Nate Silver 538

1…1011131516…75

Comments

  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,521
    The Juggler said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    The Juggler said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    Faux news is fudging the numbers toward Sleepy Woke Joe Basement Biden to energize the base and scare undecideds. Faux knows the deplorables only listen or watch faux.
    i was honestly thinking this might be the motivation too. 
    Come on guys. Fox's polling is quality.
    as has been demonstrated recently, i don't know much about polling, who to trust and who not to. why would fox's polling be so good if their reporting is the shits?

    i saw that nate rates is an A-, i'm just curious as to why one segment of their operation is tip top notch and the other is not. 
    Their reporting isn't shit. Chris Wallace is the best in the business. It's the prime time line up that is absolute horse shit. 

    Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson have absolutely nothing to do with their polling. That's why I'd be they probably spent zero time talking about how poorly Trump is doing in their polls. 
    i was obviously talking about their prime time, yes, not wallace. their morning show is also partisan trash though. 
    By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.




  • OnWis97
    OnWis97 St. Paul, MN Posts: 5,610
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    The Juggler said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    The Juggler said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    Faux news is fudging the numbers toward Sleepy Woke Joe Basement Biden to energize the base and scare undecideds. Faux knows the deplorables only listen or watch faux.
    i was honestly thinking this might be the motivation too. 
    Come on guys. Fox's polling is quality.
    as has been demonstrated recently, i don't know much about polling, who to trust and who not to. why would fox's polling be so good if their reporting is the shits?

    i saw that nate rates is an A-, i'm just curious as to why one segment of their operation is tip top notch and the other is not. 
    Their reporting isn't shit. Chris Wallace is the best in the business. It's the prime time line up that is absolute horse shit. 

    Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson have absolutely nothing to do with their polling. That's why I'd be they probably spent zero time talking about how poorly Trump is doing in their polls. 
    i was obviously talking about their prime time, yes, not wallace. their morning show is also partisan trash though. 

    And has been for 20, plus years.  I used to watch it during the 2000 election season.  The same two make clowns have been on the whole time and it's been awful the whole time, I assume (I've missed the last 19 years or so).  Also Brian Kilmeade doesn't get the credit people like Tucker and Reilly get for being awful, but he deserves it.
    1995 Milwaukee     1998 Alpine, Alpine     2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston     2004 Boston, Boston     2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)     2011 Alpine, Alpine     
    2013 Wrigley     2014 St. Paul     2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley     2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley     2021 Asbury Park     2022 St Louis     2023 Austin, Austin
    2024 Napa, Wrigley, Wrigley
  • The Juggler
    The Juggler Posts: 49,598
    OnWis97 said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    The Juggler said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    The Juggler said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    Faux news is fudging the numbers toward Sleepy Woke Joe Basement Biden to energize the base and scare undecideds. Faux knows the deplorables only listen or watch faux.
    i was honestly thinking this might be the motivation too. 
    Come on guys. Fox's polling is quality.
    as has been demonstrated recently, i don't know much about polling, who to trust and who not to. why would fox's polling be so good if their reporting is the shits?

    i saw that nate rates is an A-, i'm just curious as to why one segment of their operation is tip top notch and the other is not. 
    Their reporting isn't shit. Chris Wallace is the best in the business. It's the prime time line up that is absolute horse shit. 

    Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson have absolutely nothing to do with their polling. That's why I'd be they probably spent zero time talking about how poorly Trump is doing in their polls. 
    i was obviously talking about their prime time, yes, not wallace. their morning show is also partisan trash though. 

    And has been for 20, plus years.  I used to watch it during the 2000 election season.  The same two make clowns have been on the whole time and it's been awful the whole time, I assume (I've missed the last 19 years or so).  Also Brian Kilmeade doesn't get the credit people like Tucker and Reilly get for being awful, but he deserves it.
    It has gotten progressively worse over the last two decades.

    I'd take O'Reilly over tucker. And Hannity and Colmes at least pretended to show both points of view
    www.myspace.com
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,883
    The Juggler said:
    OnWis97 said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    The Juggler said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    The Juggler said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    Faux news is fudging the numbers toward Sleepy Woke Joe Basement Biden to energize the base and scare undecideds. Faux knows the deplorables only listen or watch faux.
    i was honestly thinking this might be the motivation too. 
    Come on guys. Fox's polling is quality.
    as has been demonstrated recently, i don't know much about polling, who to trust and who not to. why would fox's polling be so good if their reporting is the shits?

    i saw that nate rates is an A-, i'm just curious as to why one segment of their operation is tip top notch and the other is not. 
    Their reporting isn't shit. Chris Wallace is the best in the business. It's the prime time line up that is absolute horse shit. 

    Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson have absolutely nothing to do with their polling. That's why I'd be they probably spent zero time talking about how poorly Trump is doing in their polls. 
    i was obviously talking about their prime time, yes, not wallace. their morning show is also partisan trash though. 

    And has been for 20, plus years.  I used to watch it during the 2000 election season.  The same two make clowns have been on the whole time and it's been awful the whole time, I assume (I've missed the last 19 years or so).  Also Brian Kilmeade doesn't get the credit people like Tucker and Reilly get for being awful, but he deserves it.
    It has gotten progressively worse over the last two decades.

    I'd take O'Reilly over tucker. And Hannity and Colmes at least pretended to show both points of view
    Yeah, I think Alan Colmes got tired of being verbally abused every night and just left.  That was the end of any semblance of objectivity prime time. 
  • OnWis97
    OnWis97 St. Paul, MN Posts: 5,610
    I read one of those "liberal talking points" books by Al Franken and when he'd reference "Hannity and Colmes," the "Colmes" would be in a smaller font.  That was a nice little touch of truth, I am sure (I never really watched that one).
    1995 Milwaukee     1998 Alpine, Alpine     2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston     2004 Boston, Boston     2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)     2011 Alpine, Alpine     
    2013 Wrigley     2014 St. Paul     2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley     2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley     2021 Asbury Park     2022 St Louis     2023 Austin, Austin
    2024 Napa, Wrigley, Wrigley
  • Ledbetterman10
    Ledbetterman10 Posts: 16,994
    OnWis97 said:
    I read one of those "liberal talking points" books by Al Franken and when he'd reference "Hannity and Colmes," the "Colmes" would be in a smaller font.  That was a nice little touch of truth, I am sure (I never really watched that one).
    This is what Hannity and Colmes was...

    https://youtu.be/t_Nh5IGMo8g
    2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • MayDay10
    MayDay10 Posts: 11,856
    if they had that format now, Colmes would receive routine threats to his life.
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,883
    Ledbetterman10 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    I read one of those "liberal talking points" books by Al Franken and when he'd reference "Hannity and Colmes," the "Colmes" would be in a smaller font.  That was a nice little touch of truth, I am sure (I never really watched that one).
    This is what Hannity and Colmes was...

    https://youtu.be/t_Nh5IGMo8g
    Haha.. I remember that episode.  Dead on.
  • Lerxst1992
    Lerxst1992 Posts: 7,939
    Gern Blansten said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    The Juggler said:

    jesus. those are big numbers. i wasn't expecting that. 
    Yeah and Fox is graded A- by 538


    But, Fox polls are very biased to favor democrats. Now what one would expect, but that’s how 538 rates their polls

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/
  • Lerxst1992
    Lerxst1992 Posts: 7,939
    mrussel1 said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    The Juggler said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    Faux news is fudging the numbers toward Sleepy Woke Joe Basement Biden to energize the base and scare undecideds. Faux knows the deplorables only listen or watch faux.
    i was honestly thinking this might be the motivation too. 
    Come on guys. Fox's polling is quality.
    as has been demonstrated recently, i don't know much about polling, who to trust and who not to. why would fox's polling be so good if their reporting is the shits?

    i saw that nate rates is an A-, i'm just curious as to why one segment of their operation is tip top notch and the other is not. 
    Fox News likely doesn't poll directly themselves.  They are a sponsor for a professional polling company.  Here's the disclosure from their crosstabs. 

    The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with approximately 1000 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and is conducted under the joint direction of Beacon Research (D) (formerly known as Anderson Robbins Research) and Shaw & Company Research (R). For the total sample, it has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. When necessary, minor weights are applied to age, race, education and gender variables to bring the sample into conformity with the most reliable demographic profiles. Fox News polls are not weighted by political party. Results from Fox News polls before February 2011 were conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corp. Anderson Robbins Research changed its name to Beacon Research in 2019; the polling team is unchanged since 2011.

    Considering how polarized the electorate is, the following statement gives me pause relying on their polls

    ” Fox News polls are not weighted by political party.”
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,883
    Lerxst1992 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    The Juggler said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    Faux news is fudging the numbers toward Sleepy Woke Joe Basement Biden to energize the base and scare undecideds. Faux knows the deplorables only listen or watch faux.
    i was honestly thinking this might be the motivation too. 
    Come on guys. Fox's polling is quality.
    as has been demonstrated recently, i don't know much about polling, who to trust and who not to. why would fox's polling be so good if their reporting is the shits?

    i saw that nate rates is an A-, i'm just curious as to why one segment of their operation is tip top notch and the other is not. 
    Fox News likely doesn't poll directly themselves.  They are a sponsor for a professional polling company.  Here's the disclosure from their crosstabs. 

    The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with approximately 1000 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and is conducted under the joint direction of Beacon Research (D) (formerly known as Anderson Robbins Research) and Shaw & Company Research (R). For the total sample, it has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. When necessary, minor weights are applied to age, race, education and gender variables to bring the sample into conformity with the most reliable demographic profiles. Fox News polls are not weighted by political party. Results from Fox News polls before February 2011 were conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corp. Anderson Robbins Research changed its name to Beacon Research in 2019; the polling team is unchanged since 2011.

    Considering how polarized the electorate is, the following statement gives me pause relying on their polls

    ” Fox News polls are not weighted by political party.”
    Right, they believe demographics is more predictive evidently. 
  • The Juggler
    The Juggler Posts: 49,598
    edited September 2020
    mrussel1 said:
    Lerxst1992 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    The Juggler said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    Faux news is fudging the numbers toward Sleepy Woke Joe Basement Biden to energize the base and scare undecideds. Faux knows the deplorables only listen or watch faux.
    i was honestly thinking this might be the motivation too. 
    Come on guys. Fox's polling is quality.
    as has been demonstrated recently, i don't know much about polling, who to trust and who not to. why would fox's polling be so good if their reporting is the shits?

    i saw that nate rates is an A-, i'm just curious as to why one segment of their operation is tip top notch and the other is not. 
    Fox News likely doesn't poll directly themselves.  They are a sponsor for a professional polling company.  Here's the disclosure from their crosstabs. 

    The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with approximately 1000 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and is conducted under the joint direction of Beacon Research (D) (formerly known as Anderson Robbins Research) and Shaw & Company Research (R). For the total sample, it has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. When necessary, minor weights are applied to age, race, education and gender variables to bring the sample into conformity with the most reliable demographic profiles. Fox News polls are not weighted by political party. Results from Fox News polls before February 2011 were conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corp. Anderson Robbins Research changed its name to Beacon Research in 2019; the polling team is unchanged since 2011.

    Considering how polarized the electorate is, the following statement gives me pause relying on their polls

    ” Fox News polls are not weighted by political party.”
    Right, they believe demographics is more predictive evidently. 
    For those scoring at home, Fox is +1.4 Dem. 

    According to Gallup, the average percent of people in this country who identify as Democrat is around +4%  since the Corona Virus kicked into high gear in April (the latest one is +1 Dem). Scroll down further and you'll see Independents also lean more left. So, yeah...no surprise that Fox has a high rating. Thanks for bringing this up, Lerx:

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx
    Post edited by The Juggler on
    www.myspace.com
  • Lerxst1992
    Lerxst1992 Posts: 7,939
    edited September 2020
    Cook political report has an interesting tool where you can adjust turnout by demographic and see how that impacts electoral college.

    It’s starts with trumps best demo, non college whites at 55% (Biden win w 307 electoral votes). Increasing that demo to 60% gets trump a win with about 280 EVs. 59% turnout, reduces it to 230 EVs 

    I cant imagine a 1% turnout difference in trumps base nets a 50 EV difference, but it underscores how difficult a job pollsters have to get the polls accurate and account for even a tiny increase in trump base turnout. It ain’t helping my confidence with pollsters and if it’s this much of a difference 538 is really off their rockers w .77



    HOW IT WORKS: Start with the results of the previous election, adjusted fordemographic change since 2016. Then, adjust the sliders below to see how shifts inturnout and support among five demographic groups could swing the Electoral College
    Post edited by Lerxst1992 on
  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 44,530
    mrussel1 said:
    dignin said:
    Lerxst1992 said:
    The Juggler said:
    78%. Now the highest percent 538 has given him since June...

    Nate is risking looking foolish. If he says 75 isn’t 100 two elections in a row he will be ridiculed. He has admitted he does not count court challenges and other election tricks in his odds which seems foolish given the constitution gives huge advantages to the incumbent in close elections, especially one willing to bend rules to maximize that advantage. Also considering the majority of swing state polling is within moe.

    BtW Univ WI poll today has Biden up 4 with 4% undecided. Glancing at all the state polling this week it looks very similar to 2016. Even more so this week.
    What do suggest Nate do then? Lie about the math? I don't understand what you want.
    If he had any integrity, he'd look at the 75% and cut it in half.  Then double it. 

    what?
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • darwinstheory
    darwinstheory LaPorte, IN Posts: 7,375
    🚀 science!
    "A smart monkey doesn't monkey around with another monkey's monkey" - Darwin's Theory
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,883
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    dignin said:
    Lerxst1992 said:
    The Juggler said:
    78%. Now the highest percent 538 has given him since June...

    Nate is risking looking foolish. If he says 75 isn’t 100 two elections in a row he will be ridiculed. He has admitted he does not count court challenges and other election tricks in his odds which seems foolish given the constitution gives huge advantages to the incumbent in close elections, especially one willing to bend rules to maximize that advantage. Also considering the majority of swing state polling is within moe.

    BtW Univ WI poll today has Biden up 4 with 4% undecided. Glancing at all the state polling this week it looks very similar to 2016. Even more so this week.
    What do suggest Nate do then? Lie about the math? I don't understand what you want.
    If he had any integrity, he'd look at the 75% and cut it in half.  Then double it. 

    what?
    Simple math. 
  • dignin
    dignin Posts: 9,478
    Calculating Figure It Out GIF
  • The Juggler
    The Juggler Posts: 49,598

    www.myspace.com
  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 44,530
    mrussel1 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    dignin said:
    Lerxst1992 said:
    The Juggler said:
    78%. Now the highest percent 538 has given him since June...

    Nate is risking looking foolish. If he says 75 isn’t 100 two elections in a row he will be ridiculed. He has admitted he does not count court challenges and other election tricks in his odds which seems foolish given the constitution gives huge advantages to the incumbent in close elections, especially one willing to bend rules to maximize that advantage. Also considering the majority of swing state polling is within moe.

    BtW Univ WI poll today has Biden up 4 with 4% undecided. Glancing at all the state polling this week it looks very similar to 2016. Even more so this week.
    What do suggest Nate do then? Lie about the math? I don't understand what you want.
    If he had any integrity, he'd look at the 75% and cut it in half.  Then double it. 

    what?
    Simple math. 

    doesn't that arrive you right back at 75%?
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • The Juggler
    The Juggler Posts: 49,598
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    dignin said:
    Lerxst1992 said:
    The Juggler said:
    78%. Now the highest percent 538 has given him since June...

    Nate is risking looking foolish. If he says 75 isn’t 100 two elections in a row he will be ridiculed. He has admitted he does not count court challenges and other election tricks in his odds which seems foolish given the constitution gives huge advantages to the incumbent in close elections, especially one willing to bend rules to maximize that advantage. Also considering the majority of swing state polling is within moe.

    BtW Univ WI poll today has Biden up 4 with 4% undecided. Glancing at all the state polling this week it looks very similar to 2016. Even more so this week.
    What do suggest Nate do then? Lie about the math? I don't understand what you want.
    If he had any integrity, he'd look at the 75% and cut it in half.  Then double it. 

    what?
    Simple math. 

    doesn't that arrive you right back at 75%?
    You might be missing some sarcasm here, Mick


    www.myspace.com

Categories