Summary

Polling aggregator FiveThirtyEight has named Vice President Kamala Harris as the narrow favorite to win the presidential race on Election Day, shifting from former President Donald Trump for the first time since October 17.

Harris's lead is razor-thin, with FiveThirtyEight’s model showing her winning 50 out of 100 simulations compared to Trump’s 49. Similarly, Nate Silver’s model in The Silver Bulletin also slightly favors Harris, giving her a win in 50.015% of cases.

Both forecasts emphasize the unprecedented closeness of this race, with Pennsylvania as a key battleground.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 237 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (6 children)
  • [–] 79 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Also, these models are extremely rough. They are forced to make a bunch of very rough estimations and guesses, which are then aggregated to a stupidly precise number making it look scientific.

    It's a fun enough exercise, but it's really just repeated endlessly because it's so goddamn easy to report on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    There's also the problem that if the polls are crap, the results of the model will also be crap, regardless of how accurate the model is. It's similar to how publication bias affects meta-analyses. Several analysts have already argued that pollsters are unlikely to underestimate Trump again, and may in fact over-correct and underestimate Harris much like how they underestimated dems in 2022:

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    The Nate Silver model (at least) puts in a bunch of "corrections" for poll quality and historical bias from individual pollsters.

    So you're really playing a second or third level game of "Did Nate (or your other poll aggregator) correct for all the effects and biases, or did they miss something important?"

    And we will never be able to validate if these odds are accurate or not, because this specific election will never be replayed again.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    if the early voter demographics + recent polls only have it at a 'coin flip' as the polls open on the last day:

    we're screwed.

    (please go vote and prove me wrong)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago

    I’m not sure how accurate early voter demographics correlate to voting patterns anymore. I work for a municipality, and my office has a clear view of the voting lines. They were PACKED for the first week of early voting. They have been empty today. Like, people are still coming in to vote, but it’s onesie-twosies, not the 50+ person lines it was. Allegedly we had over 50% of our eligible voters cast their ballots during early voting. And my area is pretty solidly red. I’m having trouble making any sort of prediction based on it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Pollsters sucked in the election. It's like forecasting a 50% chance of rain. "One candidate may win, but the other may win too!" I know that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    That's pretty much always what the polls say for the presidential election. I don't know why people expect pollsters to have crystal balls. The election is mostly decided on who is going to actually go vote, and a lot of people don't know the answer to that until election day.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    And even if they did predict anything convincingly, it would probably end up a self-defeatung prophecy, as people don't care to show up. Or self-fulfilling, if people want to vote for the winning team. In either case it's just very limited what polls can achieve.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    This is why people keep complaining about the polls being wrong. The polls are often pretty good these days, but the people reporting and talking about them do not understand basic statistics.

    If I had a coin with a small booger weighting one side and making it more likely to land booger side down 51% of the time, would I be surprised if it landed booger side up? No.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 111 points 2 years ago (11 children)

    Doesn't matter. Get off the couch. Vote.

    Bring your friends.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • load more comments (9 replies)
    [–] 50 points 2 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] 34 points 2 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] 31 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    The headline is misleading.

    Out of 80,000 simulations, Harris won in 50.015 percent of cases, while Trump won in 49.65 percent of cases, per Silver's model. Some 270 simulations resulted in a 269-269 Electoral College tie.

    So a better headline would be "Simulations show Harris and Trump are equally likely to win the election." The difference between them is insignificant.

    And when you factor in all the underhand cheating tactics the Republicans have up their sleeve, the Democrats' tendency to cave, and the Supreme Court's bias, Trump looks a lot more likely to win than Harris.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 2 years ago

    Please flush the Orange Turd.

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

    BuT tHeY wErE WrOnG iN 2016!1

    Yes, and no. They estimated a slightly higher chance for a Hillary win over a Donald win, but they were well within the margin of polling error, and they have been for every election. Plus people have a tendency of over-valuing a "51% chance to win".

    While this is good news, it could mean nothing.

    EDIT: 538 explained it better than I ever could:
    "Statistically, too, there is no meaningful difference between a 50-in-100 chance and a 49-in-100 chance. Small changes in the available polling data or settings of our model could easily change a 50-in-100 edge to 51-in-100 or 49-in-100. That’s all to say that our overall characterization of the race is more important than the precise probability — or which candidate is technically ahead.”

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    I wouldn’t be surprised if what we learn from this election is how it wasn’t really close at all, and all of the polls were extremely wrong.

    I’m basing this on the fact that more newly registered voters are voting this election than in decades, and all of the polls only account for “likely voters“ based on their registration and party affiliation without taking into account all of the new voters. Most of the new voters are likely to vote Democratic.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    There have been a few articles on "herding" which I didn't even know about before this election. I am no pollster, but it sounds like there's a huge incentive to protect the reputation of the polling firm ("it's a draw, so we can't be wrong") vs reporting numbers they think might make news.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 22 points 2 years ago

    Every poll is a lie.

    Vote!

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago

    Fuck the forecast and Vote!

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    50.015% literally means that neither candidate is favored to win. Take out a coin, assign Harris as heads and trump as tails, now flip the coin a bunch of times - and that's exactly how often Harris or trump is likely to win the election

    EDIT

    Nate Silver just posted his final pre-election blog post and he explains very clearly that this is a dead even race. Either candidate is just as likely to win as the other candidate.

    https://www.natesilver.net/p/a-random-number-generator-determined

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I heard that Nate was also being critical of pollsters who were "herding" their results to not get caught too far on the wrong side, and yet he's doing it. I'm just going to watch the results come in and not worry about trying to predict the future that will be known soon enough.

    The only good thing with all these "tied" poll reports is that it may encourage voting to break a perceived tie. So vote like it's tied, and hope for a blowout.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago*

    I dont care what the polls say. I voted, you should vote, tell your friends and family to vote. Tell the stranger down the street you barely know to vote.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Americans have made it clear that will never elect a woman. This election was a mandate against women

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 9 points 2 years ago

    Polls be dammed. If Kamala doesn't win a significant victory today, I'll be shocked and my faith in humanity will be shaken. Again.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The safest prediction of 50/50. No matter who wins they can claim to have called it.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The fucking media!

    Look at this.

    These two posts are about the exact same data from the exact same source:

    Notice the subtle difference?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    This title was written by a moron specifically to appeal to morons.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›