It is amazing that any journalism organization, much less the NY Times, would quote Nate Silver on politics without disclosing that he is an "advisor" to political betting company with funding from Trump ally Peter Thiel.
-
It is amazing that any journalism organization, much less the NY Times, would quote Nate Silver on politics without disclosing that he is an "advisor" to political betting company with funding from Trump ally Peter Thiel.
Such shabby journalism, in every possible way.
-
@dangillmor Nail Nate Silver and all of the rest of them for securities fraud when it's over.
My take: they've realized their candidate is going to lose but they can make a huge amount of money exploiting their audience who's deluded he's going to win, via using their clout and status as "on his side" to manipulate betting markets.
-
@dalias @dangillmor I think all media companies are doing this. Intentionally. A close race = clicks, and clicks are what they need to generate ad revenue. Commissioning bogus polls that create the appearance of a close race drives traffic, etc.
-
@todwest @dalias @dangillmor There's obviously an incentive for media to do this, but how do you figure it isn't close?
(because communicating on the internet is the worst: I am not insinuating you're wrong or anything, I'm asking sincerely. I live far from the US and have nothing to go by except polls and media analyses - which sure do make it look very close, at least given the weird electoral college system.)
-
@datarama @dalias @dangillmor Since the 2020 election, including the 2022 midterms, Dem candidates have outperformed the polls by 3-5 points. It's been remarkably consistent. Pollsters have their turnout model wrong. Dems have a huge enthusiasm advantage that isn't being factored-in.
-
@todwest @dalias @dangillmor Right. I've figured that part of that might be overcompensating for "the Trump shame factor". Eg. people didn't want to tell the nice person calling from the pollster / analysis institute that they were voting for someone polite company would consider monster - which is probably less of a factor now that he's been president.
-
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] As someone in the US who's been to Pennsylvania--a key battleground state--recently, I'd say this election is uncomfortably close. I have no special knowledge of the matter, but that's my gut on it.
People forget 2016 way too easily. I was teaching a data science class that year and I made a whole lot of hay out of Nate Silver's projection plots that showed Clinton having a near-100% chance of winning, right up until the day of the election when that projection dramatically flipped to Trump having a near-100% chance of winning. The question to the students being a pedagogical version of "wtaf?".
-
dataramareplied to Anthony last edited by [email protected]
@abucci @todwest @dalias @dangillmor This is my impression I get from the few Americans I have regular contact with, too. And the polls and analyses I read online.
(Which I find horrifying.)
-
@datarama @dalias @dangillmor I also ask myself how Trump has improved his coalition. And I don't see anything that leads me to believe this is the case. The opposite is true, in fact. Something like 20 percent of Republicans say they will not vote for him under any circumstance. Then you factor-in January 6, and the Dobbs decision, and the bad economic proposals, etc. In 2020 there was no GOTV because of covid. Dems turnout machine dwarfs the GOP in numbers and cash. Trump is going to lose by a bigger margin than he lost to Biden.
-
@todwest @dalias @dangillmor I hope you're right!
