learn the exact wrong lessons from situations such as this. It’s also mildly infuriating that most attempts to point out these shortcomings are met with shaming or outrageous claims of nefarious intent instead of a modicum of introspection. Those are the interactions that make it hard to hold on to hope for me.

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

outrageous claims of nefarious intent

@lemmy.ml

[x] Doubt

[-] criitz@reddthat.com 25 points 4 months ago
[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

538 has been unreliable for several election cycles, though..

[-] spongebue@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago

I think people need to stop thinking that "most likely outcome" = prediction. They gave Trump a 1/4 chance of winning in 2016, which is far from impossible and better than most were saying. Their latest trackers have really emphasized the probability aspect of things, rather than the expected vote share.

They actually did a project about this. Here's how close they were with US House predictions: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/checking-our-work/us-house-elections/ (you can look up other elections but since there are so many to work with here I thought it was a good place to start)

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

They gave Trump a 1/4 chance of winning in 2016

They gave him a 1/4, with a bunch of caveats like "If we see these midwest states start trending red, that's a good sign for Biden". And then Hillary lost Pennsylvania, and 538 basically called it for Trump on the spot.

But polling in 2016 was generally stronger, because we had more professional pollsters and fewer partisan polling operations. Modern polling is increasingly polluted by unreliable narrators, push polls, and polling-as-propaganda for partisan news sites. The problem with 538, structurally speaking, was that it got people to stop doing their own polls and fixate on aggregates to the exclusive of internal research. This, combined with the ongoing consolidation of domestic media markets, means we have fewer and fewer people doing professional polling research.

So the data firms like 538 use has degraded. The interest in their results has faded, as a consequence. And the trend towards eye-polling click-bait headlines has resulted in pollers being defunded in favor of automated screen scrappers and headline generator scripts.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

I mean, they were only actually reliable in 2008, and that's looking more and more like a fluke.

[-] aubeynarf@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 4 months ago

Are they more accurate than other analyses, though? What is the magnitude of the error?

30% error would be “unreliable” to me.

[-] riodoro1@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago
[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago

Americans desperately need to believe they're a shining city on a hill, even when we're all living hip-deep in the muck alongside everyone else.

this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2024
155 points (90.2% liked)

politics

19096 readers
3287 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 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.
  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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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 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