2024 POTUS - polling only

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm sorry but those numbers are preposterous

Yes it’s strange because she’s ahead in several swing states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Isn’t Nate Silver very clear about why the model has swung in Trumps direction? He also said Kamala will start going back up after the model is done “correcting” for the post-convention bounce and some more quality polling comes out post-Labor Day.

Silver gave Trump two points just because.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm sorry but those numbers are preposterous

Yeah, I just opened it up, it is not this at all?

Harris 56%, Trump 44%?

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/#:~:text=538%E2%80%99s%202024

DP but I think Nate Silver sold 538 so we'd need to see his new website for the relevant info.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm sorry but those numbers are preposterous

Yeah, I just opened it up, it is not this at all?

Harris 56%, Trump 44%?

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/#:~:text=538%E2%80%99s%202024

DP but I think Nate Silver sold 538 so we'd need to see his new website for the relevant info.

Silver has been salty ever since lefties started dragging him for pretending to be a public health expert or epidemiologist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm sorry but those numbers are preposterous

Yeah, I just opened it up, it is not this at all?

Harris 56%, Trump 44%?

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/#:~:text=538%E2%80%99s%202024

DP but I think Nate Silver sold 538 so we'd need to see his new website for the relevant info.

https://www.natesilver.net/p/pennsylvania-may-be-a-problem-for

[Anonymous]

Someone said something about Nate Silver being bankrolled by Peter Thiel so there’s that…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone said something about Nate Silver being bankrolled by Peter Thiel so there’s that…

Yeah he is employed by Polymarket now: https://www.axios.com/2024/07/16/nate-silver-polymarket

Which is owned by Peter Thiel: https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharyfolk/2024/05/14/peter-thiel-invests-in-polymarket-political-betting-platform-but-the-future-of-gambling-on-elections-remains-unclear/

I think Silver has enough $ of his own now that he isn't really that corruptible even if his bosses want Trump to win and think it's just fun to mess with betting stuff. But this - it's not even polling, it's just prediction stuff - is just insane. Trump has about a 50% chance of winning - gd help us - but he certainly does not have a BETTER than 50% chance right now. You have to really mess around with what you're seeing to come up with those odds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm sorry but those numbers are preposterous

Yeah, I just opened it up, it is not this at all?

Harris 56%, Trump 44%?

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/#:~:text=538%E2%80%99s%202024

DP but I think Nate Silver sold 538 so we'd need to see his new website for the relevant info.

Yes, Silver has his own thing - he sold 538 to ABC I think and it’s now run by the former top polling forecaster at the Economist.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Justin Grimmer is one of the smartest political scientists in the business. I thought he was behind 538 back when it was anonymous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

True to form, Nate Silver responded by referring to the authors of the paper as “boring academics who can't model for shit”. What an a$$hole.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Harris will have a more difficult time garnering votes from swing voters in regions east of the Rockies than many other POTUS candidates would simply because there has been an unfavorable view of Californian politicians circulating in parts of the country in recent decades. Walz should help her in overcoming this hurdle in the mid-western swing states and that is precisely why he was added to the ticket.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Nate Silver is exactly right. You would think with all this media adulation and a highly rated DNC, Harris would be crushing in the national and swing state polls. She hasn’t even had a bounce at all in any national polling average or swing state polling average. Her momentum in late July and early August has stalled and reversed in some cases. That’s not good. Just look at the data and take off your ideological blinders.