On Sunday, September 8, polling expert and FiveThirtyEight founder Nate Silver updated his presidential election forecast and gave GOP nominee Donald Trump a 63.8 percent chance of winning the Electoral College in November and Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris only a 36 percent chance. But vet...
  • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
    37·
    2 months ago

    Nate Silver is good with odds, regardless of who he works for. This whole article is a genetic fallacy; it’s saying that it’s wrong just because he’s funded by someone that supports Trump. There’s no counter-evidence, although there’s a counter-claim, that also doesn’t have strong evidence.

    As of 10 Sept., FiveThirtyEight is giving Harris a 56:44 edge over Trump. Personally, I tend to believe FiveThirtyEight a little more over all, because they’re looking at and weighting many different polls. But these odds are way too close for comfort, given that Clinton was favored to beat Trump 6-4 the day of the 2016 election.

    If you don’t want Trump to win, get out there and vote, and make sure everyone that leans Harris knows that they need to get out and vote on 5 November, and make sure your Republican friends get out there and vote on 6 November.

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        9·
        2 months ago

        Yes, I fucking well know that, because I listen to Galen Druke on the FiveThirtyEight podcast every fucking week. I know exactly how long he’s been gone, because I’ve been listening to the podcast for that long. There is nothing in my statement that implied that Silver still worked for ABC News or FiveThirtyEight; my statement only says that FiveThirtyEight gives Harris a lead that’s barely outside the margin of error, and, as the pollsters that appear on the podcast frequently say, it’s simply not clear how well current polls are capturing what’s actually going to happen on election day.

        So make sure all your Republican friends get up bright and early on Wednesday, 6 November to vote for Trump!

        • ganksy@lemmy.world
          19·
          2 months ago

          Why wasn’t the fact that Nate Silver is not affiliated with FiveThirtyEight your opening sentence? It didn’t occur to me, until the parent comment, that you were not arguing for FiveThirtyEight. As an aside, I, and no one else here, were privy to the fact you listen to some podcast.

          • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
            2·
            2 months ago

            Because it doesn’t have to be. They’re two different thoughts. Hence the paragraph break. Moreover, I note in my first goddamn sentence that Silver is good at odds regardless of who he works for. That clearly implies acknowledgement that Silver is working for an organization funded by Thiel, rather than for an ABC affiliate.

  • nifty@lemmy.world
    29·
    2 months ago

    It doesn’t matter if Thiel pays him, fact is that the electoral college has a real danger of being fixed for Trump IF people don’t turn out to vote

    • taiyang@lemmy.world
      1·
      2 months ago

      Amen. I soured on him too, but that kind of post isn’t that different from saying X is associated with Soros or Buffett, etc.

    • ultranaut@lemmy.world
      5·
      2 months ago

      It did to some people, I’ve been seeing shade thrown at him about the Thiel investment for awhile now. Its getting more attention recently but I don’t think its fair to characterize things the way you have.

  • abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.usEnglish
    6·
    2 months ago

    The other takeaway I’d have from this is - if Nate Silver is correct then it’s a warning sign to Dems. There’s a need to go out to the swing states and tweak policy positions and messaging to win over voters there to get the numbers back up and get a stronger win - one strong enough to translate into a win in the EC.