194
submitted 3 months ago by nifty@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] SquishyPandaDev@yiffit.net 181 points 3 months ago

Abolish the Electoral Collage.

[-] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 89 points 3 months ago

That ain’t gonna happen.

That said, we can make it irrelevant with The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It’s 77% the way there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] zabadoh@ani.social 57 points 3 months ago

Or Electoral College even.

I would like to see what an Electoral Collage looks like.

[-] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 22 points 3 months ago

You don't have one in your Democracy Scrapbook?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)

This is what we should've spent every waking moment doing since 2016. Why do we distract so easily...

[-] djehuti@programming.dev 18 points 3 months ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 179 points 3 months ago

Just a reminder to not be complacent.

[-] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 110 points 3 months ago

Here's hoping Trump pulls a Biden tomorrow.

[-] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 134 points 3 months ago

Or a James Earl Jones. I'm not picky.

[-] Whirlygirl9@kbin.melroy.org 77 points 3 months ago

Oh god, this is how I find out!!!!!

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] AmidFuror@fedia.io 36 points 3 months ago
[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 22 points 3 months ago

For once, it might actually be too soon.

[-] taxon@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago

Too Soon! (I just read about JEJ)

[-] NegativeInf@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago

Sad about JEJ. But maybe a rule of 3s that takes out Trump wouldn't be the worst outcome.

[-] cmbabul@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago

I’m almost certain JEJ would be happy to take the bastard out with him

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 53 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The problem was that Biden was actually trying to say something complicated and he got tripped up. Trump has always spoken at a kindergarten level because he knows he has nothing to say.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] GlassHalfHopeful@lemmy.ca 68 points 3 months ago

Who is this guy and how serious should we take this information? This is by far the highest number I've seen for Trump so far.

[-] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 83 points 3 months ago

He's quite a well known pollster. Up until recently he was responsible for Five Thirty Eight, but it got sold and he left.

He got the 2016 election wrong (71 Hilary, 28 trump) He got the 2020 election right (89 Biden, 10 Trump)

Right and wrong are the incorrect terms here, but you get what I mean.

[-] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 67 points 3 months ago

He didn’t get it wrong. He said the Clinton Trump election was a tight horse race, and Trump had one side of a four sided die.

The state by state data wasn’t far off.

Problem is, people don’t understand statistics.

load more comments (40 replies)
[-] SeriousMite@lemmy.world 56 points 3 months ago

He works for Peter Theil now, so I take everything he says with a huge grain of salt.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] IAmTheZeke@lemmy.world 34 points 3 months ago

Polling guru Nate Silver and his election prediction model gave Donald Trump a 63.8% chance of winning the electoral college in an update to his latest election forecast on Sunday, after a NYT-Siena College poll found Donald Trump leading Vice President Kamala Harris by 1 percentage point.

He's just a guy analizing the polls. The source is Fox News. He mentions in the article that tomorrow's debate could make that poll not matter.

Should you trust Nate or polls? They're fun but... Who is answering these polls? Who wants to answer them before even October?

So yeah take it seriously that a poll found that a lot of support for Trump exists. But it's just a moment of time for whoever they polled. Tomorrow's response will be a much better indication of any momentum.

[-] GlassHalfHopeful@lemmy.ca 13 points 3 months ago

It just seems strange because I don't think that many people are on the fence. Perhaps I'm crazy, but I feel most people know exactly who they're voting for already. Makes me wonder how valid this cross-section was that was used as the sample set. If it accurately represents the US, including undecided voters, then... 😮

[-] randon31415@lemmy.world 17 points 3 months ago

but I feel most people know exactly who they’re voting for already

The cross-section of people you know are more politically off the fence than the entire nation. Those that aren't online at all are also more undecided and less likely to interact with you.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago

I listen to those news things that interview people on the street and I'm amazed at how many are uninformed and can go either way.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 13 points 3 months ago

It's a chance of winning, not a poll, so 64% is high but not insane. Silver is serious and it's a decent model. Knowing the model there's a pretty good chance this is a high point for Trump but it's not like he's pulling this out of nowhere, he has had similar models every election cycle since like 2008.

If it's overstaying Trump it's because his model is interpreting the data incorrectly because of the weirdness of this election cycle. I personally think that is likely the case here.

load more comments (22 replies)
[-] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 60 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Ignore headlines

JUST VOTE

[-] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 52 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

~~His older model at~~ 538 has things tighter with the coin toss slightly weighted toward Harris.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-harris-2024-election-map/

Whether it’s 55/45 or 65/35, we’re still basically talking about the same thing. This race is neck and neck, and whoever gets the turnout edge will win. We’re talking about fractions of percents that are at play, which is why these odd are a coin toss.

Edit: it looks like 538’s model is new, and Silver doesn’t like it or the guy behind it.

https://www.natesilver.net/p/why-i-dont-buy-538s-new-election

[-] alilbee@lemmy.world 29 points 3 months ago

Different model, same website. Silver got to keep his model and took it elsewhere after departing from 538.

[-] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago

TIL. I thought they forked it. I didn’t realize 538’s was all new.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 43 points 3 months ago

to be fair, nate silver is an idiot funded by peter thiel

[-] bss03@infosec.pub 17 points 3 months ago

He's not an idiot. He is funded by Thiel. He has been politically captured by authoritarian capitalism, so I'd be wary of any models he produced that aren't independently audited for bias.

I think polls are useful, and the monte carlo simulation approach for turning them into a electorial vote probability is good, but there "too much" magic sauce left over for me to trust the outputs from Silver or 538.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 35 points 3 months ago

I hate my country

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 32 points 3 months ago

Important to note, these forecasts are absolutely subject to change. This is not Nostradamus. It is merely reading the polls and factors as they stand. If Harris obliterates Trump tomorrow then this flips. If everyone donates enough money this week and the DNC gets more ground network for their get out the vote efforts, then this flips

All the model guys are very clear about this.

What's driving this current Trump run in the models is the lack of a convention bump for Harris. Models automatically tune a candidate's chances down by about 10 percent after their convention because it's usually a bit of a honeymoon period. It's been pointed out though that she may have had her honeymoon period after taking over from Biden. In which case the odds are more like 46/54.

The takeaway from this is that this election is incredibly close right now. Even at 36/64 it is very close. Both candidates need to run near perfect campaigns to have a chance of winning.

[-] Eximius@lemmy.world 24 points 3 months ago

What the fuck? How can this "race" even be close? How brain-dead emotional are the voters? There are two candidates, you choose the person who's ideals and directions you believe in? How is the election process surprisingly similar to an ADHD kindegarten with a nominated side whose campaign is metaphorical shit slinging??

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Crumbgrabber@lemm.ee 25 points 3 months ago

Nate silver also predicted Hillary would win against Trump.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 15 points 3 months ago

I suspect Harris got her "convention bounce" (as defined by the model) right when she became the nominee, this made the model think she was overperforming pre-convention and now the bounce is fading "early" when the model thinks she should still have it so it seems like she's underperformed.

If this is the theory, knowing how close the swing states are and thus how swingy it can be, most likely this number goes back to maybe 55/45 Trump.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2024
194 points (84.4% liked)

News

23680 readers
4097 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS