2024 POTUS - polling only

[Anonymous]

I trust Nate Silver polling. Considering the data lag is essential. Right now we're getting data from the DNC-timeframe, which provides a bump. The next few weeks will be the real tell.

[Anonymous]

If the election was held today, Harris would likely win.

Things will get even better for Harris after the Sept. 10th debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the election was held today, Harris would likely win.

Things will get even better for Harris after the Sept. 10th debate.

This is definitely not a guarantee.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is not what is on Nate silver’s website though. Harris leads Trump nationally and in Pennsylvania. Very slightly though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not what is on Nate silver’s website though. Harris leads Trump nationally and in Pennsylvania. Very slightly though.

You misunderstood.

https://www.natesilver.net/p/nate-silver-2024-president-election-polls-model

Nate Silver's website shows Harris winning in the current polling average, but lowe probability than Trump to win the election, in the forecast that tries to cancel out short term bumps and seasonality.

Today's version doesn't show the probability in the non-paid section, but it does mention a decrease for Harris vs a few days ago when they already had Harris below 50% probability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Nate Silver Model update - Trump is back in the lead

🔴 Trump 52% (Chance)
🔵 Harris 47%

Silver said Fetterman was going to lose and he won by five.

No, Silver said Oz was slightly favored, based on an average of many polls, all but one of which far underestimated Fetterman's result.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/senate/pennsylvania/

People don't understand basic statistics.

Reading the minds of millions of people is not an exact science.

Part of why people expected Fetterman to lose as part of the “red wave” that didn’t happen is that in the last weeks before the election there were a ton of junky Republican-sponsored polls thrown onto the pile that drowned out the quality polls that were a bit older so the recent junk was given much more weight than it should have had in forecasts and polling compilations like Cook, 538 and RCP (RCP thought the current senate would be 53 R-47 D - it’s not.) I expect this to happen again.

The pollters that had Fetterman +/-1% in the final week were given A grades by 538.

But it was strange that the forecast changed suddenly to Oz, an exact flip 57-43 to 43-57, on the last day, despite poll average showing a tie.

Maybe Cook's overreaction was overweighted in the model?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not what is on Nate silver’s website though. Harris leads Trump nationally and in Pennsylvania. Very slightly though.

You misunderstood.

https://www.natesilver.net/p/nate-silver-2024-president-election-polls-model

Nate Silver's website shows Harris winning in the current polling average, but lowe probability than Trump to win the election, in the forecast that tries to cancel out short term bumps and seasonality.

Today's version doesn't show the probability in the non-paid section, but it does mention a decrease for Harris vs a few days ago when they already had Harris below 50% probability.

What is the point of cancelling out bumps. Did the Comey bump affect the 2016 election results? It must certainly did. Don't cancel it out.

[Anonymous]

We have all learned to be suspicious of polling. Look at actual election results. Things have been going well for Democrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Nate Silver Model update - Trump is back in the lead

🔴 Trump 52% (Chance)
🔵 Harris 47%

The explanation for this is that they’re factoring in a post convention bounce. If she continues her momentum and doesn’t lose the post convention bounce, her chances will improve in next week or two.

The thing to remember about Silver is that he tries to factor in all the "known future" like bounces, incumbents, October suprises. The way to judge is model is to look back from election day to a forecast day and ask "What were the surprises that don't usually happen? Can they explain the difference between forecast and result?"

The conditions of Harris's candidacy are unprecedented in modern history. Her momentum might grow or shrink. Walz is a more active and noticeable VP candidate than Harris or Pence were, and he wasn't well known before the nomination, so it will take time to factor him in.
(Pence was already a nationally known in early 2016 for his support of Indiana's nationally extreme anti-abortion law)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not what is on Nate silver’s website though. Harris leads Trump nationally and in Pennsylvania. Very slightly though.

You misunderstood.

https://www.natesilver.net/p/nate-silver-2024-president-election-polls-model

Nate Silver's website shows Harris winning in the current polling average, but lowe probability than Trump to win the election, in the forecast that tries to cancel out short term bumps and seasonality.

Today's version doesn't show the probability in the non-paid section, but it does mention a decrease for Harris vs a few days ago when they already had Harris below 50% probability.

What is the point of cancelling out bumps. Did the Comey bump affect the 2016 election results? It must certainly did. Don't cancel it out.

Comey was late October!
His bump was during the election!
The convention is 2 months before the election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not what is on Nate silver’s website though. Harris leads Trump nationally and in Pennsylvania. Very slightly though.

You misunderstood.

https://www.natesilver.net/p/nate-silver-2024-president-election-polls-model

Nate Silver's website shows Harris winning in the current polling average, but lowe probability than Trump to win the election, in the forecast that tries to cancel out short term bumps and seasonality.

Today's version doesn't show the probability in the non-paid section, but it does mention a decrease for Harris vs a few days ago when they already had Harris below 50% probability.

What is the point of cancelling out bumps. Did the Comey bump affect the 2016 election results? It must certainly did. Don't cancel it out.

Comey was late October!
His bump was during the election!
The convention is 2 months before the election.

I'm thinking some states have early voting that starts in a matter of weeks. We are in the election now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not what is on Nate silver’s website though. Harris leads Trump nationally and in Pennsylvania. Very slightly though.

You misunderstood.

https://www.natesilver.net/p/nate-silver-2024-president-election-polls-model

Nate Silver's website shows Harris winning in the current polling average, but lowe probability than Trump to win the election, in the forecast that tries to cancel out short term bumps and seasonality.

Today's version doesn't show the probability in the non-paid section, but it does mention a decrease for Harris vs a few days ago when they already had Harris below 50% probability.

What is the point of cancelling out bumps. Did the Comey bump affect the 2016 election results? It must certainly did. Don't cancel it out.

Comey was late October!
His bump was during the election!
The convention is 2 months before the election.

I'm thinking some states have early voting that starts in a matter of weeks. We are in the election now.

I think VA’s early voting is the earliest in the US and it starts 9/20. So we’re coming up on it for sure.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]