-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
- Status
NE-02 is a warning sign for progressives. Kara eastmen should have had an easy win considering the seat but she ran 10 fucking points behind Biden since she was running on Medicare for all. This narrative that we need to nominate true progressives is frankly just absurd that they will do better. Clearly progressives and democrats are going to have to do more to control the narrative but medicare for all is a fucking boogeyman for people.
Hire better marketers and rebranders
Stick to talking about the benefits and ideas
Control the narrative
538 modeled the uncertainty decently despite the truly abysmal polls it was eating. They said a Trump win is basically rolling a 1 on a 10-sided die--and we've rolled, what, a 2? Maybe a 3, depending on how things shake out? Things like that happen!
A recount was to be expected, Trump's gonna pay for it, and it's just going to widen Biden's margin.
It's not his forecast's fault, those "A+" state polls were fucking trash and incredibly off-target.
And the polling error wasn't just ~3%, try like 10% in the case of Wisconsin and Michigan.
You ask any of these polling dipshits about polling error throughout the year and they would tell you that they had 4 years to fix it and they did and that you are dumb for asking about it. Now he's saying "what did you expect?" Fuck off.
dems currently at 47. tight race in Michigan for a dem incumbent to make 48. maine still a possibility with 24% of the vote left and ranked choice voting. georgia has one runoff confirmed for January and a second that could happen if the current incumbent drops below 50%.
michigan is likely to happen. maine is really up in the air. two Georgia runoffs is definitely possible, but winning those seats is another matter entirely.
After some reflection, I have to say that was probably the worst National Sandwich Day we've had in awhile.
Nate isn't a poller, which why I understand where he is coming from.
If anyone's takeaway from 538's model was to ignore the wide range of outcomes, and to ignore the *specific* scenarios they talked about at length like the 3% polling error scenario, I'm not sure what you plan on doing in 2022/2024.
Make Rass your new God?
No thanks. I'll keep on relying on 538 to give me realistic ideas on the plausible OUTCOMES.
Plural.
Make Rass your new God?
No thanks. I'll keep on relying on 538 to give me realistic ideas on the plausible OUTCOMES.
Plural.
The real question is, will WI ever be able to get Trump to actually pay for it.
Jericho is a trump supporter. It's a huge bummer since he's a great entertainer but he loves conspiracy theory bullshit and of course that skews right.
Silver isn't at fault for the polling being off, but neither is he in a position to pat himself on the back for being informative as if his model demonstrated anything of use for what went on yesterday.
You also don't get to point for months about how state polling is more predictive and then shrug your shoulders and point to the national margin when the state polls are largely bunk.
You also don't get to point for months about how state polling is more predictive and then shrug your shoulders and point to the national margin when the state polls are largely bunk.
While true, I don't know if two years of back to back hedging on robust polling errors with 'but the guy can still win' as anything but a victory lap with a broken leg.
To be fair to her, her former primary opponent and our former Dem rep (Ashford) endorsed the Republican. That definitely swung some votes here.
It's going to take years to undo the damage of Fox News. People just don't want it. It's upsetting but we're going to get nowhere with people like AOC or Bernie and perhaps set the country back even further
I think, in retrospect, Biden was the only candidate from the Dem primaries who could've won. Kamala, Warren, Bernie, Beto, Bloomberg, they all would have lost.
Last I heard was they took the day off and we'll know in the morning.
I'm blaming previous threads for me buying into all the hopium/hype of course. I came in pessimistic and got told over and over to be optimistic and with good reason (the data).
Joking a bit about the blaming others just thought it fit with the theme. I just really would like us to somehow get close to figuring out why these were all so wrong. I mean Dems spent what looks like a lot of "wasted" effort and money based on things that looked promising based on data (Texas dream, Harrison, Mitch, countless other examples).
I put wasted in quotes because I do not think it is a waste to put an effort into winning a seat or state that you are traditionally not favored in. But we are always going to have limited time, people, and money.
I have a lot of trouble seeing Biden/Harris win in 2024 unless the economy does really well by then. If it's good, they can make it, they'll have the incumbent advantage. Covid is seriously in the way though.
The scenarios I expect are:
- Strong economy: favors Dems with Biden or Harris as POTUS.
- Not great economy: favors Republicans with Harris as POTUS if R candidate is established R politician (usual bias against Democrat female politician), equal chances if Biden is still president. Don't see an outsider running in this context.
- Bad economy: favors Republicans with Biden or Harris as POTUS, R candidate is established politician, but context favors the emergence of an outsider among Republican candidates. VERY difficult for an outsider to snatch the candidacy from the established Republicans, Trump was an anomaly on that end, Republicans are very egotistical and would not elect an outsider to make use of his charisma. Not impossible for Trump Jr to be given the chance though, safe bet for the party.
The scenarios I expect are:
- Strong economy: favors Dems with Biden or Harris as POTUS.
- Not great economy: favors Republicans with Harris as POTUS if R candidate is established R politician (usual bias against Democrat female politician), equal chances if Biden is still president. Don't see an outsider running in this context.
- Bad economy: favors Republicans with Biden or Harris as POTUS, R candidate is established politician, but context favors the emergence of an outsider among Republican candidates. VERY difficult for an outsider to snatch the candidacy from the established Republicans, Trump was an anomaly on that end, Republicans are very egotistical and would not elect an outsider to make use of his charisma. Not impossible for Trump Jr to be given the chance though, safe bet for the party.
Nate is leaning hard on the "technically right is the best kind of right" idea. But I'm doing so he's missing the point and getting defensive that using stone cold data to project elections has come up short. If he weren't so defensive he could se that maybe there's work to be done.
Tell that to a couple people on my Facebook lol
One thinks Bernie would have cleaned up, the other thinks Gabbard would have won in a landslide
*facepalm*
I won't say that the 538 model wasn't "valuable" or "useful," but I think it's a hard sell to say it was any MORE useful or MORE valuable than just, like, any other basic polling aggregate. Or even just something as simple as 2016 results + Biden/Trump national polling. The weighing and grading arguably muddled the waters more than clarifying anything.
No there's hope that 1) Gideon has a lot of absentee votes to come or 2) rank choice voting will push her over the top, but Collins needs to be under 50% for that to kick in
4 years is too long to project any of this. 2022 is the focus.
Accuracy (e.g., factors used to judge accuracy) determined by and polls subsequently weighted based on accuracy determined by...
It's not hard to see there's a problem here with the methodology Silver uses, his assessment of pollsters, and the selection of inputs that go into his algorithms. He and his crew have to make choices. They're not working with universal truths; it's not calculus.
That's not excusing the creators of the inputs, who are clearly a much bigger problem.
But the entire field has fundamental issues in back-to-back Presidential elections in terms of the breadth and size of the errors made.
It's a long shot I can't personally pin hopes on. Not until Trump is nailed to the cross anyway. That's where my emotional energies are right now.
I genuinely think this is actually in their favor long term. The electorate has absolutely no attention span. Just like Republicans get credit for dem economies they inherit, COVID will straighten out within Biden's term, and they'll get the credit for it when the economy upswings in the years following.
Same. 1/10 is still a possibility. Throw stuff like the economist's 97% away.
- Status