zeke5123a
18d ago
My MIL shockingly seems to support Trump. This is a woman who voted for Biden in 2020. She is pissed off with the Nazi comps as she had family lost in the holocaust.
zeke5123a
18d ago
No we are questioning her because the poll doesn’t make sense for all the reasons given.
zeke5123a
18d ago
You are right and the other poster is wrong. Read the article and not what Ben Garrison stated.
zeke5123a
18d ago
And you seemed to miss the context where Silver said WaPo is one of the high quality non herding. Silver had them as the same odds as Atlasintel. So Silver, who published the article, clearly disagrees with your assertion.
zeke5123a
18d ago
That’s not how Silver is framing it. He states:
By contrast, the most highly-rated polling firms like the Washington Post show much less evidence of herding. YouGov has actually had fewer close polls than you’d expect, although that’s partly because they’ve tended to be one of Harris’s best pollsters, so their surveys often gravitate toward numbers like Harris +3 rather than showing a tie.
Note that WaPo has the same odds of herding as AtlesIntel. So if Silver thinks WaPo isn’t herding, then he thinks atlasintel isn’t either.
zeke5123a
18d ago
16 years sounds like a lot. In reality you are talking about four presidential elections. Also not nearly all of that was “bucking conventional wisdom.”
Keep in mind the claim re random walk in stock pickers is frequently much larger compared to Selzer.
In 2020 in the penultimate poll she had the race in Iowa tied between Trump and Biden tied. Is it possible the electorate moved by 8 points? Sure but not likely.
She also in for example had the Iowa 2016 primary going for Trump.
zeke5123a
18d ago
That’s not true according to Silver. https://www.natesilver.net/p/theres-more-herding-in-swing-state
Yes Emerson herds but Atlasintel he is showing as one of the higher quality ones. Also they’ve been very accurate in the past.
zeke5123a
18d ago
Her track record looks impressive until you pull back the curtain a bit. She got many primaries wrong. Her final polls differed from polls a month prior in strong ways.
Also there is a bit of survival bias here. Stock pickers that survive may not be that much better; could just be a random walk.
zeke5123a
19d ago
She has gotten a lot of things off. You are being shown a curated list to prove she is right and only looking at the final poll.
zeke5123a
19d ago
Which results? The final poll? Or the poll before the final poll? Because she showed Biden and Trump tied in September in 2020. Why do we test her against only one poll?
zeke5123a
19d ago
It’s a BS poll. A prior poll had Tru o up 18 over Biden. Do we really think there was in a few months a 21 point swing in Iowa? Look at the cross tabs. It is just a really bad sample.
It seems like she heavily oversampled democrats in a state that has gotten redder since 2020. Oddly she gave the poll results to Dems before releasing. I think it is a bad poll designed to discourage Republican turnout nationally.
Edit:
If you look more you see things like seniors moving allegedly almost 30 points away from Trump. Ditto non college voters. We aren’t seeing that kind of data anywhere else. Indeed Selzer showed Trump up over 18 points against Biden. Are we really to believe that Trump lost 21 points over a few months to Harris led by a surge in 65+ voters?
zeke5123a
20d ago
But the point was the greens pushed (oddly) for replacing nuclear (a very clean energy that is cheap after built) with unreliable solar and wind. The natural result is more Natgas which means Russia benefits.
The greens should’ve pushed for nuclear and solar and that would’ve been aligned.
zeke5123a
21d ago
He wasn’t saying they were the sole source of funding.
Moreover, he made the point that the Greens attacked nuclear while trying to replace with wind and solar. But as a result they had a base power problem so turned to natural gas thereby benefiting Russia.
It isn’t quite the Baptist and Bootleggers combo but similar.
Can you explain how the green policy helped the US?
zeke5123a
21d ago
We’ve actually seen Polymarket front run the polls; not the other way around. My guess is there was a reaction to that polling but many other polls came out at the same time with Trump leading so hard to make heads or tails.
zeke5123a
21d ago
Yeah agreed. To me polymarket seemed a bit too bullish on Trump. Again, I think Trump is the comfortable favorite but wouldn’t be shocking for Harris to win.
zeke5123a
21d ago
I think 67/33 doesn’t make sense but 60/40 seems right. If the polls corrected the Trump hate of 2016/20, then it seems like a close race with Trump with an edge. If they didn’t correct the bias, then Trump landslide. If they overcorrected, then Harris with an edge.
Hence 60/40
zeke5123a
23d ago
It seems like it largely will get the Joke out of the news coupled with JD going on Rogan.
zeke5123a
23d ago
You haven’t presented any evidence it is in fact cutting through. The democrats and their allied media are talking a bunch about it. But that doesn’t mean it’s cutting through. Indeed it could have the opposite effect (ie Puerto Ricans hear about it and realize a comedian made a joke yet the Dems think this is the end of the world).
zeke5123a
23d ago
Biden did this on purpose. He has over the last month or so popped up at just the wrong time for Harris and said just the wrong thing. He is trying to sabotage her. No one is talking about her “closing statement.” Biden got what he wanted. As he said, no one fucks with a Biden.
zeke5123a
23d ago
That transcript is not grammatically consistent. So it doesn’t make to assume that is what he meant.
Well, you want your side to believe it is close and while you are winning if you don’t do something we’ll lose. People like a winner so gives them good feelings there but you don’t want complacency.
More options
Context Copy link