• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Early elections predictions

Who will win US presidential elections of 2024 ?

  • Total voters
    82
Samson said:
From New Zealand by the way, I think Trump is irrelevant, but Kamala Harris is a DEI catastrophe.
Farage is not a DEI catastrophe as a side note.
Click to expand...

Samson said:
Not sure what your question is.
I predict JD Vance will be the president in 2028.
I think he says Europe should control Russia going forward. I don't know, but Kamala Harris is a blithering idiot, everybody here knows but are hoisted by their anyone but Trump petard.
Click to expand...
I’ve long wondered, and maybe you can confirm, does the looney bin have a gift shop? With postcards and refrigerator magnets and stuffed barnyard animals embroidered “I Wuv Ewe?”
 
Last edited:
angrysoba said:
Do the pollsters just know whose votes will be suppressed and not bother asking them, OR, do they know the suppression rate and then swing the poll by that much?
Click to expand...
Briefly put: they ask everyone they can, get a wildly disproportionate sample because their sampling practices rely on people having land lines or responding to literal email spam and popup ads, and then based on the self-reported demographics of their responders, attempt to unskew the results to match how they think the groups are going to turn out. The main way this is done is by limiting the data to "likely" voters, which is not asking them if they're likely to vote, but if they voted in 2020. Then they modify the results further by estimating how those demographics have grown over the intervening time, and do it again to incorporate best guesses at systemic biases like voter suppression. Then they arrive at what gets reported as "Harris +1".

Taking data generated entirely by the old and the foolish and filtering it through a space telescope's worth of lenses to pretend it's representative of anything close to reality is a herculean task and I don't envy them at all. That the results somehow always turn out to be a nail-biting horse race, better keep polling as much as we can guys, could be a complete coincidence.
 
Samson said:
Not sure what your question is.
I predict JD Vance will be the president in 2028.
I think he says Europe should control Russia going forward. I don't know, but Kamala Harris is a blithering idiot, everybody here knows but are hoisted by their anyone but Trump petard.
Click to expand...

Harris is a very intelligent, eloquent and experienced woman. Not sure why you hate her so much. Probably because she is a woman and not white.
 
Samson said:
Not sure what your question is.
I predict JD Vance will be the president in 2028.
I think he says Europe should control Russia going forward. I don't know, but Kamala Harris is a blithering idiot, everybody here knows but are hoisted by their anyone but Trump petard.
Click to expand...
There's a whole lot that's off here, but I've highlighted this Trumpism that seems to have infected a certain segment of the global population.

I assure you with metaphysical certitude, everyone here does not know that.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
Briefly put: they ask everyone they can, get a wildly disproportionate sample because their sampling practices rely on people having land lines or responding to literal email spam and popup ads, and then based on the self-reported demographics of their responders, attempt to unskew the results to match how they think the groups are going to turn out. The main way this is done is by limiting the data to "likely" voters, which is not asking them if they're likely to vote, but if they voted in 2020. Then they modify the results further by estimating how those demographics have grown over the intervening time, and do it again to incorporate best guesses at systemic biases like voter suppression. Then they arrive at what gets reported as "Harris +1".
Click to expand...

Land lines? Seriously? You would have saved a lot of time and been closer to the mark if you had said those three little words: "I don't know." Here's the reality:

Floyd Ciruli: When I first started in the 1970s, we were still talking to people in person with clipboards in hand. We were starting to phase that out in favor of phone calls. From the 1970s to the early 2000s we conducted polls over landline phones. And in the early 2000s, we started to switch to cell phones. Nowadays, 95% of our survey calls are targeting people’s cell phones. But increasingly people don’t answer their phones as much as they used to. And it’s expensive and time-consuming.

So today, about half of the polls you read about are conducted through online panels. Some of them are opt-in panels where we reward people for joining (e.g. through a small monetary reward). Other panels – the best ones - actually survey people and get them to join the panel. The nice thing about a panel poll is there’s maybe a thousand people on the panel in each state who will regularly poll for you, often online. And if a pollsters wants to poll only seniors or only people with a junior college degree or less, they can send their poll only to those people on their panel list.
Click to expand...
 
It doesn't matter what the medium is, only a small segment of the population is willing to spend its time answering polls.
 
varwoche said:
There's a whole lot that's off here, but I've highlighted this Trumpism that seems to have infected a certain segment of the global population.

I assure you with metaphysical certitude, everyone here does not know that.
Click to expand...

She's the blithering idiot that destroyed Trump on a debate stage, so much so that Trump refuses to debate again.

hmmmmm
 
TragicMonkey said:
It doesn't matter what the medium is, only a small segment of the population is willing to spend its time answering polls.
Click to expand...
That's fine in theory, as long as the small segment is representative. If you pick people at random in Florida, say, it will take a surprisingly small number to build up a clear picture of what the state's voters are feeling. Probably a few hundred will do. If you sample that same number from people eating at an Outback Steakhouse in The Villages, you're going to get a wildly skewed take, even if you do your best mathing at it to extrapolate from the three Zoomers you found who got dragged there by their grandparents.

Brainster said:
Land lines? Seriously? You would have saved a lot of time and been closer to the mark if you had said those three little words: "I don't know." Here's the reality:
Click to expand...
See, this is why I don't follow the polling methodology too closely. To me that's the stupidest thing they could do. You're not even getting a biased sample anymore - you're getting the same sample and pretending like it's a new take. For every survey that company conducts. They might as well make it up themselves at that point. That paragraph you quoted is the dude confidently telling you that polling companies have run out of ideas to reach people and are giving up trying.
 
One of the surest signs that the surveys' methods are sound is the fact that people only trot out these inane blithering nonsense attacks on their methods when the results hurt their feelings. As long as the results feel warm and fuzzy, the claims about how obviously stupidly horribly invalid & worthless they are drift away on a puff of dreams leaving only a shower of rainbow glitter to help the candy grow.
 
It's a sign that the polls are consistent.

We will see if they translate into actual vote - to no small part because Republicans will go to terrible lengths to prevent some people from voting, and find other ways not to count votes they don't like.
 
National polls are quite irrelevant. But yeah, state polls have the same issues. Anyway, even 45:55 is too close to call, and in battleground states the polls are closer than that.
 
Delvo said:
One of the surest signs that the surveys' methods are sound is the fact that people only trot out these inane blithering nonsense attacks on their methods when the results hurt their feelings. As long as the results feel warm and fuzzy, the claims about how obviously stupidly horribly invalid & worthless they are drift away on a puff of dreams leaving only a shower of rainbow glitter to help the candy grow.
Click to expand...

That just shows whether people are inclined to believe polls, not whether the polls are accurate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom