Who is he?TheWoodlandsTxAg said:Little birdie says watch New Hampshire.
— Steve Deace (@SteveDeaceShow) November 3, 2024
Deace's birds are telling him New Hampshire is competitive.
Muh Polls
779,877 Views |
5731 Replies |
Last: 56 min ago by ts5641
Quote:
Child of the King of Kings, husband/father/grandpa, BlazeTV host, 3x best-selling author, and EP of #NefariousMovie. Pronouns: if you disagree I'm a grifter.
It's been fun hanging out with you guys in this thread. Looks like pretty much all the polls that are gonna get done are in, so I'll be hanging out in the early vote thread for the next day or two.
Talk to your friends, family, and acquaintances over the next two days and offer to get them to the polls if they are registered and haven't voted yet.
Thanks Captn_Ag05 and others who kept this thread going with updates!
Talk to your friends, family, and acquaintances over the next two days and offer to get them to the polls if they are registered and haven't voted yet.
Thanks Captn_Ag05 and others who kept this thread going with updates!
Vance in '28
1,111 new posts when I clicked this thread. It's a sign.
BTHO Kamala & Coach!
DDHQ forecast model ticked a bit higher in favor of Trump. Btw, chance of winning Iowa, 92%. https://t.co/zEXLXVb9gF
— Rich Baris The People's Pundit (@Peoples_Pundit) November 3, 2024
JasonD2005 said:
1,111 new posts when I clicked this thread. It's a sign.
999 were removed
Haha,Barnyard96 said:JasonD2005 said:
1,111 new posts when I clicked this thread. It's a sign.
999 were removed
Hats off to staff on this thread. I really like how they are handling it and keeping these threads from derailing. That's how we get to 100+ pages. They have several good ones going right now.
The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you never know if they are genuine. -- Abraham Lincoln.
Yes very good thread and been great to follow. Thanks everyone and Capt_Ag for posting the polls and providing background.
I trust decision desk over a lot of other places...
#NEW Decision Desk HQ 2024 election forecast update
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 3, 2024
🔴 Trump: 54%
🔵 Harris: 46%
Trump's win odds in:
🔴 North Carolina: 66%
🔴 Georgia: 65%
🔴 Arizona: 64%
🔴 Nevada: 56%
🔴 Pennsylvania: 53%
🔴 Wisconsin: 51%
🔵 Michigan: 44% pic.twitter.com/qTOLMUcNbs
#Updated Nate Silver model - Electoral collage
— Political Polls (@PpollingNumbers) November 3, 2024
Harris takes the lead
🔵 Harris 270 🏆
🔴 Trump 267
How does that square with thisTRM said:#Updated Nate Silver model - Electoral collage
— Political Polls (@PpollingNumbers) November 3, 2024
Harris takes the lead
🔵 Harris 270 🏆
🔴 Trump 267
🚨 BREAKING: Nate Silver's election model and national polling average suggests Trump has an 85% chance of winning the election on Tuesday.
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 3, 2024
POPULAR VOTE:
🔵 Harris: 48.5% (+0.9)
🔴 Trump: 47.6%
ELECTORAL COLLEGE ODDS:
🔴 Trump: 85%
🔵 Harris: 14.6%
BREAKDOWN: This is due to… pic.twitter.com/ZP47mt2Ygq
I'm confused.
Read the readers comments
WTH? Didn't he just post Trump with an 85% chance to win the EC?
It is called a hedge and pump fade…"I said this, but I also said this." They are covering their ass.
No. That was a person taking one data point.
I bet it moves again. There were some crazy polls today
I bet it moves again. There were some crazy polls today
It's Nate Silver. All part of the plan.
I find pretty much all of this useless. One minute...this, next minute...that, totally inconsistent and becomes, "Blah, blah, blah". I don't believe the nation's actual consensus is that fluid or unstable.
Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and myself founded empires; but upon what foundation did we rest the creations of our genius? Upon force! But Jesus Christ founded His upon love; and at this hour millions of men would die for Him. - Napoleon Bonaparte
That's how you know the data has entered "noise mode" and is now just all being manipulated to try to impact the actual Election Day voting.
Pretty much have to turn off the "data collecting" for these last few days and whatever happens between now and Tuesday evening
Pretty much have to turn off the "data collecting" for these last few days and whatever happens between now and Tuesday evening
So silver is going against a key principle of his entire model. All you need to know.
His model says if Kamala has between a 0-.9% lead, Trump has an 85% chance of winning the election.
His model says if Kamala has between a 0-.9% lead, Trump has an 85% chance of winning the election.
JDUB08AG said:
So silver is going against a key principle of his entire model. All you need to know.
His model says if Kamala has between a 0-.9% lead, Trump has an 85% chance of winning the election.
How can he even square that? I'm confused…
Because he wants to.
Silver's forecast is primarily based on state level polls rather than the national polling average. The actual forecasted Harris margin in the popular vote in his model is +2.1%, which is basically a coin flip.FireAg said:
How can he even square that? I'm confused…
Daugherty is willfully misstating what Silver is saying.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
JUST IN: After finding Trump narrowly ahead in Michigan, pollster Steve Mitchell "revamps sample" and now finds Harris with a lead.
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 4, 2024
🔵 Harris: 50% (+2)
🔴 Trump: 48%
Last poll: Trump+1
Mitchell Research | 10/29-11/2 | N=585LV
Captn_Ag05 said:JUST IN: After finding Trump narrowly ahead in Michigan, pollster Steve Mitchell "revamps sample" and now finds Harris with a lead.
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 4, 2024
🔵 Harris: 50% (+2)
🔴 Trump: 48%
Last poll: Trump+1
Mitchell Research | 10/29-11/2 | N=585LV
"Revamps" how?
YokelRidesAgain said:Silver's forecast is primarily based on state level polls rather than the national polling average. The actual forecasted Harris margin in the popular vote in his model is +2.1%, which is basically a coin flip.FireAg said:
How can he even square that? I'm confused…
Daugherty is willfully misstating what Silver is saying.
Than why does his site aggregate have Kamala with a .9% lead? He is picking and choosing and completely FOS.
So basically from here on out, the polls are not meant to inform but to influence.
That's a conditional probability - Prob of Trump Wins IF Harris wins popular vote by less than 1. Each of those scenarios has probability attached to it, in actuality
Prob(Trump Wins) = Prob(Trump win given Scenario A1 occurs)*Prob(Scenario A)1 + Prob(Trump win given Scenario A2)*Prob(Scenario A2) +... +Prob(Trump win given Scenario An)*Prob(Scenario An)
He gave you Prob(Trump win given Scenario A1 occurs)
Prob(Trump Wins) = Prob(Trump win given Scenario A1 occurs)*Prob(Scenario A)1 + Prob(Trump win given Scenario A2)*Prob(Scenario A2) +... +Prob(Trump win given Scenario An)*Prob(Scenario An)
He gave you Prob(Trump win given Scenario A1 occurs)
Adjusted turnout expectations
#NEW FINAL IOWA poll
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 4, 2024
🔴 Trump: 52% (+8)
🔵 Harris: 44%@SocalStrategies | 11/2-3 | N=435LV
Captn_Ag05 said:
Adjusted turnout expectations
What's the early voting story in MI? I haven't heard anything from it
The polling average (which is not behind the paywall) shows Harris lead of 0.7% in national polling averages. The national polling averages are not the model's prediction (which is behind the paywall, and is currently Harris +2%), as I explained above.JDUB08AG said:
Than why does his site aggregate have Kamala with a .9% lead? He is picking and choosing and completely FOS.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
TRM said:
That's a conditional probability - Prob of Trump Wins IF Harris wins popular vote by less than 1. Each of those scenarios has probability attached to it, in actuality
Prob(Trump Wins) = Prob(Trump win given Scenario A1 occurs)*Prob(Scenario A)1 + Prob(Trump win given Scenario A2)*Prob(Scenario A2) +... +Prob(Trump win given Scenario An)*Prob(Scenario An)
He gave you Prob(Trump win given Scenario A1 occurs)
So his own model ignores his probability factor? I'm not a statistician and probably coming across as an idiot, but if his own polling aggregator that he assigns weights to is within the probability range he assigns to it, why does his final projection deviate from that?
On simple terms, why is he applying a 2.1% national vote factor when his own polling aggregate is .9%?
I don't follow all that closely to what Silver does, but Eric either lied or didn't know what he was giving out.
Captn_Ag05 said:#NEW FINAL IOWA poll
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 4, 2024
🔴 Trump: 52% (+8)
🔵 Harris: 44%@SocalStrategies | 11/2-3 | N=435LV
That poll was done in 1 day with ~450 LV, obviously as a counter/check on Selzer's work. It's in line with Emerson, but don't know what kind of validity to give it since it appears rushed.
Featured Stories
See All
A&M at risk of undercut when undertaking trip to underrated Auburn
by Olin Buchanan
48:02
20h ago
3.6k
5:59
17h ago
1.7k
16:53
21h ago
2.9k