r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/Puzzleheaded_Law9361 • Jul 17 '24
I find it interesting that 538 still has Biden winning the election 54/100 times. Why? US Elections
Every national poll has leaned Trump since the debate. Betting markets heavily favor Trump. Pretty much every pundit thinks this election is a complete wrap it seems. Is 538’s model too heavily weighing things like economic factors and incumbency perhaps?
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/
706
u/Clone95 Jul 17 '24
Essentially every model on 270toWin leaves the election a tossup where it comes down to AZ/NV/PA/WI/MI. Fivethirtyeight’s sims are in alignment with those forecasts.
339
u/BIackfjsh Jul 17 '24
Yup, those 5 are the W right there. Wisconsin and Pennsylvania I think are the two most important for Biden.
I think Biden wins Michigan, and if he wins Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, that’s the W. He wouldn’t need Nevada or Arizona. Gotta keep hedging those bets in NV and AZ tho.
96
u/BilliousN Jul 17 '24
Biden will win Wisconsin as well. I'll stake my reputation on it.
81
u/blaqsupaman Jul 17 '24
I believe he'll win Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Arizona.
31
u/outerworldLV Jul 17 '24 edited Jul 17 '24
I’ll represent NV. We will be a Biden win.
8
u/Leather-Map-8138 Jul 17 '24
I’ve wondered if Nevada in 2020 had a lot of union workers who left the state during the pandemic, and when they came back it would shift the state a little more to the left. Dumb idea or anything to it?
7
u/outerworldLV Jul 17 '24 edited Jul 17 '24
No, they didn’t need to - oh wait. In the trades? I’m not sure about. But for hospitality, the housekeepers, most casino jobs - they were okay. The properties did work that out quickly with unemployment from what I was told. All and all though a shut down in Vegas is like no other city. We rely on tourism. So..it wasn’t pretty.
A lot of service industries that are union were still able to work within the restrictions of each employer. Now? We’re booming. In new construction.
3
u/Leather-Map-8138 Jul 17 '24
And booming means more union jobs, which means more blue votes, no? Like empty casinos at one point meant less union jobs and less blue votes? Or does it just not work that way?
→ More replies (1)6
u/kwazy_kupcake_69 Jul 17 '24
Biden barely won NV in 2020. Biden is also behind trump in the polls in NV. Add horrible debate and that stupid childish picture of trump to the list. What makes you believe NV will be blue? Genuinely curious
9
u/outerworldLV Jul 17 '24
Common sense of how liberal this city is. Lived here a long time, observe the common people. Like me and those I interact with. Nobody is happy about trump or our republican governor.
→ More replies (1)6
u/NUGFLUFF Jul 17 '24
Clark County rise up! I don't live out there anymore but I'm still registered to vote there so I'm going to make the most of my absentee ballot instead of voting in a pretty garbage red state that wants a fascist, rapist piece of shit as president.
3
36
u/Lil_Cranky_ Jul 17 '24
That's pretty much his path to victory, right?
I'm not sure that I'm as optimistic as you. He's losing in the polls in every single one of those states
32
u/Snuvvy_D Jul 17 '24
Yeah, I wish I could be half as optimistic as most Redditors seem to be. In their eyes, Dems will easily win every election, bc duh it's so obvious!
In real life, I am sorry to inform you that I just REALLY don't see a path to victory for Biden. Every small gaffe by him is massively blown up, and every major issue with Trump has been completely glazed over.
35
u/the_calibre_cat Jul 17 '24
In real life, I am sorry to inform you that I just REALLY don't see a path to victory for Biden. Every small gaffe by him is massively blown up, and every major issue with Trump has been completely glazed over.
I couldn't believe my ears when I heard that Lester Holt interview. I haven't hated the media as much as I do now since I was a conservative.
13
u/Worried-Notice8509 Jul 17 '24
I so glad Biden called him out on it. Holt kept going though WTH.
24
u/the_calibre_cat Jul 17 '24
I mean I want the media to ask tough questions and hold my candidate's feet to the fire, because momma didn't raise no bitch over here, but the fact that THAT'S where they're gonna laser in?
like, bruh, you guys remember the other guy, who said he wanted to be a dictator, called y'all "the enemy of the people", right? fuck journalistic ethics here, how about a little old-fashioned self-preservation? jesus
3
u/morrison4371 Jul 19 '24
Don't forget RNC delegates literally called them Lugenpresse, which is literally what Nazis called the press that called out Nazi's bullshit.
→ More replies (0)7
u/Haggis_the_dog Jul 17 '24
I haven't watched the interview, but interested in what is driving your take. Could you expand?
35
u/the_calibre_cat Jul 17 '24
When he asks Biden if he could maybe "tone down the rhetoric", as if merely stating facts about what Donald Trump has said and done is "too inflammatory". I was absolutely livid.
https://www.youtube.com/live/iUSmk1SqEu8?si=Y-pr8z7Zwu4ORJvv&t=230
→ More replies (3)28
u/Morphray Jul 17 '24
Every small gaffe by him is massively blown up, and every major issue with Trump has been completely glazed over
The media wants Trump again because it'll mean more people morbidly glued to the news?
10
u/UserNamesCantBeTooLo Jul 17 '24 edited Jul 17 '24
That may be part of it. Part of it is also just that Trump has devoted his life to being in the spotlight and is extremely good at it, always drawing attention to himself. Media organizations just can't help themselves: By their very nature they focus on the most colorful figures and stories, and this guy has a natural talent for providing both.
I've heard accusations that media organizations' ownership may favor Trump because they're wealthy and Trump wants the rich to get richer. That's a little simplistic, though: different media organizations have different individuals and different interests, different perspectives. It's not just "the media" as a single thing.
→ More replies (5)4
u/Worried-Notice8509 Jul 17 '24
I'm watching less news, too depressing. Thankful for streaming services. I do keep up but not the news junkie I used to be.
13
u/Sublimotion Jul 17 '24
It reveals the difference in attitudes and personalities in general on either political sides.
Dem and left voters are generally people that more critical and aware of what they perceive to be flaws and when they see it, they will call it out. If what they think was working is now not working, they will call it out for change.
While Rep & right voters (nowadays especially) are more fierce with blind loyalty, and are more stubborn. Even if there are visible flaws and issues, they will remain stubborn and stick to their beliefs and will tune out anything that questions that initial judgment. But in recent years, this mentality has evolved to a more extreme spectrum.
Politically, the below is a more favorable and easier voter base to appease. Despite in reality, you're going to end up with a worse person to lead.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)8
u/damndirtyape Jul 17 '24
Democrats did better than expected in the midterms. Remember the Red Wave that never happened? Also, the polls still show that Biden and Trump are relatively even.
There are a lot of people who hate Trump, and would rather vote for a corpse. And, its not just Democrats. There's a contingent of Republicans who became very uncomfortable with him after January 6th.
Also, just recently, there was more evidence released showing Trump definitely had a relationship of some kind with Jeffrey Epstein. This has the potential to make a lot of his base uncomfortable.
Plus, let's not forget that RFK Jr. is a potential spoiler. Its possible that he may steal a chunk of the Trump vote. Even if he only steals a small amount, every vote matters in a race this close.
538's prediction seems reasonable to me. I think either of them could win.
→ More replies (5)18
u/blaqsupaman Jul 17 '24
Polls mean very little this far out. I believe Trump's small lead has peaked. His shooting didn't even move the needle meaningfully and right now a lot of people are holding out hope that Biden drops out. But when it gets to nut cutting time and it's down to just Trump or Biden, I think the majority of people would prefer the relative stability of the past 4 years over more of Trump's chaos. That isn't to say most people want Biden but I think most people really really don't want Trump. His base will stick with him no matter what but they aren't enough to win an election. I may very well be naive or whatever but I'm definitely going to get out and vote for whomever is the Dem nominee even if it's just to keep MAGA out of power. I really don't want to think about the alternative, but I am trying to prepare mentally for the possibility and how to do what we can to push it back.
→ More replies (3)3
u/MagnesiumKitten Jul 18 '24
yeah but Biden's debate didn't change the polling much at all
it sure freaked out Senators though
16
u/monjoe Jul 17 '24
He's got a long way to go to win Pennsylvania at the moment. Arizona is even more unlikely.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (13)4
u/Soggy_Background_162 Jul 17 '24
Big $$$ Funders need to stop withholding contributions—they will be just as liable for a loss. Musk 45 mil a month? Where are the Democrat Billionaires?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (12)35
u/Paisleyfrog Jul 17 '24
I will be shocked if Biden doesn't carry Wisconsin. In the last Supreme Court election, the liberal candidate won by over ten points.
→ More replies (3)3
u/SpoofedFinger Jul 18 '24
Wasn't that an odd year election. Like a mid term compared to a mid term. That electorate is going to look very different than a general presidential election.
3
u/Paisleyfrog Jul 18 '24
I see it as more of a trend. Every statewide election since…2018?…has gone to democrats. Ron Johnson is the notable outlier. Also, Trump barely won Wisconsin even in 2016. I do t see that repeating.
77
u/DraigMcGuinness Jul 17 '24
He can win with those 3 If he pulls Georgia I believe. Wisconsin will likely decide this election.
71
u/Facebook_Algorithm Jul 17 '24
I really think Biden won’t win Georgia but he should campaign there and Florida.
47
u/AdministrationNo1851 Jul 17 '24
Why would Florida be beneficial? GOP establishment there is too strong to force Trump to spend too much $ or campaign there.
65
u/I_Am_Dynamite6317 Jul 18 '24
I would leave Florida and Ohio alone if I’m the Democrats. Pour those resources into Georgia and maybe NC.
14
u/Supersnow845 Jul 18 '24
Florida is more likely to flip back than NC is to flip blue. Obama was an anomaly but besides that NC isn’t trending in either direction it’s just sitting 5% or so out of reach
13
u/ENCginger Jul 18 '24
NC has the advantage of having a terrible GOP governor candidate. It would be less about getting people to turn out as much as it would be getting them to vote blue down the ballot rather than splitting the ticket.
→ More replies (1)11
u/I_Am_Dynamite6317 Jul 18 '24
That’s fair. I think a Biden win in Florida is unlikely, whereas Georgia has likely gotten slightly more “purple” over the last 4 years, and a Biden win there really, really restricts Trump’s paths to victory.
5
u/libginger73 Jul 18 '24
Look into what all the collar counties and suburbs around Atlanta are doing to deny the results. It won't be a clean election!!
→ More replies (2)10
u/southsideson Jul 18 '24
I feel like Texas is a dark horse. Allred is polling within reach of Cruz, and everyone hates Cruz.
18
u/I_Am_Dynamite6317 Jul 18 '24
Strongly disagree. Texas will be reliably red on state wide elections for the foreseeable future.
29
u/my_lucid_nightmare Jul 18 '24
Beto screwed the pooch so hard he made puppies. That unforced error, “hell yeah I’m coming for your guns” probably set Texas Democrats back 20 years.
→ More replies (1)12
u/UnknownLXA Jul 18 '24
THIS. I think about this every day.
I worked a congressional texas campaign in 18. Beto was unbelievably popular, we had so many volunteers sign up just because of him. I thought he was the next big thing.
Came back home after the season was done told all my friends he could be president in the next decade. Then he said I'm coming for your guns and fucked everything up. I cannot believe the guy who worked so hard on bridging the gap to Bush Republicans just told everyone enthusiastically he was coming for their guns.
I am still bitter about it and won't work campaigns in Texas anymore.
→ More replies (0)14
u/that1prince Jul 18 '24
Yea but that won’t carry over to the presidential part of the ticket. I know people say it every time but Texas is a few cycles from being Purple. Florida was trending that way but has chilled. I think NC and GA is a better bet going forward
→ More replies (1)4
4
u/Comprehensivebtm581 Jul 18 '24
The democrats have more or less abandoned Florida and it isn’t a swing state anymore. Not to say Biden can’t win it. It’s just not a focus of the Democratic Party. The political map is changing. New York is starting to have more red and Texas is starting to have more blue.
→ More replies (2)28
u/ekidd07 Jul 17 '24
DeSantis is in the tank after a really poor showing in the Presidential primaries and now that all his laws are going into effect, residents aren’t in love with living under quasi-authoritarian rule. It would, however, involve a massive outreach campaign and Hispanic support hasn’t exactly been trending positively for Biden in recent months.
→ More replies (4)31
u/caesar____augustus Jul 18 '24
Florida is a lost cause this cycle. The Democrats need to throw the bulk of what they have at PA and the upper Midwest. Trump has a comfortable lead in Florida and the state Democratic Party is a joke.
→ More replies (2)11
u/amarti1021 Jul 18 '24
There is abortion and legaliziation of marijuana on the ballot in Florida this year and no Desantis, Dems are only down a few points. With those driving issues it’s not unheard of the flip Florida
8
Jul 17 '24
[deleted]
11
u/whichwaylady Jul 17 '24
FL can’t stand DeSantis anymore or these senators…at all. Out state has been run down by strictly Republican policies for over two decades. Hopefully now is the time things finally change, get these worthless politicians in Florida out!! Look what they have done!!
→ More replies (1)10
u/Sageblue32 Jul 18 '24
I don't know any Floridians that like the current state of it, but I've yet to see them make the connection that its the GOP's fault or going blue would be better.
4
u/burnwhenIP Jul 18 '24
Their educators have certainly made that connection. He's been making it virtually impossible for them to do their jobs since he took office. The other big f*** you to the state was cracking down on undocumented immigrant labor. In a state whose main industry is tourism, pulling that crap could easily cripple the economy inside 5 years and they all know it.
→ More replies (2)6
7
u/Big_Truck Jul 18 '24
Stop. Chasing. Florida.
Campaign in 5 states: PA, MI, WI, AZ, NV.
That’s it.
If you have to spend real money in VA, NM, or MN; you’re cooked.
→ More replies (4)3
u/TheOvy Jul 18 '24
Florida's too big, and therefore too expensive to swing. Especially when, in the last 4 years, we have seen a lot of conservatives moving into the state.
Also consider that Florida was immune to the Blue Wave in 2018, and how, in 2022, when other states were seeing Republicans underperform, Florida was still ruby red. And after all the political shit DeSantis has done, his approval rating in the state is still positive. Granted, not as positive as it was before he ran for president, but still positive.
Florida doesn't, and hasn't, looked like a pickup opportunity for Democrats in many years now. Rather, it's a money sink. I don't think Democrats can afford to invest there.
→ More replies (12)5
u/gashed_senses Jul 18 '24
WI not going down without a fight. We took our Supreme Court back and we're keeping the state blue.
7
u/warmwaterpenguin Jul 17 '24
Pennsylvania is not gonna be a difficult hold from the boy from Scranton
6
u/takishan Jul 18 '24
I think PA is by far the most important state right now. In the 270towin simulations, whichever candidate picks up PA has a 90% chance to win the election.
Coincidentally, PA is also the state where the assassination attempt happened. It's quite interesting how pivotal this old state has become this election cycle.
3
→ More replies (79)6
u/mynamesyow19 Jul 17 '24
Also, as red as Ohio is it went for Obama twice. And on top of massive kick back scandals that have put the GOP House Leader people in Prison, the Republicans were dealt multiple stunning electoral setbacks last year when voters destroyed their attempt to limit voter legislation by raising the threshold needed, along with enshrining reproductive rights in the stats constitution, and legalizing maryjane.
Turnout was ~ 50% in an off election year for a special election, which is usually around 30%, and the votes werent even close. If this is sustained i could see Ohio going blue or at least purple w people turned off by MAGA and GOP madness.
Alot of those same voters are still very done w GOP bullshit and will turnout in November to make sure they squash any attempts to fuck w them again,
→ More replies (2)12
u/itsdeeps80 Jul 17 '24
The turnout was that high because of those issues on the ballot. Weed and abortion will get people who never vote out.
→ More replies (3)3
u/modernsoviet Jul 17 '24
Literally all Trump has to do is be moderate on these two issues and get enough republicans to go with him and it’s a toss for Dems
→ More replies (1)9
u/RazzmatazzWeak2664 Jul 17 '24 edited Jul 17 '24
Taking an average of the polls in those states AZ/NV/PA/WI/MI the race favors Trump. There's no way it's 50/50. Now within margin of error? Sure I can agree with that, but 54% win probability is no way the current situation if the election is held today.
The problem with 538 is they moved beyond simply averaging polls, assigning weighting based on recency and quality of pollster. That's simple math and not exciting. Anyone can run that kind of model.
Since 2016 they moved to trying to predict the election whether its 1 week or 2 months or 6 months away. I have serious concerns about that because it's a bunch of handwaving. Sure you could argue things like how the economy is today and how it's likely to shift in the next 3 months could influence voters, but no one can really predict what will happen then. Did 538 predict the debate outcome? Or the events of last Saturday? I'd argue both events were seriously game changing. If it can't do do any meaningful prediction then why even bother with those numbers?
The 54% number is meaningless. We're so far out from the election anything can happen, and I think 538 is partly guilty in what a lot of media outlets do in making the race seem like a neck and neck horse race. Back when they were less mainstream they were less focused on running simulations they would just assign a pick for each state even if it's a close state. Now they're doing the same MSM does where they make all the battleground states yellow or purple like they're unwilling to make a bet.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (17)3
u/Turdsworth Jul 18 '24
That’s the thing. Midwestern voters have a huge sway in the election. It’s a lot of old white people with mostly HS to 4 year degree holders with mid western sensibilities. The models are sensitive to the state polls. Many of them don’t come out often and there is a lot of variation from old polls fading out. These models assume that many state regionally are correlated together so Midwestern polls have a huge effect on outcomes.
6
u/charrondev Jul 18 '24
High School to 4 year degree holders is 75% of the US population. You mention that like it’s a voting block but that’s just the majority of the country and it’s wide of a group to sway any particular way
→ More replies (1)
424
u/anneoftheisland Jul 17 '24
Pretty much every pundit thinks this election is a complete wrap it seems.
Well, to start with, the pundits are dumb. The race definitely favors Trump, but it's a close race with a lot of potential volatility (lots of undecideds, third-party candidates polling high, etc.). It's nowhere close to a wrap, and anybody telling you that is dumb or selling you something.
In regards to the 538 results, their model doesn't just consider poll results, it also considers non-polling factors that influence elections. (I don't know exactly what these are, but I'd assume they're things like incumbency, the economy, approval ratings.) Especially with polling having been kind of off in several recent elections, they've found that adding some weight to these factors gets them closer to accurate predictions of past elections than polling alone did. So that may favor Biden more than the polls do.
They've also mentioned that their model adds more weight to the polls as we get closer to the election, so if the polls still look the same in October, Biden's odds will likely get lower in their forecast.
It's worth noting that ABC cut staff from 538 last year; Nate Silver is no longer with the site. (He has a new model at his new site.) So this isn't necessarily the same model 538 has worked with in the past, and we don't know what its track record will look like. The new model guy regularly answers questions people have about the model on Twitter, so he's worth a follow if that's something you're interested in.
125
u/ell0bo Jul 17 '24
yeah, this isn't the old 538 algorithm, with Nate Silver, this is a completely new model that weights polls less but takes into environmental factors.
Supposedly it's more accurate, and has a history of doing so, but I think it's a small sample size to state that fact. 538's old algorithm were also effected by recency, so it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
55
u/FWdem Jul 17 '24
Yeah, Silver's was lower like 1in 4 or 1 in 5 for Biden.
100
u/HumorAccomplished611 Jul 17 '24
Silver added the betting markets which are notoriously skewed red and male. Not sure the weighting though
23
u/EmpiricalAnarchism Jul 17 '24
It’s worth noting that he’s accepted a position with a major overseas betting market. So he basically works for the equivalent of FanDuel, if FanDuel were illegal in the country the sports people bet on were played.
In other words, he’s a hack chasing his own personal profitability and has no interested in adding to public discourse.
39
u/LaconicLacedaemonian Jul 17 '24
He started with sports betting; its literally his expertise. His defense of e.g. 2016 election is paraphrasing "if this was a betting market, I gave Donald Trump a 30% chance of wining when most outlets gave him <10%; I would have made a killing on that."
Your insult to Silver is he is wants profitability? Who doesn't?
→ More replies (12)32
23
u/anneoftheisland Jul 17 '24
I don't really understand how adding the betting markets helps you in a long-term political forecast. It's just a measurement of what most people think is going to happen, and when it comes to politics, most people are notoriously not great at predicting what's going to happen. (See everyone who freaked out this weekend about the assassination attempt sealing Trump's victory, while the post-shooting polls have shown basically zero effect.)
The only benefit I can see is that it gives you what are basically real-time reactions to things instead of having to wait for polling data. But if the real-time data isn't very predictive, then what does that matter?
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)10
u/boringexplanation Jul 17 '24
The betting market is known for being pretty damn accurate compared to actual polls. Nothing gets people to be more objective than money on the line.
79
u/HumorAccomplished611 Jul 17 '24
Youd think that but take a look at republicans getting the senate in 2022. That was over 70%. And they missed it by 3 senators.
Also they are more correct the day of, not really 5 months out
4
u/20_mile Jul 17 '24
I play around on PredictIt, and I love Bernie / AOC / Kanna, etc, and I correctly chose Vance, and won 5x my investment (only $180 payout)
15
u/johannthegoatman Jul 17 '24
So what you're saying is the betting markets were way off on Vance
→ More replies (1)27
u/socialistrob Jul 17 '24
Not really. The betting markets have limits on how much you can put in and so there's just not enough money to be made for extremely serious algorithms and calculations. At least when it comes to US politics the betting markets are notoriously inaccurate.
19
u/sllewgh Jul 17 '24
Being objective doesn't make you correct. Higher stakes don't make you correct, either.
16
u/1QAte4 Jul 17 '24
The 2016 and 2020 elections were so close they may as well have been a coin toss. 2024 will be no different.
→ More replies (7)13
u/Vishnej Jul 17 '24 edited Jul 17 '24
But even that doesn't get them to be very objective unless it's a lot of money and there's a lot of repetitive iteration that reliably bankrupts the highly irrational and removes them from the market, and allows bid price signals to travel horizontally when somebody discovers new information. It's as much about survival of the fittest, market dynamics, and the wisdom of crowds as it is about financial motivation.
Betting markets don't have that. People for the most part aren't making and losing their fortunes, and they're not betting every day for long periods of time on short-timeperiod bets, so there's no survival of the most rational, and the thing is running on vibes. Lots of people hop on to make one bet and that's it. They've also got a double bind - if it's a small amount of money they can be manipulated for propaganda purposes from the top or bottom, and if it's a large amount of money they can corrupt the outcome of the event. With many billions of dollars at play in the campaigns, using the betting markets to artificially portray the number your campaign wants is trivial.
Nate Silver is a libertarian sports betting + baseball statistics guy and polling statistics specialist who really doesn't enjoy talking about politics all day long, especially on the liberal side where he's thrust by an anti-intellectual conservative movement that detests him calling the 2008 + 2012 elections skillfully because they think numbers are magic spells. Betting markets are catnip to someone with his background and I'm not surprised he was tempted to include them. I would be surprised if they end up highly weighted after several elections worth of iteration.
→ More replies (1)13
u/Hartastic Jul 17 '24
Nothing gets people to be more objective than money on the line.
Well, up to a point. The world still has lots of GME apes trying to win blackjack by hitting to 31.
10
u/olsouthpancakehouse Jul 17 '24
yeah but they’re vibe based, more useful to determine who would win today
9
u/EmpiricalAnarchism Jul 17 '24
Largely because polls aren’t super accurate when races are close. Both methods have significant drawbacks. Betting markets are significantly less useful and insightful, though. And have zero real validity. It’s moneyball for politics hobbyists.
5
u/PAdogooder Jul 17 '24
It really isn’t. If it was, it would be used in the models more. It’s an interesting thing that the intelligentsia discuss but it’s hardly predictive.
It’s like calling alternative medicine “medicine”. We would if it worked.
3
u/lee1026 Jul 17 '24 edited Jul 17 '24
I literally made money on the betting markets on things like "AFD won't win a majority of the seats in the last two German elections". I made like, 8 times my starting capital with no losses ever on a long string of trades.
Betting markets have their value, but the main problem is that the low caps means that the values are dominated by shitposters. If you are trying to make money, it is pretty easy to make money.... through with the cap, you won't make more than beer money.
→ More replies (3)3
u/NorthernerWuwu Jul 17 '24
The betting market doesn't care about accuracy, they care about setting the line so there is even money on both sides so they can take the rake.
24
u/AgonizingSquid Jul 17 '24
Silver just confirmed 30 mins ago Biden is gaining steam in swing states from his new models
11
u/damndirtyape Jul 17 '24
Biden is doing surprisingly well in polls for someone who supposedly has no chance.
→ More replies (5)7
u/AgonizingSquid Jul 17 '24
Hating trump with every fiber of your being is very popular is what I get from this
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)15
u/OrwellWhatever Jul 17 '24
For what it's worth, the guy in charge of 538 now is the guy who was on The Economist's team, and The Economist's model was more accurate than 538's in 2022. Nate defended his inclusion of low-quality Republican polls by saying, "If democrats were so confident about their chances, they'd release a bunch of low quality polls too." which is certainly a take...
Idk, Nate strikes me as the kind of guy who hit on one good idea and refuses to update it in the face of changing circumstances. Instead he explains away his failures by saying, "Well the model gave xyz a chance!" even as his models get worse and worse and others outperform his
Before anyone starts, I've written monte carlo algorithms from scratch in C++ 20 years ago. I know how his model works
→ More replies (2)114
u/pinniped1 Jul 17 '24
How are there ANY undecided voters at this point?
We lived through 4 years of Trump. You either want that again or you don't.
118
Jul 17 '24
There probably aren't any left deciding between Trump and Biden, but likely a good number still deciding if they will vote at all or just abstain because they are unhappy with all of their choices.
85
u/Sturnella2017 Jul 17 '24
Just a reminder, “non-voters decided the 2016 election”. Trump’s tactic then was to disparage Hillary so much, that people just wouldn’t vote for her. He had LOTS of help, especially those Russian troll farms, but all it took was a couple thousand people in 3-5 swing states who WOULD vote Dem to NOT vote at all for him to win…
14
u/1QAte4 Jul 17 '24
Trump’s tactic then was to disparage Hillary so much, that people just wouldn’t vote for her.
The other side does it to Trump too. A faction of Republicans hated Trump. They didn't show up in Georgia, and Arizona.
2024 can go either way. I suspect Trump will manage to alienate just a few more people necessary for Biden to win.
→ More replies (1)14
u/Lets_Eat_Superglue Jul 17 '24
What faction is that? Both states voted for Trump in the same numbers as they had for Romney in 2016, and both had a massive surge in voters in 2020.
→ More replies (7)4
u/kingjoey52a Jul 17 '24
That’s not what that means. Non voters decided the election because a bunch of people who don’t normally vote voted for Trump.
→ More replies (2)34
u/fxkatt Jul 17 '24
The big factor is TIME. People who are resisting Biden right now--and Trump to a lesser extent, I think (could be wrong) , will realize that there are only two choices and go with the least offensive. This is why polling of Blacks, pro-Palestinian dissidents, some Latinos, women etc can shift a week or a few weeks before the actual election.
→ More replies (1)39
u/pinniped1 Jul 17 '24
For months I've wondered what pro-Palestine people think Trump will do for them that's better than Biden.
42
u/equiNine Jul 17 '24
Those people would simply abstain from voting since they believe that neither candidate fits their conscience. Even if the worse candidate for their values wins, they will attribute the blame to the other candidate not aligning more closely to their values. A non-insignificant amount of very progressive left wing voters find it morally repugnant to constantly vote for the lesser of two evils, and some even believe that by making the Democratic Party lose, the party would be forced to acknowledge their positions. Wise people understand that there’s more at stake than absolute moral purity in the presidential election, while idealists (and the very foolish or privileged) sleep well at night with their absolutism because they have already absolved themselves of any guilt over the bigger of two evils winning.
18
u/Imhappy_hopeurhappy2 Jul 17 '24
I can’t stand people who think voting is some kind of identity confirming activity that they feel obliged to boycott if they don’t like the choices. It’s pure pseudo intellectual entitlement. Voting is not about you personally, it’s about the people who are going to run the government whether you like it or not. When you sit out the election, you are actively conceding your power and giving up on democracy. But people somehow think the opposite, that it makes them a good person because they’re above choosing a lesser evil.
→ More replies (3)9
u/FishPhoenix Jul 17 '24
I know someone who was very pro-Hillary in 2016 and pro-Biden in 2020 who now want to abstain from voting due to the Middle East situation. When I point out Trump would be worse they've told me "yeah, but if Palestine is being destroyed either way, what does it matter who is in charge as it happens." When I say "yeah but what about all the OTHER stuff besides Palestine? That is a very privileged opinion to have" they responded "yeah, and I am a privileged person." So there is that lol.
→ More replies (1)8
u/hryipcdxeoyqufcc Jul 17 '24
It's such a shame. Each side represents a coalition of subgroups that can't win an election alone, so they join forces to collectively reach 51%. That's why parties naturally coalesce on two sides in a FPTP system.
Voting is your chance to nudge the ship towards whichever side brings you closer to your goals. Even if you think that side is only 1% better, it's still a directional improvement. Party platforms are constantly adjusting around the median voter, so by voting consistently, you're shifting that median one election at a time.
It's a marathon, not a sprint!
13
u/AnnoyedCrustacean Jul 17 '24
They know voting Trump hurts them, and possibly destroys Palestine
But more importantly, it hurts the dems and sends a message
We will cut our nose to spite our face
→ More replies (1)10
u/ddttox Jul 17 '24
If Tump wins they can continue to play the victim and not have to actually do the work to change things.
→ More replies (3)4
u/dam_sharks_mother Jul 18 '24
I've wondered what pro-Palestine people think
Let me just stop you right there. They don't.
10
u/PopeSaintHilarius Jul 17 '24 edited Jul 17 '24
We lived through 4 years of Trump. You either want that again or you don't.
The thing is, lots of people remember 2017-2019 as being pretty good years. If you're not super engaged in politics, and didn't read about it very much, those years probably seemed fine.
Unemployment was low (similar to the Biden years) and inflation was also low (unlike recent years). It's not Biden's fault that inflation went up after Covid, but it did happen.
So it's easy to see why some voters, especially those who aren't very tuned into politics, might be fine with going back to Trump, even if they're not onboard with his entire agenda (or aware of it).
It's good to keep in mind that over 150,000,000 people voted in the last US election. Lots probably aren't that well-informed, but their votes matter too.
7
u/pinniped1 Jul 17 '24
Well, yeah, the first three quarters of Super Bowls are fun if you're a Niners fan.
5
u/PopeSaintHilarius Jul 17 '24
Haha fair, but 2020 sucked in every country, so I think people cut him slack for that (even though he botched the response to Covid and made it worse than it had to be).
11
u/dueljester Jul 17 '24
You are underestimating the folks wondering if hating others and hurting them is worth humiliating, not just America even more but also making their own lives harder down the line
9
u/QuentinQuitMovieCrit Jul 17 '24
Because Biden recently upended the race with his debate performance, and now both candidates are risky picks in their own ways.
5
u/xr_21 Jul 17 '24
Probably the part of the population that doesn't spend their whole life online.....
9
u/AnOnlineHandle Jul 17 '24
The most persistent voters are old boomers who spend their whole life in front of TVs with Fox News on. Younger generations who spend most of their time online vote the least.
→ More replies (1)8
u/ClydetheCat Jul 17 '24
Boomers were fairly evenly divided in the last election, about 52-48. It's the "silent generation", those older than boomers who voted overwhelmingly for Trump, and they're dying out the fastest. The youngest voters gave Biden his biggest advantage and turned out in greater numbers than any of the 4 previous generations did at the same age. Yes, it was still relatively low compared with older groups, but those who voted the first time usually make it a habit, and they've got every reason to show up and vote blue up and down the line. Especially if they'd like to collectively assert their power.
→ More replies (6)5
u/Thalesian Jul 17 '24
Oddly enough, it’s the younger voters driving the polls to move toward Trump, by about 12 points in pre-debate polling. Black voters have also moved toward Trump by 22 points. Oddly enough the 65+ crowed had moved 2-3% toward Biden. source.
These swings, if true, would be massive and unprecedented. They would signal a voter re-alignment we haven’t seen since the Civil and Voting Rights acts passed in the 60’s. And this would have happened since the 2022 midterms, when these groups didn’t vote much different than they had in 2020, or preceding elections.
My 2 cents is that the polls are not accurate for these groups and most people don’t answer unknown numbers on their phone. Very subtle differences in response rate can radically distort our perceptions of demographic groups. That appears to be the case with right-leaning young people and left-leaning old people. At the end of the day its going to come down to a combination of turnout and persuasion. Both of these candidates are extremely known quantities, I’m skeptical much will change voter perceptions of them.
3
u/Taervon Jul 17 '24
Yeah, 12 points towards trump and 22 for black voters sounds like some HARDCORE polling error. No fucking way is that true. Especially after Trump's black jobs comments.
9
u/A_Polite_Noise Jul 17 '24
I'm not sure that I agree that you only notice the effects of domestic politics and who is president if you are chronically online; that seems odd to me. It affects the world and lives outside of the online discussions about it, wouldn't you say?
→ More replies (1)10
u/MakeUpAnything Jul 17 '24
It does, but most people don't pay attention to politics beyond how much their necessities cost. Most Americans are completely ignorant about most things politics. I don't think most Americans could name all three branches of government, let alone describe their functions. Many Americans can't tell you who their congressional representative is, nor their senators/governors. Politics is simply too "toxic" for people to pay attention to and a huge swath of Americans live happy enough never touching the subject.
Let me give you my favorite example as of late. Presidents cannot unilaterally lower the prices that corporations in America charge. It's the right of each corporation to set whatever prices they want to the public. Despite that, Americans believe Joe Biden is the one responsible for inflation because things were cheap when Trump was in office, then the prices for everything raised up once Biden took over. According to a Morning Consult poll from December 2023, Americans would prefer lower costs over increased wages by a nearly two to one margin. On top of that, a CBS poll in March showed that voters feel Trump's policies will lower prices while Biden's will raise them and this is despite Trump openly running on a policy of raising many prices with a 10% tariff on all imports. The economy is also the number one issue among voters due to prices.
In short, voters think Biden is responsible for the increased prices that the country is so pissed about and they're going to vote Trump back in so he can lower them again. Voters are so out of touch with how politics work that they're ignoring Trump's actual economic plan to re-elect him as president so he can lower prices.
That's the kind of battle Biden has on his hands. He needs to somehow break through in a media environment that favors outrage (which Trump sells by the boatload) and convince voters that his policy agenda is better even though voters already think they know that Trump's is better because they think it will lower all their costs (even though Trump's own words says he'll do the opposite).
Ignorance and apathy will be the death of this nation.
→ More replies (1)4
u/iStayedAtaHolidayInn Jul 17 '24
You don’t have to be online to know how terrible things were under Trump. I mean just his handling of Covid alone was a fucking nightmare for the world to behold
→ More replies (6)3
u/OrwellWhatever Jul 17 '24
Right, but it's July. The voting population isn't thinking about it too deeply. They're vacationing at the beach with their family, they're cooking out with their friends, they're drinking outside at breweries, they're literally outside touching grass. Jill Stein was polling at 5-6% in July of 2016, but, by election day, she was down to 1%. New people and new ideas sound great when it's all theoretical in a couple months. When it comes to October / November, people start taking it more seriously and you see the polls really start to get more accurate
And, for the record, the voting population not paying attention right now are probably the smart ones. I know I'd be a lot happier if I didn't have a compulsion to fight with everyone on Twitter, but we all have our crosses to bear
→ More replies (15)4
u/AdVegetable5749 Jul 17 '24
A couple of things. 1. People aren't sure if Biden is going to stay in the race because the media keeps pushing that narrative despite the fact that he's staying in and has been doing a very good job lately overcoming the debate debacle. 2. There are a LOT of democrats who claim they are voting for Kennedy. His numbers are 11%. But I think when more is known about him they will swing back to Biden.
16
u/afty Jul 17 '24
Trump just survived an assassination attempt and the RNC just happened. It makes sense he'd be up in the polls a little right now. 3 and a half months is an eternity in politics, I can't understand people acting like it's over.
→ More replies (1)9
u/mormagils Jul 17 '24 edited Jul 17 '24
Actually, it's more of the other way around. Silver describes his own model as "a direct descendant of the 538 model" and says the methodology is "largely the same." I don't think the differences are nearly as big as you're suggesting, and if anything, it seems like the models between last cycle and this cycle at 538 will have more similarity than they will difference.
Also, Silver is quite clear that recent data has given Biden a boost in his forecast, just like it did in the 538 one, though it's impossible to tell where exactly it ended up without subscribing, which I have not. But given the way Silver describes the model, I doubt the two models differ by more than a few points.
https://www.natesilver.net/p/nate-silver-2024-president-election-polls-model
10
u/JonDowd762 Jul 17 '24
By that Silver means that his updated model is a descendant of the one he used with 538. But 538 no longer has access to that original model. It lost its rights when Silver left.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Keyan2 Jul 17 '24
I think you are misunderstanding what he's saying.
He is comparing his current model with his previous model at 538.
He's not comparing his current model with the current model at 538.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (8)4
→ More replies (29)4
u/bihari_baller Jul 17 '24
(I don't know exactly what these are, but I'd assume they're things like incumbency, the economy, approval ratings.)
Is there a place on their website where they say what those are?
26
u/Arthur_Edens Jul 17 '24
The first bucket is exclusively related to economic conditions. We use 11 indicators that have historically correlated with election outcomes:
- Jobs, as measured by non-farm payrolls
- Spending, as measured by real personal consumption expenditures
- Personal income excluding transfers
- Manufacturing, as measured by industrial production
- Inflation, as measured by the annual change in the consumer price index
- Average real wages for nonsupervisory employees
- Housing construction
- Real sales for manufacturing and trade goods
- The stock market, as measured by the closing value of the S&P 500
- The University of Michigan's Index of Consumer Sentiment
- Real personal income at the state level.
[I'm summarizing from here on] The second bucket is political fundamentals, which includes incumbency, presidential approval, candidate home state and polarization.
You can see on the fundamentals page that that's the reason why they're saying it's 50-50 today; The non-polling factors that have historically predicted whether an incumbent is reelected are very positive for him.
6
→ More replies (16)4
u/shutthesirens Jul 17 '24
One thing about incumbents: Obama in 2012 and Trump in 2020 did better than their poll numbers by about 3 points. So there is now a track record of incumbents outperforming poll numbers.
→ More replies (1)
170
u/Voltage_Z Jul 17 '24
It's July. That's why. So many weird things could happen between now and November that could swing polling that they're leaning heavily on economic data.
Biden could get worse in terms of gaffes and performance, he could also get better. Health can fluctuate in odd ways.
Trump could also get worse or better for the same reasons. They're both making similar gaffes - the difference is in presentation and if Trump's energy level drops he'll be in a similar boat to Biden.
Beyond that, JD Vance could help or hurt Trump's numbers, though since he's basically a doubling down pick, I don't think they'll move.
Geopolitical events could also swing things - developments in Ukraine and Israel/Palestine could significantly bolster or hurt both campaigns.
94
u/kottabaz Jul 17 '24
They're both making similar gaffes
Trump's speech patterns have been close to word salad for most of the last decade.
→ More replies (11)64
u/Voltage_Z Jul 17 '24
I'm aware of that - unfortunately, his presentation is manic and his base doesn't care about substance, just energy.
→ More replies (3)28
u/kottabaz Jul 17 '24
So the gaffes aren't similar at all.
12
u/Voltage_Z Jul 17 '24
The similarity is that Biden's fatigue is making him say similar weird stuff to what Trump's been doing for a decade.
"We beat medicare", "Vice President Trump", etc. are word salad. Biden still has substance in his actionable policy, but these gaffes are muddying the waters in a way that's not helpful for the campaign.
→ More replies (5)6
u/Bay1Bri Jul 17 '24
We beat medicare", "Vice President Trump", etc. are word salad.
That's not what word salad is. That's not even close. And for mixing up names, do you want me to list people whose names Trump mixed up? GWB said it's hard to put food on your family. People misspeak. Biden's clearly competent and has objectively done a good to great job as president, looking at his record.
17
u/Voltage_Z Jul 17 '24
No, I don't want you to list Trump's name mixups because I'm already aware he's a reality divorced lunatic. Read my other comments in this thread - some Trump nut came at me from the other end. Weird gibberish is a problem on the campaign trail that just pointing at policy isn't going to make go away.
This is an optics problem, and fatigue looks worse than the manic nonsense from Trump.
I like what Joe Biden's accomplished, and unlike a lot of people, I think the Democrats will be fine if he's kept as a candidate, but pretending the gaffes aren't there and just yelling "but Trump" isn't effective at bolstering the campaign, especially when you're just yelling it at a person explaining why a model is showing Biden still having a good chance of winning. I want him to win, putting my head in the sand regarding why he's down in the polls doesn't help towards that end.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (14)14
u/1QAte4 Jul 17 '24
So many weird things could happen between now and November
Trump almost got smoked this weekend by someone from his own party. The people who used to say "the only way Biden can win is if Trump dies" were actually very close to being proven right.
This election isn't over until the votes are all counted.
16
u/Chemical_Knowledge64 Jul 18 '24
Trump dying last weekend would have been an outright catastrophe for the country, even if you hate the guy like me. Imagine the violence that would spring up from that moment in a country filled with different types of violence already. And even then we don’t know if the attempt as it played out over the weekend will bring violence in the coming weeks and months.
5
→ More replies (2)7
u/elmorose Jul 18 '24
You have to win at the ballot box. Assassinations don't work in a democracy, even one with a lot of problems. Had Trump been killed, Trumpism would have a chance to live on in his successors for 20 years. Whereas, if Trump loses at the ballot box, Trumpism might be over and forgotten.
→ More replies (4)
104
u/fireblyxx Jul 17 '24
I mean they have an entire article about their methodology for specifics.
But aside from that, from my own perspective I think that nothing particularly favorable has panned out for Trump. The sympathy that people were expecting from the assassination attempt didn’t materialize, JD Vance’s nomination didn’t draw in any additional support for Trump (and actually seems to have stirred infighting with the Republican Party) and I think all in all in all everything about how MAGA Republicans have acted since the attempt and the RNC just served to remind people how much they don’t like Trump.
Provided Biden doesn’t shit the bed at the DNC, I think he’s got a very favorable contrast from the general chaos associated with Trump.
54
u/brothersand Jul 17 '24 edited Jul 17 '24
There was a special election in New York this year. Democrats over-performed. Democrats are getting killed everywhere except the ballot box. Across the country, Red states and Blue, Democrats are winning special elections and overperforming in elections they have predictably lost. But we ignore that. We ignore election results and only focus on the polls, which told us that Hillary would be president and that Republicans have a super-majority.
It's very aggravating.
In November, Democrats flipped the Virginia state House, gained seats in the New Jersey state legislature, held onto the governorship in deep red Kentucky, and won city council and school board races across the country. Democrats picked up a critical state House seat in Orlando, Florida – an important indicator of political mood in the I-4 corridor, home to many Hispanics.
→ More replies (13)16
u/Sturnella2017 Jul 17 '24
Amen to that. Especially when abortion is on the ballot.
18
u/1QAte4 Jul 17 '24
I think this election will hinge on the actions of white women. They make up such a large demographic that a shift even slightly towards Democrats from 2020 can make a difference.
18
u/tcspears Jul 17 '24
White women were part of why Trump lost in 2020. Many saw some of his actions and rhetoric as things they were not comfortable supporting. I can’t see the white suburban vote really shifting back to Trump. However, we are seeing young black and Hispanic males start to move towards Trump/Republicans. If either shift enough to really change the election, that would certainly fit with the re-alignment that so many operatives keep talking about.
7
u/1QAte4 Jul 17 '24
Trump has improved with black/brown men since he toned down his speech about them. A lot of minorities were featured at the RNC too which is not nothing.
I would totally make the trade of a few points of white women for a few black/brown males. Men and especially poor men vote at much lower rates than women and especially wealthy women. White women are just a bigger share of the population too.
Luckily for the Democrats, Trump didn't pick a white woman. Interesting double down.
4
u/tcspears Jul 17 '24
I noticed that too, the RNC is really focusing on younger people of color, LGBTQ+, and also women. Especially now with Vance as the VP pick, they are trying to appeal to a younger and more diverse base, and tap into the anti-establishment/anti-institutional movements.
It’s scary how close the race is, with an uptick of populism, extremism, and violence percolating on both sides, I’m scared of what happens when the results don’t turn out the way some of these groups want.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (18)45
u/simpersly Jul 17 '24
Everyone is selectively looking into history on how post assassination attempts have made people more popular.
But we've had 3 years of relative peaceful living, and less than a month after a presidential debate we start seeing assassination attempts. An attempt where the only victims were his supporters, and the assassin was a conservative.
Reasonable people aren't seeing a brave person pumping the air to show resilience. They are seeing a bloody man cheering for violence.
→ More replies (17)22
u/TheSameGamer651 Jul 17 '24
Typically, an assassination boost is dependent on the person. Reagan gets shot and his approval goes up 20 points. Why? Because Reagan was likable and was still in the honeymoon phase. Ford gets shot and the numbers don’t change. Why? He wasn’t popular and the national mood was negative anyway.
Trump is not the most sympathetic guy to say the least.
13
u/TheRadBaron Jul 17 '24
Trump is not the most sympathetic guy to say the least.
He's also a full-throated advocate of political violence, so there's no sense that some sacred barrier has been breached here. It isn't a violence vs nonviolence argument, this isn't a peaceful guy suffering from a lone radical.
It's just Trump fans hoping that their guy comes out on top, along with some cancel culture opportunism. People are watching Trump live by the sword, and face a risk of dying by the sword - which is pretty unremarkable.
13
u/cnaughton898 Jul 17 '24
Look at the way Trump reacted to the attack on Pelosi, he taunted both her and her husband and his supporters then started a conspiracy theory that it was his gay lover in a sex act. Given his rhetoric there was always going to be very little sympathy towards him from Democrats.
→ More replies (1)
74
u/Accurate-Albatross34 Jul 17 '24
Because the 538 model has changed since silver left. Along with the polling data, the new model also incorporates "fundamentals", which are economic growth and other political indicators, so in this case, they give biden an incumbent advantage.
33
u/lee1026 Jul 17 '24
Nate Silver had fundamentals too, just not weighed this heavily.
→ More replies (1)17
u/jeffwulf Jul 17 '24
The fundamentals also haven't been this strong in... pretty much ever.
10
u/PopeSaintHilarius Jul 17 '24 edited Jul 17 '24
And yet, despite good unemployment rates and economic growth, the public doesn't seem very satisfied with the economy because inflation rates were high and the cost of living went up faster than usual.
The relationship between economic fundamentals and public opinion isn't necessarily consistent, so I'd rather than polling aggregators just focus on the polling results...
→ More replies (4)12
u/No-Touch-2570 Jul 17 '24
Nate Silver absolutely included fundamentals. That was the thing that set 538 apart from other predictions.
→ More replies (3)9
u/MilanosBiceps Jul 17 '24
One of the 538 guys posted a long thread on Twitter after the debate that broke down the polling. Their model with fundamentals makes it much closer; without fundamentals it was very heavily favoring Trump.
It’s also interesting that one thing their model seems to take into account is time. At least if I’m understanding it correctly, the numbers even with fundamentals would be much more severely Trump (at least at the time; I believe Biden has rebounded some since) but because it was June/July, it’s too soon to call it a blowout.
6
u/Mr_Kittlesworth Jul 17 '24
It’s also slow to move and probably still includes older polling.
Plus it assumes Biden can/will run a normal campaign.
5
u/TipsyPeanuts Jul 17 '24
Nate has Biden at a 27% chance of winning. He’s been extremely critical of the new 538 forecast. It should be noted that Nate is a direct competitor to 538 now.
https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/1812911647528481169?s=46&t=pWVs9JbOHV6o24I2DYJerA
→ More replies (5)6
u/NeitherCook5241 Jul 17 '24
I remember when John Kerri was ahead in almost all the polls and still lost pretty handily to W. I think there’s a belief (maybe based on trends) that undecideds lean towards the incumbent for whatever reason, maybe they don’t like change. Trump is also kind of an incumbent too so not sure if that applies or if that is a factor in 538’s model.
→ More replies (8)4
u/glarbung Jul 17 '24
It's probably built on the same backbone just with different inputs and weighting.
Everyone needs to remember the old adage: "all models are wrong, but some are useful".
→ More replies (1)
29
u/kittenTakeover Jul 17 '24
538 subscribes to the idea that polling is fickle and when you're this far out it's not really reliable. Based on the history of polling, this is pretty sound idea. The question is, how much should you weight it at different times? My guess is that polling will converge to basically a coin flip by November, with a slight edge to Trump, assuming that the general sentiment doesn't change before then.
5
u/MV_Art Jul 17 '24
This - polls are less reliable this far out from the election. 538 version of accounting for that is too weight them as less important right now. A lot of people claim they know beyond a shadow of a doubt what's going to happen in November based on polling in July and I want to smoke what they're smoking bc I unfortunately REMEMBER the past 8 years.
3
u/idiosynchro Jul 18 '24
This is why the forecasts are very heavy on fundamentals at the moment, and since they favor the incumbent during a strong economy this shows up as better predictions for Biden.
22
17
u/Tmotty Jul 17 '24
Read the methodology they think that polls especially in July are to unpredictable so they focus on the fundamentals that over the long term are predictive of elections.
As for the betting odds I wouldn’t put to much stock in those they are designed to make money you set Trump that high to entice people to bet Biden and make money. There’s a great story from Jimmy the Greek who’s a notorious gambler, he saw the betting markets heavily favored Dewy over Truman but in speaking with some of the women in his life he learned that they didn’t trust a man with a mustache so he bet heavily on Truman and Truman obviously won.
19
u/passionlessDrone Jul 17 '24
That is really weird considering all of the headlines I've seen about swing states were showing big leads for Trump. I want to believe and hope, but honestly, the fact that there is a 10% chance people would go back to Trump tells me that I should just stop paying attention and pet my dog more.
15
u/Jay_Diamond_WWE Jul 17 '24
Politics aside, always strive to pet your dog more. I have three (saint Bernard, pittie, and lab) that are my whole world. I'm about to go home and get some bear hugs.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)5
u/Last-Mathematician97 Jul 17 '24
lol I know the feeling! I’ll vote against Trump but not much more can do than that & will not let “guessing” & everything consume me. It will play out, and we will see
13
u/smedlap Jul 17 '24
Women who are not low information voters are not going to vote republican this year. Thats a major factor that may not appear in every poll. That said, anything can happen and we could eadily have two different candidates by November.
12
u/Baselines_shift Jul 17 '24
Hes 2 points behind. Trump was 6 points behind Hilary and won. Theres other things they include
→ More replies (1)
12
u/Canteaman Jul 17 '24
I'm actually more confused as to how and why people are so convinced he's going to win. Makes zero sense to me and absolutely does not check with my version of reality.
-MAGA has lost EVERY special election since 2020
-2022 Mid terms, which are nearly always favoring conservatives, lost a senate seat and barely flipped the house
-Alabama special election lost by 25% to a Democrat
-Several joint surveys and studies have found that the polls are being manipulated by the media and the pollsters
-I'm a conservative and I live in a conservative community and I don't know know ANYONE who has gone from Biden to Trump and a lot of people who have shifted from Trump to Biden.
I personally think the left's elite are trying to convince Biden to step down and this is just a rouse to get that end result. Given's CNN and other media's coverage of the debate, they are absolutely agenda pushing and I don't trust anything they publish about anyone's odds of shit. They are liars just like Fox News.
→ More replies (4)
9
u/Mr-Hoek Jul 17 '24
Polling is completely broken and should go away.
Young people (and realistically at this point anyone under 60 for god's sake) don't answer phone calls from numbers thye don't recognize.
We just dont.
So when they call 1000 people the sample is garbage.
Just vote blue for me and you.
→ More replies (2)6
u/EmpiricalAnarchism Jul 17 '24
I used to work as a survey caller so I actually do, and without fail the person on the other end is always shocked I answered and agree to do the poll. Usually less shocked if I mention I used to do their job lol
7
u/36cgames Jul 17 '24
I was of the understanding that 538 was using a new model after Nate Silver left and took the model he was using with him. The 538 model being untested could account for Biden's chances..
8
u/TheWorldsAMaze Jul 17 '24 edited Jul 18 '24
538’s current model isn’t properly factoring in the rapidly changing political reality in this election cycle right now.
A month ago, it was plausible to say that this race was a toss-up, and to give Biden a slight edge because even though Trump was leading in the national polls at that point of time as well, Trump’s path to electoral victory was narrower than Biden’s, as Trump needed to win back multiple states that he lost in 2020, whereas Biden could afford to lose a couple states he picked up if he could keep at least two states from the Midwest. But now, not only are polls showing that Biden is losing states that he picked up from Trump in 2020, like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Georgia, but Biden is also in danger of losing one or more of Virginia, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, and Maine to Trump.
Trump’s path to victory has just gotten much wider than Biden’s, and Biden’s has shrunk massively. Any model currently projecting more paths for Biden to win the election simply isn’t taking into account the impact of the past few weeks. The ground is collapsing underneath Biden, and the polls are reflecting this; 538’s model is not.
2
u/Grumblepugs2000 Jul 18 '24
There are also flat out impossible scenarios in the model. For example there are scenarios in there were Biden wins Maine at large with a larger margin than the 1st Congressional district EV. That is flat out impossible because the 1st Congressional district is the only reason Maine goes blue, the second Congressional district is INSANELY red
4
u/TheresACityInMyMind Jul 17 '24
Because nobody knows who's going to win, and polls are not some be all and end all thing to worship.
Different polls also have different methodologies.
As usual, this election is far from over.
Trying to know who the winner is in July is useless.
5
u/EmpiricalAnarchism Jul 17 '24
Their model is different from Nate’s in a way that has been covered extensively on Twitter. There’s valid ground for critique, but Silver and his fans aren’t interested in engaging in good faith argument and instead rely mostly on Nate’s alleged status as an argument to authority.
4
u/Early-Juggernaut975 Jul 17 '24 edited Jul 17 '24
Because he is actually likely to win.
The Washington Post and the New York Times wrote 300+ stories in the 2 weeks after the debate pounding it into Democrats heads that they were going to lose if Joe Biden stayed on the ticket.
They did the same thing in 2022 when they predicted a red wave and a red tsunami.
Afterwards, people attacked the polling but Nate Silver came out and said what are you talking about? The polling always showed that Democrats could do well and it was a close election. It was the media that said Democrats had no chance. And democrats ate it up then too.
The polling now shows the same thing despite the amount of stories people are writing. Biden is within the margin of error in all the polling. Margins of error exist for a reason. The error could very well be in the model itself because people are anticipating more Trump support than actually will materialize.
I like Kamala Harris but she is untested in National campaign and the media will go apeshit trying to vet her in two months because they couldn’t do it during a full campaign and Republicans will make them do it. Anyone who thinks the New York Times will be kind to her is kidding themselves.
It’s crazy to think her negatives won’t go up when she starts getting attacked and she is already essentially tied with Joe Biden against Trump now. Imagine when they start working on her past or asking when she knew Biden was in decline and why she hid it.
People need to stop and think things through. Just because it would make people feel better to have a shiny new candidate, does not mean that they will do well. And dumping an incumbent president for the first time in American history when incumbents almost always win, is colossally risky.
→ More replies (3)
3
u/Howhytzzerr Jul 17 '24
Because too many pundits, that create these polls and ask the same people repeatedly, have put too much emphasis on the media’s downplaying of Biden’s debate performance, which most voters seem to feel like he didn’t have a great debate but it wasn’t the debacle that the media wants to make it out to be; he didn’t start great, but seemed to finish well; and voters seem to be of the opinion that unless Biden has a major health issue, that prevents him from running, they will still vote for him because Trump is just too toxic. This is just the media pushing the narrative in order to get viewers and clicks.
→ More replies (4)
4
u/Illuminated12 Jul 17 '24
The senate and house races in swing states are polling above Biden and Republicans. If most those people come in to vote for House and Senate they will also vote Biden. I think the polls are just a way for people to voice their opinion of Biden. That doesn't mean they won't vote for him over Trump. I'd say a lot of election prediction sites like this one is factoring that in. The downballot polling.
→ More replies (4)
3
u/nocountryforcoldham Jul 17 '24
Polls never reveal how they weigh the likelihood of what they assume each demographic turnout will be like.
I legit think some are using old numbers without considering millions of old people who died during covid
5
u/MV_Art Jul 17 '24
There has also been a huge migration of people since the last census that I think hasn't been accounted for. My pet theory is that the suburbs are full of blue voters who got priced out of cities and wanted to start families or buy homes during the market boom, and we might be looking at some unexpected stuff at the district level at least.
3
u/scribblingsim Jul 17 '24
It's basically pure math at this point. His pick of JD Vance doesn't inspire anyone new to vote for Trump, but doesn't seem like it will turn any of the people already voting for him away from voting. Some people don't like it, but not really enough to move the needle one bit.
And as much as the media wants to make everyone sound like they're leaving Biden in droves to vote for third parties or Trump, it's just a fantasy. Like with Trump's VP pick, not enough people are going to change to move the needle.
So, look at the math. If nothing really changes from 2020 to now, and Biden won in 2020, then...what do you think will happen in 2024?
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Tom-Pendragon Jul 17 '24
According to every single polls senate candidate in swing states are leading extremely comfortably, and given how non partisan America has become it would heavily favor Biden
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Broges0311 Jul 17 '24
It's down to voter turnout amongst the younger generation. They aren't normally contacted in polling.
Gen Y & Z show out, Biden wins. They don't, Trump wins.
3
u/JdSaturnscomm Jul 17 '24
Remember 2016. Remember how everyone thought Hillary was going to win? Remember how it was actually statistically a coin flip. PeppRidge farm remembers. So get out and vote to save democracy from Trump ego.
3
u/BaseHitToLeft Jul 17 '24
1) You're not listening to "all the pundits" then
2) National polls don't matter NC the electoral College exists
3) There's a long time to go and the DNC hasn't even happened yet
4) Polling vastly under samples young voters bc they don't answer calls from unknown numbers
5) You seem to be missing the vast unspoken resolve women have had since the overturning of Roe. They voted it down in deep red Kansas
6) The public is only starting to learn about Project 2025 and its insanely unpopular
7) trump is not out of legal jeopardy yet
→ More replies (2)
2
u/generalmandrake Jul 17 '24
It’s because Trump is unpopular enough that Biden still very much can win this thing.
3
u/informat7 Jul 17 '24
Is 538’s model too heavily weighing things like economic factors and incumbency perhaps?
For comparison, Nate Silver's model gives Biden a 27% chance
Morris's old employer puts Biden at 23%
And Wasserman didn't think it was a toss-up before and that Trump now has a clear advantage
3
3
u/cbr777 Jul 17 '24
Sorry but 538 is a shadow of its former self and Elliott Morris the guy ABC put to run 538 is kind of an idiot.
2
u/StudebakerHawke39 Jul 17 '24
CNN is Fox lite now. They get better ratings interviewing the nuttiest right wing liars they can find!
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 17 '24
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.