GhostBox Posted 1 hour ago Share Posted 1 hour ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relampago. Posted 1 hour ago Share Posted 1 hour ago https://www.natesilver.net/p/the-128-paths-to-the-white-house Quote The most likely combination is Harris sweeping all seven swing states. And the next most likely is Trump sweeping all seven. These are far more likely than any other combos; in fact, combined, there's about a 40 percent chance that one of them will come up. That's because even a normal-sized polling error of 3 or 4 points across the board would make the Electoral College uninteresting. Harris beats her polls by that amount in every swing state, and it's the biggest landslide since Obama in 2008 (she maybe wins Florida, too). If Trump beats his polls by that amount, it's the worst election for Democrats in the Electoral College since 1988, Oh my. I mean I figured this was the case but… hoo boy. At least this probably means we're finding out who wins on election night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostBox Posted 48 minutes ago Share Posted 48 minutes ago 12 minutes ago, Relampago. said: https://www.natesilver.net/p/the-128-paths-to-the-white-house Oh my. I mean I figured this was the case but… hoo boy. At least this probably means we're finding out who wins on election night. So on election night. Whens the exact time everyone is waiting on to see the first clues about how the night will go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relampago. Posted 42 minutes ago Share Posted 42 minutes ago Just now, GhostBox said: So on election night. Whens the exact time everyone is waiting on to see the first clues about how the night will go? Just guessing based on the times polls close but I think around 11pm EST, we'll have a decent idea of what's about to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nooniebao Posted 42 minutes ago Share Posted 42 minutes ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Posted 26 minutes ago Share Posted 26 minutes ago (edited) 2 hours ago, Tovitov said: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/07/10/elissa-slotkin-congress-trump-351513 She had similar warnings in 2020. Although Biden only ended up winning Michigan by 3 points so I can't say she was wrong. 2 hours ago, shelven said: Biden won each of Wisconsin, Arizona and Georgia by less than 1% 3% is honestly a pretty big win as far as swing states go. She, with the help of an internal pollster she hired, clocked the fact that many public pollsters were underestimating Trump's numbers. Quote "He told me that they fundamentally undercounted the Trump vote; that the Trump voter is not a voter in every single election, that they come out for Trump, so they're hard to count," she explains. "On a survey, if someone says, 'I'm not sure I'm going to vote,' you don't usually continue the conversation. And some of them didn't have any desire to be on those poll calls; they didn't have the 20 minutes to talk to somebody. They didn't want to do it. And so, they were fundamentally undercounted." Slotkin, ever the intel analyst—identifying trends, compiling a report, presenting a conclusion—tells me, with a high degree of confidence, "I believe that same thing is happening right now." It seems as though many pollsters have fixed this somewhat by including the people who hung up or didn't finish the survey but expressed support for Trump prior to that. In 2020 those people were just thrown out (which sounds ridiculous honestly it's almost like pollsters in 2020 knew the polling error would favor Trump again but did nothing about it) Although I'm sure her pollster is still very good, we know that Harris' favorables aren't as good in Michigan as they are nationally. We see that in public polls. "Underwater" is a term usually used for favorables rather than for a head-to-head. I'd expect nothing less from a private donor meeting where she would want more money to comfortably win her race. MI's Senate race, while having her up consistently, is much closer than say WI, PA, or AZ. Edited 24 minutes ago by Blade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shelven Posted 10 minutes ago Share Posted 10 minutes ago 8 minutes ago, Blade said: In 2020 those people were just thrown out (which sounds ridiculous honestly it's almost like pollsters in 2020 knew the polling error would favor Trump again but did nothing about it) Hindsight is 20/20, so now it seems obvious that it was a completely dumb thing to do since we know it resulted in a huge polling error in Trump's favour. But without the benefit of hindsight, I can see the argument for throwing out those responses. The pollsters were making a fairly reasonable assumption (and I'm sure they had research to back it up) that someone who immediately gets pissed off by a poll call and angrily yells something before hanging up isn't an especially likely voter - they might not bother to actually go to the polls on the day of after a busy day at work, or they might let some minor inconvenience that day deter them. I still don't see the argument for why those voters were excluded from registered voter polls, but I can see why they'd be excluded from likely voter polls. I haven't said it in here previously because it probably comes across as delusional hopium, but I have secretly wondered if NYT's new policy of counting all of the "f*ck you, I'm voting Trump" respondents in their likely voter screens is going to result in an overcorrection where those voters are now overestimated in the polls. Sure, they're going to capture passionate, certain-to-vote Trump voters they weren't capturing before. But they could also be capturing people who are just yelling Trump because they don't care about politics at all and are irritated that some random pollster is calling them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts