SLAMMED!

Bruh the only politician who has been flattened in the past 24 hours was Ebrahim Raisi.

So are there muffins?

suicidal call 988

C’mon Rudy. Call the number.

We all want you to live to experience the consequences of your actions. Plus you are probably guilty of more shit and I’m sure you’ll fucking sing as a co-defendant.

Offering Donald Trump a stage is one of the most consistently idiotic thing Democrats do.

He’s still playing a different game than you are D’s.

Get em wormy

I mean unless there are consequences, it doesn’t mean shit.

Neither want to risk having a wildcard on stage

Well thats really none of their business so long as this is a democracy. What they want is irrelevant.

He’s polling high enough. He should be included.

He’s polling at 10% nationally. He should be included.

This is fucking stupid. There is nothing to be gained by platforming Trump.

I think the big consideration here is that if AIPAC wins this election, the Democrats lose.

AIPAC money should be looked at through the lens of the fact that Biden’s stance on Israel is whats causing him to lose this election. Some of us here have been making this case since December, but it is what it is at this point. With Israel steering ship on Democratic candidates and policy, Democrats lose next November. It just is what it is.

Also, we should be considering if AIPAC even really wants these candidates to win. Trump would probably be their preferred candidate, although its not clear he would really be that different than Biden. Its not like Biden decides spending, he simply administers it, same as Trump would. If anything, Netanyahu was slightly mean to Trump once, and Trump petty af, maybe thats enough to sour the relationship. Regardless, its a bit of a tight spot and its not clear to me there is a way out for Democrats. Biden isn’t charismatic enough like Bernie was to actually ‘lead’ the party, for example, in something like a total rejection of PAC money.

See? How hard was it to make a title that was just the facts?

See how easy that was? CNN, NPR, AP, take notes.

I think the right answer is to do what you described, in the aggregate. Don’t do it on a pollster to pollster basis, do it at the state level, across all polls. You don’t do this as a pollster because that isn’t really what you are trying to to model with a poll, and polls being wrong or uncertain is just a part of the game.

So it’s important to not conflate polling with the meta-analysis of polling.

I’m not so much interested in polls or polling but in being able to use them as a source of data to model outcomes that individually they may not be able to to predict. Ultimately a poll needs to be based on the data it samples from to be valid. If there is something fundamentally flawed in the assumptions that form the basis of this, there isn’t that much you can do to fix it with updates to methods.

the -4, 8 spread is the prior I’m walking into this election year with. That inspire of their pollsters best efforts to come up with a unbiased sample, they can’t predict the election outcome is fine. We can deal with that in the aggregate. This is very similar to Nate Silvers approach.

I’d vote for the worm before I voted for Kennedy, but whomever you are trying to convince isn’t listening. If you want to convince people of something, you need to understand them and why they do what they do.

Clearly at least 10% of voters see having a complete brain as less of a deal breaker than being either Biden or Trump. We should be curious as to why that is.

They posted their methodology and to me, as an unqualified lay person (…)

So like, if you know the above statement to be true, that’s exactly where you should stop in your reasoning. This is something that I find Americans to be guilty if constantly, which is to have the humility to understand that they shouldn’t have an opinion, and the proceed to arrogantly have the opinion they just acknowledged they shouldn’t have. I think it’s a deeply human thing, that we evolved to have to deal with missing information and so our brain fills in gaps and gives us convincing narratives. However, you have to resist the tendency when you know you really don’t know: and even more so when your beliefs go against what the data is.

If you can find me some sources of data on special elections, I’ll happily analyze it for you. I think it would be interesting if nothing else to see the offset. I’m not on my desktop machine, but I’ll give you some sources for data since you asked.

I mean if we’re stepping off the data into editorialism, Trump out performed all other Republicans in 2020, like he also did in 2016. As well, Trump endorsed candidates struggled in 2018, and 2022, and special elections. My read of this evidence and I’ve seen it suggested elsewhere, is that whatever property it is that causes Trump to consistently over perform isn’t transitive. So evaluating how well Trump will perform against how well Republicans are performing is misguided. You should evaluate candidates individually, and that would agree with their performance.

Also, this is one poll. The aggregate of polling agrees with this one poll. The minor methodological changes they make from year to year are infact extremely minor and they are doing the appropriate statistical accounting afaict. There is nothing weird or wonky about these polls: Biden is just performing very very poorly. I’ve been saying this for months to an onslaught of downvotes from people who simply don’t want to believe this to be the case.

Finally, I’ll argue that the ‘right’ outlook is always the one that aligns most closely with the data. We should believe stories we tell about data less than data itself. There is nothing to suggest that this election will really be anything that different than the 3 previous, and in terms of landscapes, the best proxy appears to be 2016 in terms of contested states. You should believe the data that is telling you that Joe Biden is losing this election. Biden has been setting up to lose the upper Midwest since December. These are the same states Hillary lost.

maybe I’m just letting optimism bleed into my better judgement

I agree. It’s also what the political pundit class did when they completely wiffed on 2016, and it’s what they’re doing right now. 90% of Lemmy also agrees with your sentiment, and in both Lemmy’s and the punditry’s refusal to be critical of Biden, to drag him towards more popular policies, they’re setting Trump up for victory.

I mean that’s pretty dismissive.

The largest cohort of people in this country want neither Biden nor Trump. Some of that cohort are willing to step out on a limb and support a third party.

If you’ve been following the polling there is nothing different or unique about this one. It’s consistent with pretty much all polling over the past 400 days. Biden is losing. Polling is definitely still broken, but it’s consistent. There is no fuckery.

Biden needs to be up by 4-12 in those states if he wants to win.

See my posts in !data_vizualisations@lemmy.world . I make a map of the offset in polling Biden needs to win a given state based on the fact that polls consistently overestimate how well Biden will do, and underestimate how well Trump will do.

When you see these poll numbers, you should subtract 4 for Biden, and add 8 for Trump. That was the offsets we observed from the 2020 election.

So keeping in mind data you already have about Trump, Biden, polling and it’s departure from real election results, it’s not even a question. Mortgage you house and out all your money on Trump to win. You have a differential polling error of 12 points in a Biden Trump head to head. Biden needs to be in the mid to high fifties across the board to have a chance.

He’s in the low forties.

If you don’t end up clicking the link: Relative polling error for Biden V Trump, 2020.

Well a 31 point swing is a promising signal.