-
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
Polls and betting agencies are definitely saying Biden...but then this keeps happening
and Trump's doing 5 of these a day...
Now that's a Super Spreader!! At least they will get out to vote before they get really sick
-
@Stockcar86 said in US Politics:
@Frank said in US Politics:
538 is a very highly followed site for aggregating polls.
They currently give Biden an 89% chance of winning the election.
(though he was wrong last time)
@Frank I don't think you understand stats - in 2016, 538's last forecast model gave Trump a 29% chance. So basically they said 1 time in 3 Trump would win. A big ingenuous to day they were wrong - they never said Hillary was gong to win, just that she had more chance, based on their model, fed by others polls.
See here for an analysis on that
Okay they were "inaccurate"
They gave Hillary a 2 in 3 chance of victory.
She lost.This time they give Biden a 89% of victory.
Let's see if they are right. -
@Frank said in US Politics:
@Stockcar86 said in US Politics:
@Frank said in US Politics:
538 is a very highly followed site for aggregating polls.
They currently give Biden an 89% chance of winning the election.
(though he was wrong last time)
@Frank I don't think you understand stats - in 2016, 538's last forecast model gave Trump a 29% chance. So basically they said 1 time in 3 Trump would win. A big ingenuous to day they were wrong - they never said Hillary was gong to win, just that she had more chance, based on their model, fed by others polls.
See here for an analysis on that
Okay they were "inaccurate"
They gave Hillary a 2 in 3 chance of victory.
She lost.This time they give Biden a 89% of victory.
Let's see if they are right.I still don't think you understand. They can't be 'right' or 'wrong' here.
-
@Kiwiwomble
I gotta say, the polling firms have it covered.They are never wrong.
-
@Frank said in US Politics:
@barbarian
What word should I use ? Statistically inaccurate?I suppose it doesn't much matter. The poll amalgamator shouldn't be the focal point, it's the polls themselves.
The lessons of the last five or so years are that these should be taken with a grain of salt. It's a broad brush guide as to what might happen, not what will happen. Though Biden has the lead in most polls, my feel (from a long way away) is that no chickens are being counted yet, which may have been the case with the Clinton campaign in 2016.
I'm skeptical about the 89% figure, that seems too high, but that's going off vibe not data. Rembrandt's points about the turnout at rallies is a good one. It could be nothing, but it could be something. It certainly wouldn't shock me if Trump won.
You'd be mad to make any definitive prediction about the result. I'd say a landslide either way looks really unlikely though.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
@Frank if all they're doing is reporting the polling results...then no, theyre not wrong, the polls are what they are
Yep. Small sample sizes (compared to 330m people, of which, only half vote anyway so the "who are you voting for" question may not even be relevant if they don't). Large statistical error margins, a skewed electoral college system, and they aren't "predicting" anything.
-
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
Polls and betting agencies are definitely saying Biden...but then this keeps happening
and Trump's doing 5 of these a day...
Not quite sure how this is remotely comparable to Biden. How do you know that he wouldn't also have large rallies if he wasn't being sensible around Covid?
I would guess that Trump would still have larger rally numbers anyway simply because those that like his 'style' are those that will attend these things.
There were some good size rallies being held in Nuremburg once upon a time as well. Hope things don't turn out similar. I thought the western world had learned a few lessons about populism.
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
There were some good size rallies being held in Nuremburg once upon a time as well. Hope things don't turn out similar. I thought the western world had learned a few lessons about populism.
Jesus mate, get a grip
-
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
@Frank if all they're doing is reporting the polling results...then no, theyre not wrong, the polls are what they are
I think 538 are doing more than just reporting polls.
They are weighting them based on past accuracy and recency and doing other fancy things with them.If the result is so uncertain (as many on here feel), the polls should reflect that.
Otherwise they are practically useless. -
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
There were some good size rallies being held in Nuremburg once upon a time as well. Hope things don't turn out similar. I thought the western world had learned a few lessons about populism.
Jesus mate, get a grip
Don't hide behind Godwins.
It is actually quite a relevant point that populist politics on scales like this don't usually end well (win or lose) -
-
@Frank said in US Politics:
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
@Frank if all they're doing is reporting the polling results...then no, theyre not wrong, the polls are what they are
I think 538 are doing more than just reporting polls.
They are weighting them based on past accuracy and recency and doing other fancy things with them.If the result is so uncertain (as many on here feel), the polls should reflect that.
Otherwise they are practically useless.If you want polls to predict the future I think this statement is correct. Best not to
-
@barbarian said in US Politics:
@Crucial I thought the Nuremburg reference was a little much.
People weren't making those comparisons when Obama drew similar crowds.
The Nuremburg reference was to the rallies of the early 30s which were regular and often and used as a tool. They are the most obvious example.
Obama's crowds were more akin to a rock concert. His inauguration used to draw big names to perform. I can't recall him having large 'propoganda' like rallies of 'uniform' wearing chanters.
Not saying Trumps ones are the same as others just that they draw comparison.
US Politics