politics
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
view the rest of the comments
Meaningless considering he still hasn't predicted whether or not Biden will win this election. He says he needs another month lol.
Edit: As a bonus he can't even apply his own rubric to a new potential candidate. So the real questions are: How could he possibly know they'd be worse, and why the fuck is he even saying anything?
Not meaningless, his prediction system always gives the incumbent an advantage over anyone else in his party.
And yet, he hasn't predicted yet because there are many other "keys". Case-in-point: see how incumbency worked for Trump.
Also should be noted other reputable science-based algorithm designers like Nate Silver advises Biden to step down.
Finally, the unprecedented nature of an open convention also means this guy has nothing to go on for extrapolation.
Nate's algorithm is just a poll of polls. And his reasoning is incredibly short term and superficial.
Nate wasn't suggesting Biden drop out back in January when other candidates could run to replace him. He's only saying it now, because Biden's polling is at an all time low.
If Biden recovers (likely, as the memory of the debate fades behind other current events) the pundits will start singing a different tune quickly enough.
That isn't true. Far more involved than that. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-fivethirtyeights-2020-presidential-forecast-works-and-whats-different-because-of-covid-19/
Nate went further post-debate performance, knowing where Biden stands in a variety of polling and that this was the worst debate perhaps in the history of debates they was a make-or-break moment for the campaign desperate to reach a widespread audience. Biden capturing the attention of 50 million people will not happen again between now and November. For many Americans this debate, which Republicans will never let anyone forget, will be the last thing they remember.
More importantly there will be no major positive event that overrides it. That event, if it existed, already passed with Trump's conviction.
Nobody can provide me a single data-point where Biden isn't performing significantly worse than his 2020 race where he won by merely 40,000 votes across 3 battleground states. Time to face hard truths.
The entire baseline for his predictions, plus or minus some additional adjustments. Everything after that is rooted in the original poll-aggregate foundation.
He was not telling Biden to drop out the day before the debate. He was telling Biden to drop out the day after, but before he actually inserted "bad debate performance" into his model and rerun a thousand model elections. This is what always gets Nate in trouble. He shoots from the hip on hot-button issues, rather than remaining academic.
Trump tanked two debates against Hillary and still squeaked through on election day. Nobody is going to be thinking about this debate by the time the Olympics are over.
2020 had some of the highest turnout in US history, thanks to mail-in voting and quarantine. 2024 is going to see a huge drop off in participation. It isn't immediately clear which candidate is going to suffer the worst from the deficit in support, as Biden has banked hard on appeasing moderate conservative voters while Trump trundles further and further out into right-wing.
They're both deeply disliked candidates.
lol my guy, you are reaching for some serious straws. If you're not going off of this data, what ARE you going off, exactly...? Vibes? This is more denial than I can handle.
Well no fucking shit! That's called adapting to new information. Any good scientist or analyst does it. When an unprecedented event like THAT debate performance occurs, then yes, that means you must go back and readjust the model. Models only work if they actually factor in the latest information — you get this, right? Have you SEEN the post-debate polling coming out? It's TERRIBLE:
Post-Debate: "72 Percent Say Biden Unfit Mentally, Cognitively."
Post-Debate: "64% of Independents want Biden replaced on the ballot"; that's more than they want Trump replaced on the ballot by 1%, by the way.
Post-Debate: "Undecided voter focus group leans toward Trump after debate"
You live in this magical fairy-tale world where Trump is held to the same standard as Biden when he clearly is not. If voters were as informed as you and me then we wouldn't have either of these fucking candidates. Neither of those poor debates come remotely close to what we saw yesterday from the person espousing to be the fighter to take on Donald Trump. It doesn't change the reality reflected in every single piece of data we have in battleground states. Now you can choose to bury your head in the sand and go off vibes if you want, but good luck with that.
i bet you i could predict it with 100% accuracy if you give me another 4 months
Yeah you say that and should be right but I'm more worried about January than I am November...