• YeetPics@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    I got worried at first, but upon further inspection this is a return2ozma post.

    Nothing here is truthful or holds any merit.

    Good day

      • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Its not just the EC. That exists, yes, but its not the biggest stumbling block for team D’, this is:

        Trump historically outperforms his polling. In 2020, even though he lost, he over performed his polling by 8 points. As in, he lost 2020, but he should have lost way worse based on what polling indicates. This is most-likely an issue with “likely voter” demographics models, in that Trump voters are regularly under surveyed as the don’t look like likely voters on paper.

        • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          Don’t you think the pollsters have compensated for that by now? This has been known for years and years.

          • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            Yeah thats a great question. Short answer, no, I don’t. Long answer, is that its complicated and too hard to know. Safe answer is, just assume the above as the best guess for what biases will look like on election day.

            The problem with being able to compensate for what the above data show is that you have to have extremely good demographic models, specifically for demographics you didn’t capture in your original sample. I think part of the reason why stochastic modeling misses these things is that its not really a forwards-in-time facing type of analysis. You can’t compensate for a future state if that state is unknown, you can only go backwards to account for your prior (but even that is still facing backwards).

            However, I don’t agree that stochastic models are where we should stop with trying to understand these kinds of things. There are plenty of phenomena where we engage with a range of classes of models to try to get an idea of where things should be. Some examples of these are things like process based models, which are a kind of simulation to estimate based on some parameterization, how things came to be. You’ll often do a kind of bayesian filtering on these kinds of models to get down to results that match your data, then use the priors to hopefully understand something about the system. So in the context of electoral politics, it would be trying to understand why someone gets off the couch to vote, or join a movement, or whatever.

            So I think that the data in these stochastic samples are good, but the problem is that voting really isn’t a random effect. I think the results are likely good, but they are only going to be as good as the last time the voter demographics were sampled (if they were even updated for that), and then as relevant as those demographics are to the actually electorate who shows up when November 5th rolls around.

            A great example of this phenomena in play was the Bernie/ Hillary primary race in 2016. Hillary had the support of basically every mainstream media outlet on the left, all of the DNC, all of Washington. Yet, she was on-track to lose until the DNC stepped in and put their thumbs on the scales. Why? How was that possible? How was Bernie out-performing all of his polls?

            Bernie was outperforming his polls because he wasn’t drawing on the same distribution of voters for whom polls are focused. He was turning disengaged, non-voters, into engaged participants in a process. And you can’t measure that with your last demographic sample, because according to your best most recent measurement: those people don’t vote.

            Trump does something very similar. He is gathering disenfranchised, disengaged, non-voters and turning them into voters. And you’ll never capture that with a polling model based on last elections voter demographics, when the strategy is to fundamentally shift the demographics.

            If pollsters were to massively weight their numbers as I’m describing, Democrats would be getting thunked right now. Its why having a >5% polling advantage going into election day is so important for Democrats.

            • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 months ago

              Thank you for a good write-up. Much appreciated.

              I still think Trump is such a well-known commodity now and all of this is nothing new. We’ve been talking about his “hidden voters” so much for so long that I actually think polls may be overcompensating a bit for that. Or at least they could be pretty well calibrated for it at this point. Guess we’ll see in less than a month.

              • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                7 months ago

                I still think Trump is such a well-known commodity now and all of this is nothing new. We’ve been talking about his “hidden voters” so much for so long that I actually think polls may be overcompensating a bit for that.

                I would be ecstatic for that to be the case. Unfortunately, both the 2016, and 2020 polling disagree. But right now, the data we have at our disposal do not support that case.

                I’m curious what you think pollsters are doing when you say:

                Or at least they could be pretty well calibrated for it at this point.

                Like, in stochastic modeling, you have to do things like having a truly random sample to develop your statistics on. Pollsters hands are kind-of tied in this regards and the data is mostly available for download. I’m curious if you think there is some kind of demographic weighting that you think pollsters are doing on the back end?

                • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Yes, I definitely think pollsters are compensating for Trump’s hidden voters by now. Like you say, they’ve had both 2016 and 2020 to get it worked into the polling. It’s rare to get three tries to work it out. I’d be very surprised if they undercount it again.

  • xenomor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Please note the momentum shift that started just around the DNC convention. Ask yourself what changed in the Harris campaign at that time.

    • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      No, it started after the debate. The DNC told her to abandon her working rhetoric of “not going back.” And they told Walz to stop using the weird moniker, which was the first negative connotation that ever really stuck to Trump. It’s like they not only don’t want to support actual progressive ideas that people actually want, but they also don’t want to win.

  • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Dementia donnie is trying to thwart efforts to help Americans in the wake of two hurricanes. He wants to end democracy as we know it, and there are still people stupid enough to think he should run the place.

    SMH.

    • ThatOneKrazyKaptain@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Landslide stomps get views too. They made a game of Reagan’s run in literally 1984 trying to predict if he could win all 50 states or not. (He fell one short).

    • return2ozma@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Or… it really is THAT close of a race. When we shrug it off as “the media just wants a race” we get complacent.

      www.vote.gov make sure you’re registered and double check even if you think you already are. Early voting is happening in some states. Get active

      • MdRuckus @lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Who’s shrugging off anything? Did I say that? Nope. I’m just saying that we can have a close race and it still be true that Harris holds a 3-point lead nationally and small leads in the swing states. My point is that the media ALWAYS try making it even closer than what it is. Do you disagree with that?

      • Rhaedas@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Always vote like your vote will make a difference. It might, especially local races. If we accidentally turn the election into a sweep by everyone voting, oh well.

    • TheDannysaur@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      It can be both things.

      There are no definitive data points that should lead anyone to believe that either candidate has a significant advantage.

      I’m not sure anyone who is well versed in election projections or polling would say anything other than it’s a toss up. As a heavy consumer of said data and reporting, I haven’t seen anything to the contrary.

      You’re not wrong about media incentives, but they’re also not wrong that this is a very close race.

      • MdRuckus @lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Thank you! That was point. It’s close. Harris holds a steady, yet small lead. The media will always make it seem closer than what it is though for ratings.

  • FMT99@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    I don’t like Harris very much. But the fact that half the country is willing to choose a deranged con artist over her is just beyond any rational thought.

    • distantsounds@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Everything is fear based and not rationale.

      Trump voters fear immigrants; Fear their guns, religion and identity are somehow being taken away. They fear and refuse to understand the world is constantly changing and that we need to adapt along with it.

      Harris voters (rightly) fear trump and all the bigotry, racism, and misogyny he has enabled and emboldened.

      Most of the American people don’t have something to vote for, only something to vote against. The ruling class is further detached for the working class by stoking culture wars gaslighting on the socioeconomic disparage

      • return2ozma@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        It’s all fear based. They think the migrants coming across the border are coming to take their job, rape them, break into their home, shop at the same Walmart as them, etc.

        • Veedem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          I want to commend you for how well you did that. Absolutely beautiful ending with “shop at the same Walmart as them”

        • Rhaedas@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          I’ve lately been watching some radio shows on the BBC, and it’s wild to see the same things happening over there. I don’t know if it’s just how modern society has become or if it spread from us or them, but take away the British accents and the names and policies, and it’s the same insanity. What the hell is wrong with people?

          • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            Russia created a network of wannabe autocrats, and they are pushing each other all across the globe.

            That’s it, that’s most of all of it.

            • JaggedRobotPubes@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 months ago

              No it isn’t. It’s hardly any of it. We exist in the same places they are targeting and it didn’t turn us into complete goddamn idiots, so what’s their excuse?

              • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                7 months ago

                They have always been racist, but the populists taking advantage of them use Russian tactics and are backed by Russia.

                Stuff like Trump and Brexit is not normal, and it’s not just happening spontaneously because all the racists decided to be more overt at the same time around the world.

    • bay400@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Half the voting population, more specifically

      Or I guess in this case, half of those polled

      • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        To be fair, it’s not like everyone that doesn’t vote hates him. Some do I’m sure, but there’s also going to be people that think favorably of him but don’t bother voting, just as there are and have been for his opponents

    • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      They want Trump in because he represents an amoral outsider. Someone who is disenfranchised by the moralisms of the establishment left.

      This is how they see themselves.

      They like him because he’s a shithead who doesn’t care to preserve this system. They want change even if it’s bad.

      In this way pointing out that he’s a shithead and a risk to democracy - helps him.

      Unfortunately it’s the Harris campaign’s only option, as the alternative is to say: He’s actually a highly connected establishment figure who will pull the same establishment shit we do. This would have obviously blow back for an establishment figure.

      They want Trump BECAUSE he’s a train wreck.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      And you fuckers called me crazy for saying there was a concerted propaganda effort to conflate “neoliberal” with “liberal”

      Neoliberals are Republicans.

      Liberals are Democrats.

      • Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Reagan was arguably a neoliberal and Bush a neocon, but current Republicans have moved even further right straight to neofascism. The way that liberal democrats serve corporations over people proves to me that there is no longer a meaningful distinction between liberalism and neoliberalism.

        • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          “Kamala Harris is as far right as Ronald Reagan” was not a take I was expecting to see today.

          Although given that this is Lemmy I wish I could say I was surprised.

          • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            It’s hilarious that you think it isn’t true. Other than hating gay and black people which isn’t actually on an economic axis (necessarily…)

            Reagan wasn’t arguably a neoliberal. He was neoliberalism. The governmental policies of that era define the modern Democratic and what was the Republican Party.

            It’s not even entirely negative, deinstitutionalization wasn’t done intelligently but there was rampant abuse in the system, for example.