US Election & Presidency

(02-11-2024 17:32 )SecretAgent Wrote:  

(02-11-2024 17:22 )lovebabes56 Wrote:  ^I guess sometimes you probably wish that there was a third independent candidate that could split the vote either way, but I guess that wouldn't even help the situation the USA now finds itself in. I think tbh it's not a good look for American politics to have a convicted person in the White House. The rest of the western worlld must be wondering how far the dominoes will fall in the US that could have a ripple efffect elsewhere.

There is. She's called Jill Stein and claims to be a Green Party candidate. In swing states she could be very dangerous by taking votes from Harris. Indeed she did precisely that when Clinton ran against him and cost Clinton the election. Her campaign openly admit they want Trump to win. Oh and for a Green Party candidate she has money invested in fossil fuel companies which rather shows what a fraud she is.

Indeed, even the European Greens (the organisation that represents all the Green parties throughout all of Europe (including the 3 Green parties that cover the UK)) have told Jill Stein to stand down her campaign and endorse Harris.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024...ala-harris

(02-11-2024 19:17 )dundeered Wrote:  

(02-11-2024 17:32 )SecretAgent Wrote:  

(02-11-2024 17:22 )lovebabes56 Wrote:  ^I guess sometimes you probably wish that there was a third independent candidate that could split the vote either way, but I guess that wouldn't even help the situation the USA now finds itself in. I think tbh it's not a good look for American politics to have a convicted person in the White House. The rest of the western worlld must be wondering how far the dominoes will fall in the US that could have a ripple efffect elsewhere.

There is. She's called Jill Stein and claims to be a Green Party candidate. In swing states she could be very dangerous by taking votes from Harris. Indeed she did precisely that when Clinton ran against him and cost Clinton the election. Her campaign openly admit they want Trump to win. Oh and for a Green Party candidate she has money invested in fossil fuel companies which rather shows what a fraud she is.

Indeed, even the European Greens (the organisation that represents all the Green parties throughout all of Europe (including the 3 Green parties that cover the UK)) have told Jill Stein to stand down her campaign and endorse Harris.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024...ala-harris

It didn't start well at the Third Party Debate last week

Polls taken in Iowa say that Harris has taken a 47-44% lead over Trump.

It would be significant as for the last few elections they have voted Republican.

It'd be lovely to see red states go blue and Trump to be utterly trounced. Don't think we'll be as lucky as that and it'll be closer than everyone wants.

Something like this will do........

That Iowa poll has really caused a stir because the pollster has been one of the most accurate out there. In every major election since 2008 — presidential, midterm, gubernatorial, senate, etc. — she has only had one significant miss.

All the same, the polling average in Iowa is still R+6.

Tighter than it was in 2016 or 2020, but still pretty safely Red.

(03-11-2024 21:59 )Goodfella3041 Wrote:  That Iowa poll has really caused a stir because the pollster has been one of the most accurate out there. In every major election since 2008 — presidential, midterm, gubernatorial, senate, etc. — she has only had one significant miss.

All the same, the polling average in Iowa is still R+6.

Tighter than it was in 2016 or 2020, but still pretty safely Red.

Polling guru Nate Silver had an interesting interview recently
He said “If a pollster never publishes any numbers that surprises you, then it has no value"
So are polls meant for entertainment value? Click Bait?
It was about how the polls are too similar. Is it that close, or are most pollsters lazy and all come to the same conclusion, or afraid to stick out their neck to upset their audience?
He also said "his gut feeling" is a Trump win. I thought the whole point of using data was to take emotion out of the equation

I think Silver’s model prediction stands at 51% for Trump to 49% for Harris.

To be clear, that’s not a poll — that’s what his model predicts based (mostly) on polling data that is aggregated and weighted for things like sample size, recency and historic accuracy of the pollster. I think some economic and demographic fundamentals are baked into the model too.

If after all that, the model predicts 51-49, then it’s effectively a coin flip and you might as well go with your gut feeling.

I think what he means by that comment about polls that “surprise you” is that polls which are TOO consistent are inherently suspicious. Think of it this way… If you flip a coin ten times, you’d expect to get 5 heads and 5 tails. But if you repeated that process ten times and you got 5 heads and 5 tails EVERY time, that would be pretty strange. If the outcome were truly random, then you’d be bound to get a cycle or two that come out 6-4 or 3-7, etc.

Similarly, 3000 polls that all show a more or less 50/50 result suggest that the sampling isn’t as random as it should be, or that there are results that pollsters aren’t releasing because they look “abnormal”.

Problem with Nate Silver is he’s sold his soul to gambling company Polymarket who are backed by Trump loyalist Peter Thiel. The betting site has been accused of underhand tactics to promote a Trump win