That poll putting Trump ahead of Biden in all the major battleground states sure looks terrifying, but there’s never been an election more clouded by the unknown than this one.

A week after Halloween and the scary monsters are still abroad in the land.

Scary polls!

Scary plans!

Boogedy, boogedy!

It was a great weekend for intellectual doomscrolling, to say nothing of galloping paranoia. First, The New York Times comes out with a poll that shows the president is trailing Fulton County (Ga.) Inmate No. PO1135809 in all the major battleground states.

10 points

Look, we are all still traumatized from 2016. And this shit is still way too fucking close.

Ten people at the party took a vote to see what to eat. Six people wrote “pizza” and 4 people wrote “the dog.” This is US politics.

permalink
report
reply
3 points

Shit, after 2016 I just stopped paying attention to polls all together. I veiwed them as flawed even before 2016. After? Shit man I might not even be living in a democracy tomorrow, a pollsters opinion on who might win an election a year from now is interesting but post 2016 it’s something I refuse to loose sleep over.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Polls are absolute bullshit. They’ve been proven time and again, why do people still let this shit scare them?

permalink
report
reply
22 points

The polls didn’t predict the 2016 win by Trump. They didn’t predict the 2018 blue wave accurately. They didn’t predict highest voter turnout in 100 years in 2020. They failed to predict a red wave that never materialized in 2022. BUT, I’ve got a good feeling about polling in 2024!

permalink
report
reply
4 points
*

I wish my job allowed the level of reliability that Political Experts, ‘Economists’ and Meteorologists have.

There is a chance between 0 and 100 that it could rain between 0 and 100 inches tomorrow. Also it will be between 50 and 80 degrees, or maybe not. I’m getting paid either way.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Meteorology is really hard, but comparing it to politics and economics is false equivalence. Meteorology is governed by well proven mathematical models, and we can use them to make predictions. The problem is that the earth is really big, so we just don’t have computers powerful enough to simulate it finely enough. Add to that it’s a chaotic system and it becomes difficult to predict accurately very far into the future. Weather predictions have actually improved dramatically the last few decades, and I expect they will continue to do so along with advances in computing. Economics and politics may as well be random guessing, but is often worse than random guessing, because we have no reliable proven model for human behavior.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Anytime people get mad at the metrologist for being wrong, I remind them that they’re LITERALLY PREDICTING THE FUTURE.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Another issue that affects how accurately weather models are seen is a difference in what they output and what is reported. The output of the models is a series of 2D maps of various variables and how they change over time and space. The models will predict that conditions will form for cloud formation and will lead to precipitation at a certain point. They are pretty good at predicting that part. Where it starts to get less accurate is determining where those things will happen and when with specificity. They’ll be pretty sure that there will be rain from this particular system, but it might move north of city x, go right over it, or go south of it.

So that 40% chance of rain is actually “99% chance it rains, but 39.5% chance it rains here and 59.5% chance it doesn’t rain here but somewhere else nearby instead”.

My appreciation for what they do increased after I started using windy.com, which gives the map of predictions over time instead of “here’s what will happen in this city”.

Oh and weather patterns can be smaller than cities, too. That 40% chance of rain could even mean “40% of the city will be rained on”. On cloudy days, you can often look around and see rain in the distance in various directions around you, sometimes it passes over you sometimes it doesn’t.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

As someone trained in statistics, I will say you have nailed this. The only ‘poll’ that has any hope of being accurate is counting the votes the day after. Even if we had good models for the complex intricacies of human behavior with respect to voting (I will correct that we do have good models of human behavior, Game Theory and Network Theory have gone a long way towards providing workable models for things) there is no way to guarantee clean input data. Garbage in, conservatives out. Pollster bias, population bias, selection bias, social pressures causing disingenuous responses. You can’t get away from any of it. Phone polling requires that people answer and actually participate, which eliminates swaths of personality types which skews your data. In-person polls have to be conducted in person, so the location choice skews the types of people who are likely to be present at the time you are polling. Even focus groups are inherently flawed as a polling methodology, but they are as close to clean as one can get. You still only obtain the opinions of people who have the time during the day to go somewhere for hours. So it is predominantly young college students between classes, stay-at-home parents while the kids are in school, people who are unemployed, or retirees looking for something to do. If it is not one of those, it is likely someone who is doing the focus groups to make ends meet and the repeated use of the same people for different polls often leads to other forms of data contamination.

Bottom line, don’t trust polls. If you aren’t doing them, likely the demographics that you represent are not doing them either.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

"When looked at in historical context, what stands out isn’t that polling in 2016 was unusually poor, but that polling of the 2004, 2008 and 2012 presidential races was uncannily good — in a way that may have given people false expectations about how accurate polling has been all along.

The other factor is that the error was more consequential in 2016 than it was in past years, since Trump narrowly won a lot of states where Clinton was narrowly ahead in the polls."

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-are-all-right/

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The polls are incongruous with the Democrat performance today. It’s confusing. There must be a polling error or other problem

permalink
report
reply
1 point

Some places did not even have anything to vote on yesterday.

Which means we didn’t get polled either.

How are they accounting for that?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

It’s moreso the signs. Yeah, everyone didn’t vote, but the places that did are providing a very informative picture. Ohio voted to enshrine abortion rights by +14%. Virginia Democrats retook the legislature, which flouts Youngkin’s argument that he knows how to solve abortion for Republicans. And Beshear won reelection in Kentucky.

Unless traditionally blue areas have had similar surprises in favor of right wing causes, this suggests the national mood is very favorable to Democrats, which makes Biden’s approval a big ?

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

The rapist Donald J. Trump indeed raped E. Jean Carroll but the sex with Stormy Daniels was consensual.

permalink
report
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

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! 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.
  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

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 14K

    Posts

  • 428K

    Comments