Newsweek has devolved into a garbage website on par with Daily News. The article about the poll showing Trump overcoming a 7 point swing is a good example. Newsweek fails to mention that the pollster Activote has disqualifying issues.
Early elections predictions
- Thread starter Dr.Sid
- Start date
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
The shtick is getting old, guy.
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2001
- Messages
- 14,862
If DEI is such a huge problem what accounts for all the non-DEI catastrophes in Washington?
Seems like incompetence knows no race or gender.
But it's only called DEI selectively. Hmmm. I wonder if something's being highlighted that can't be said out loud.
jt512
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2011
- Messages
- 5,053
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
No, Farage is just Putin's whore.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
I predict that Harris will win in a landslide the magnitude of which will make other landslides look like minor slippage.
But it has to be said that my track record for election predictions is terrible.
But it has to be said that my track record for election predictions is terrible.
Harris wins handily. It looks close initially but she gets the bulk of the swing states and that's that.
tbh whatever happens I'll just be glad when it's over and people take down those stupid obnoxious signs in their yard, off the highways, the political commercials subside etc.
tbh whatever happens I'll just be glad when it's over and people take down those stupid obnoxious signs in their yard, off the highways, the political commercials subside etc.
Gulliver Foyle
Philosopher
They don't even need to know* if they're going by "likely voter" criteria, which most of them are. The excluded groups are pre-screened for them, because they won't be "likely" voters if they can't get their feet in the door.
*Though a few seconds thinking and some number crunching would clue them in.
Gulliver Foyle
Philosopher
You know what the person you quoted is saying is that they preselect people with a predetermined result in mind, right?
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 21,944
I did not see that, but it's every bit as foolish as the part I already debunked.
Lothian
should be banned
Can you please quite the posters saying they can forecast the election better than the best forecast models. in a quick check I could not see anyone saying that.
Yes.
The poll is damning of the members at large.
A left wing forum collapses into a ludicrous poll result.
44 to 7 when the betting shops have Trump clear favorite.
Last edited:
jt512
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2011
- Messages
- 5,053
I'm looking at the votes in the poll. There are two ways to see how divergent the "skeptics" here are from the forecast models. While the models rule out neither a landslide win by either candidate, they favor a slim win by Harris followed by a slim win by Trump. Thus anyone voting for a landslide win by either candidate thinks their judgment is better than the models' predictions.
The second way to see how divergent the opinion here is from the models is to look at the percentage who predict Harris will win vs. those who predict Trump will win. Every respectable model currently puts the odds at about 55:45 in favor of Harris, while the prediction markets currently have Trump as a slight favorite with odds, as of this posting, of 52:46. In contrast, the voting in this thread is currently 44:7 in favor in Harris!
Last edited:
Lothian
should be banned
I find it remarkable that you equate the poll question in this thread to the unrelated question as to whether the people in the poll think they know more than the pollsters.
Dr.Sid
Philosopher
Indeed. If we were all trusting let's say 538 model, which let's say sits now at 55:45 .. we all should select close victory for Harris. Which would make our poll 100:0.
Do you see how those two are something completely different.
This poll being 44:7 actually shows we DO strongly agree with models.
Do you see how those two are something completely different.
This poll being 44:7 actually shows we DO strongly agree with models.
angrysoba
Philosophile
Huh? One of them must win obvs. If Harris is favoured by the polls, if even slightly, then it makes sense to predict her. It does not make sense for people to split fifty-fifty as well in predictions. About half of the people betting WILL be wrong and they are the ones who thought they knew better than the other half.
Donal
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2006
- Messages
- 8,911
Not really. First of all, 70% of the very small sample size think it will be a close victory, whoever wins(if you exclude the Planet X option). that's what most of the forecast models say.
Also, because of the winner-take-all system most states (all of the swing states) use, a handful of votes in a handful of districts can rperesent a massive electoral college swing.
Again, for the millionth time, betting markets are for enticing people to vote, not actually predicting outcomes. Plus, betting markets change. Faster than actually prediction models. The entire purpose for a betting market is because a lot of people want to think they know better than the experts.
If you want to see something crazy, look at the debates around climate change and vaccines. Look at all the people who think they know better than people with the education, experience, and accomplishments in the relevant fields. And those are hard science, not a social science using quesitonable methods.
Last edited:
Beelzebuddy
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,572
I wasn't saying that before, but I am now if Brainster's source is accurate. If all the survey companies are switching over to an in-house stable of pollees, that would go some way toward explaining the behavior that doesn't mesh with the rest of my political expectations, like how nothing seems to move the needle anymore. They can't help but preselect their people because they're the only people there to select.
When you ask follow up questions of a sample of people, you don't get another independent sample, you have a longitudinal study of a single cohort. A thousand likely voters sampled from a group of a thousand likely voters are the same people, who know they're being sampled and from the description are being actively encouraged to see themselves as representatives of their demographics.
That data can be still valuable, but it's no longer applicable to the same treatment as data from independent samples. You can't toss it into the same giant polling aggregator without skewing the results. I'm sure pollsters know this. It sounds to me like they can't think of any better solution, so they're just rolling with it. I'd say they're wrong. They'd say I'm wrong. Guess we'll find out in November.
plague311
Great minds think...
Why do we care what the ******* betting markets say again? I'll never understand that. You know that betting markets don't reflect how people are going to vote, right? It's just a market for people to bet on who will win. I don't know how many times this needs to be said.
Check the odds on Sunday morning before football starts. Make note of who the betting lines say will win, then get back to me at the end of that Sunday. I bet you'd be shocked at how many games they get wrong, every Sunday. Every week.