2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
That is impossible to get in election polling and every pollster will tell you that.
The point wasn't that it was a realistic possibility, it was that more data gives you more certainty, and this was an example of more certainty being huge.
That's not true. Random error goes to 0 as sample size or number of polls goes to infinity. But polls have systemic error as well which means as random error goes to 0 polls still converge, but they are converging to the wrong value. If polls are systemically understating Trump by 3 points, sample size will not save you.
It is true. The likelihood of a lead being materially realized increases with more instances of it. More polls decreases the likelihood of a systematic problem as all polls are not carried out with the same methodology. But systematic problems are not guaranteed to favor Trump, either. They are equally likely in either direction, at worst (I happen to think systematic problems would most likely hide Harris voters, as I've discussed previously).
Well if you think less than 2:1 ok.... But she had 64% chance in mid Sept on 538. Your contention that her win probability in the model has gone solely because of biased polls is just wrong. She is currently losing the popular vote in NYTimes poll. The model is just doing it's job.
It is mere assertion that my contention is just wrong. There were polls that showed her losing the popular vote at that time, as well. One poll is one poll. It makes no sense to cite a single poll as evidence for that when the aggregate for popular vote, even with biased poll flooding from conservatives still has Harris with a comfortable lead.
I will reiterate again that I think the clearest indication is the behavior of the two camps. Harris's team acts like they are comfortable with where they are based on their internal polling and Trump's team is acting like they are in panic mode.
Early voting trends look very positive, also.
Still, the entire point I'm making isn't based on whether or not a lot of small leads are a big deal. The point I was really making was that the poll aggregator sites are a joke for including biased and exploitable polls in their predictions. If you agree with that, I think I'm happy to just move on.
Yes, your contention is wrong.
only uses non partisan polls and they have Harris winning the tipping point state by .1. Pretty much as close to a flip as you can get.
I do not see how that makes my contention wrong. Looks like that site has her chances unchanged throughout the past month or so. It appears it was unaffected by all of the biased polls. The sites that had her chances take a nosedive indeed were affected by them. That was my contention.
With them: chances decreased. Without them: chances stayed the same. Exactly what I was saying.
But like I said, I'm not interested in pursuing this further.
It is true. The likelihood of a lead being materially realized increases with more instances of it. More polls decreases the likelihood of a systematic problem as all polls are not carried out with the same methodology.
It is not. 4 separate polls each with their own systemic error do not guarantee a convergence to the true main. That's basic statistics
But systematic problems are not guaranteed to favor Trump, either. They are equally likely in either direction, at worst (I happen to think systematic problems would most likely hide Harris voters, as I've discussed previously).
Of course. But that's irrelevant. My only claim was the basic mathematical point that you can't remove systemic error with sample size.
It is not. 4 separate polls each with their own systemic error do not guarantee a convergence to the true main. That's basic statistics
Wasn't my contention. They become more accurate even if it is to an incorrect point. The likelihood of it being an incorrect point also goes down with a variety of methodologies.
Of course. But that's irrelevant. My only claim was the basic mathematical point that you can't remove systemic error with sample size.
Good, then we don't disagree. We just disagree that that's where the thought should end.
I do not see how that makes my contention wrong. Looks like that site has her chances unchanged throughout the past month or so. It appears it was unaffected by all of the biased polls. The sites that had her chances take a nosedive indeed were affected by them. That was my contention.
With them: chances decreased. Without them: chances stayed the same. Exactly what I was saying.
Harris is a coin flip according to models that ignore R biased pollsters not 64%.
Exclude all the R biased polls you want and make a model. It will say it’s a flip.
I literally did that in this post and it showed Harris with a huge advantage. And 538's did too before the flood of biased polls hit.
I didn't claim she was 64%. I claimed the models that show her chances tanking did so because of biased and manipulated polls. This seems to be obviously true. Not sure why we're still going.
Because you disagreed she is a flip if you ignore R biased polls and refuse to admit you've changed your position.
Because you disagreed she is a flip if you ignore R biased polls and refuse to admit you've changed your position.
You told me to remove the biased polls which I had just done. It showed Harris up a total of +14 vs Trump a total of +2. That's all I meant. If you want to call that a coinflip, feel free. Also note that this was JUST for Pennsylvania, so posting things that are for the electoral college to try to disagree is not relevant.
The idea here is pretty simple. Do you think 100 polls using a variety of methodologies showing Harris leading by 10 points (this is a hypothetical) or a single poll showing Harris leading by 10 points is a more reliable indicator that Harris is leading by about 10 points? Or do you think those situations are equally likely to be right/wrong?
The answer should be obvious. More polls with a variety of methodologies is more meaningful. THAT'S what I was referring to when I said a huge advantage.
I never said it showed she had a 64% chance of winning. I said the given polls were clearly in her favor (by a sizable amount).
The fact that you thought I meant something else and have been desperately trying to shoot holes in this for the last several hours is on you, not me.
I can't explain this any more clearly. I've stated and restated my opinion, but you just keep clinging to your misunderstanding of what I said in that post for some weird reason. I'll be as clear as I can: I do not believe that removing the biased polls will result in Harris having anything like a 60%+ chance. I think it will result in a CLEAR advantage (hopefully that will be more palatable than huge for you - huge referred to the 14 vs 2 sample size difference, not the winning chances) for Harris. I hope we can both agree on that. Also, a second reminder that this discussion was specifically about Pennsylvania, so bringing up national polls or electoral simulations to dispute is not relevant.
weren't legacy polls absurdly D-biased last two elections? how do we know which ones are biased ex ante
And as a follow-up to the discussion which I now consider concluded, I believe (in spite of what the polls say) that Harris will win comfortably because polls are not capturing new voters, which have been heavily biased towards women and minorities, two groups very heavily motivated to vote for Harris.
To be clear, I am not saying that there is any indication of that in the polls or in the models, I am saying that I believe this to be true in the face of what the polls say. To me, it's very telling that she still has a clear advantage in the models (without biased polls) even with that factored in.
You told me to remove the biased polls which I had just done. It showed Harris up a total of +14 vs Trump a total of +2. That's all I meant. If you want to call that a coinflip, feel free. Also note that this was JUST for Pennsylvania, so posting things that are for the electoral college to try to disagree is not relevant.
The idea here is pretty simple. Do you think 100 polls using a variety of methodologies showing Harris leading by 10 points (this is a hypothetical) or a single poll showing Ha
You keep saying I don't understand you, but I do and I'm very sure you are wrong. I already posted a model that ignores R biased polls and has Harris winning the tipping point state by .1. You can say that model is wrong, but I have no reason to think it is. Here is
saying the same thing I am, the republican flooding narrative is overstated all models including 538 are adjusting for R pollsters.
You keep saying I don't understand you, but I do and I'm very sure you are wrong. I already posted a model that ignores R biased polls and has Harris winning the tipping point state by .1. You can say that model is wrong, but I have no reason to think it is. Here is
saying the same thing I am, the republican flooding narrative is overstated all models including 538 are adjusting for R pollsters.If you understand what I said and don't agree, then we are at an impasse. You told me to remove all the polls I wanted to which I had just done. I repeated the results. You are now citing other people's choices of which polls to remove and citing their results to try to say that mine was wrong. I'm not sure what you want me to say here. I get that you disagree. Again, I'd like to move on.
On the subject of how much this rigging actually affects things, this is a very good article:
You'll find a lot to agree with in this article (I see your contention is that it doesn't move the needle much, mathematically). I think it's notable how much more there is to it than that, though. Worth a read.
Honestly, I'm just happy that people are finally agreeing with me that this rigging is demonstrably happening. It took awhile for anyone to listen to me about that.
And as a follow-up to the discussion which I now consider concluded, I believe (in spite of what the polls say) that Harris will win comfortably because polls are not capturing new voters, which have been heavily biased towards women and minorities, two groups very heavily motivated to vote for Harris.
To be clear, I am not saying that there is any indication of that in the polls or in the models, I am saying that I believe this to be true in the face of what the polls say. To me, it's very telli
It's definitely not worth the effort discuss anyone's logic for why pols will be wrong and in what direction. Tons of reasons to think nobody knows yet.
It's definitely not worth the effort discuss anyone's logic for why pols will be wrong and in what direction. Tons of reasons to think nobody knows yet.
Completely fair. In person, I'm asked all the time what I think of these things, especially by people who are panicking over the sudden shift. It usually leads to conversations on these topics, since I have to explain why I'm not panicking at a fairly extensive level of detail to try to talk them off the ledge.
If you understand what I said and don't agree, then we are at an impasse. You told me to remove all the polls I wanted to which I had just done. I repeated the results. You are now citing other people's choices of which polls to remove and citing their results to try to say that mine was wrong. I'm not sure what you want me to say here. I get that you disagree. Again, I'd like to move on.
I said remove all the biased polls you want and make a model ie something that spits out a percentage for Harris. Obviously you did not do that, I haven't either as its a ton of work and nobody expects that here. I showed someone who did do that and it's a flip, like I said from the beginning.
I said remove all the biased polls you want and make a model ie something that spits out a percentage for Harris. Obviously you did not do that. I showed someone who did do that and it's a flip, like I said from the beginning.
(I agree, as I said, that it's roughly a coinflip, but with a clear advantage to Harris -- note I long ago clarified I didn't mean huge the way it may have appeared)
Completely fair. In person, I'm asked all the time what I think of these things, especially by people who are panicking over the sudden shift. It usually leads to conversations on these topics, since I have to explain why I'm not panicking at a fairly extensive level of detail to try to talk them off the ledge.
Well I'm not panicking. If I had my net worth on either candidate winning I would be though.
On the subject of how much this rigging actually affects things, this is a very good article:
You'll find a lot to agree with in this article (I see your contention is that it doesn't move the needle much, mathematically). I think it's notable how much more there is to it than that, though. Worth a read.
Honestly, I'm just happy that people are finally agreeing with me that this rigging is demonstrably happening. It took awhile
gorgo please advise: if trump wins the popular vote are you going to blame "rigged polling"?
really, harris brags about giving transgender surgeries to inmates? or does she have a principle that medical treatments should be given to inmates that every single reasonable person has and this happens to include medically relevant treatment like transgender surgeries that are recommended by doctors?
we can disagree epistemically on what counts as a medically relevant treatment but let’s not pretend like anyone is bragging about how many sex reassignment surgeries inmates are getting.
https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/202...
whether or not it is true or not, she still directly takes credit for why it has happened and says the mandate for it being necessary medical care came from her, not doctors
i get it, you're so used to dealing with raging morons that it's easy to just dismiss them out of hand with well measured responses, but this time that buffoon is actually accurate
