606
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2024
606 points (99.2% liked)
politics
19244 readers
2310 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I doubt it will happen, but it would be poetic justice if so many people get pissed over this that Trump loses Ohio.
Current model from Silver and the polls raw data averages say it’s not even close. Trump will win the state by a 97.6% to 2.4% spread.
Because so many of you cannot understand modeling vs polling averages… that is the likelihood of a win as a result of taking poll inputs through Silver’s model, reflecting overall chances of a win as a output.
It is NOT polling average percentages.
Doubt
It’s not the spread. It’s the likelihood of him winning the state.
If it starts to make his numbers dip it could trigger them to divert more money to Ohio it hadn't previously meant to. Could have a broader effect.
In the latest version I found of Nate Silver's model (not 538), he has Ohio coming in at 52.4% for Trump and 43.6% for Harris, an 8.8% spread. I did not dig deeper to find the dates or particular polls from Ohio he's basing that on.
However, based on these numbers, he is likely modelling that Trump wins Ohio in 90%+ of outcomes to Harris's <5% of outcomes.
This is the same way he spoke to his model in previous elections. It wasn't that Hillary was expected to win 80-90% of the popular vote or electoral college just weeks before the 2016 election, it was that his model had her winning that percentage of the outcomes when he ran the model.
The numbers I gave are the model outputs for the state as of yesterday off his subscriber based model talk page.
So no.
Of course these are the likelihood of a win and not polling differences. That’s why I said model output, not a poll aggregate.
An 8 point spread in a state for polling averages is incredibly large. For reference Ohio is as deeply spread red in polling averages as Nee Jersey is blue. You think New Jersey votes red this year in any reasonable reality? No.
For an even more crazy but accurate comparison: Alaska has the same mid point statistical odds of going red as Ohio, but its error bars are more than double Ohio. Meaning? There is an incredibly slim but massively more possible chance Alaska goes blue than Ohio.
People are going to mistake those odds for polling numbers...
They very much did.
"... so you're saying there's a chance? ..."
Unfortunately that's not usually the first impact of terrorism. Support for them will rise until they do something stupid, pointless, and tragic. Unfortunately by that time there's thousands of people deep in the ideology in an area and it requires military action to clean up. Telling that something is wrong and we're all hurting brings people in. Killing innocent people drives people away. It's why David Duke is all rhetoric and little action. He can publicly sever himself and the movement from people who do take action while influencing them to do so and advancing his political position.