this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2024
262 points (93.4% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2193 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

As of Friday at 10 a.m. Eastern, our average of national polls says Harris has the support of 45.0 percent of voters, while Trump garners 43.5 percent.

That 1.5-percentage-point lead is within our average's uncertainty interval, which you can think of as a sort of margin of error for our polling averages.

It's a little weird that they say Harris is "tied" with trump, even though she's ahead by 1.5%. That seems like a big deal. Margin of error is important, but it's just factually true that Vice President Harris is up by an average of 1.5%.

I looked back at how 538 treated polls when trump was up by a similar amount:

https://abcnews.go.com/538/polls-after-presidential-debate/story?id=111610497

In 538's national polling average, Trump now leads by 1.4 percentage points over Biden, while the two candidates were just about tied on June 27, the day of the debate.

So Harris up by 1.5% is actually "tied", but trump up on Biden by 1.4% is "leads" (and explicitly different from "tied"!). No mention of margin of error in that paragraph.

🤔🤔🤔

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ryven@lemmy.dbzer0.com 58 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

They're by different writers, and I know on their podcast I have heard people disagree in the past about things like whether a polling difference is meaningful, so maybe they're just each calling it like they see it.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 9 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Yeah, I didn't check that. It makes sense but they still have editors. I'm not saying there's some conspiracy to keep Kamala down, but watch for this to coincidentally happen again.

Being up by 1.5% is huge. Biden being down by 1.4% caused him to drop out.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 11 points 3 months ago

It's in the right direction, but Democrats need to overperform nationally to be in good shape in the electoral college. Big movement from where Biden was, but it needs to keep going. A Democrat down 1.4% is almost a sure loss, but a Democrat up 1.5% isn't a sure win.

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

Biden being down by 1.4% caused him to drop out.

And covid and not being able to string a sentence together and most of his advisors becoming doomers immediately after the debate.

[–] JimSamtanko@lemm.ee 55 points 3 months ago (1 children)

While it’s good that she’s tied it up- it’s fucking pathetic that this is even a decision to make. That orange piece of shit felon shouldn’t be allowed run.

[–] unconsciousvoidling@lemmy.one 14 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Supreme Court gets the assist. Some states would have him off the ballot right now I think.

[–] RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

Yup. Let's not forget that Colorado, Illinois, and Maine would have all disqualified Trump within their rights as a state, but SCOTUS overruled them.

[–] P00ptart@lemmy.world 34 points 3 months ago (3 children)

The big thing here is that polls skew right. They have been for years. This is why Democrats have been winning again and again recently, by large margins. Young people don't participate in polls. We don't answer calls from numbers we don't know. I know I'm calling myself "young" as an elder millennial, but compared to people who answer every call, I am young. That's why polls skew right, then the election goes left. My generation and younger won't pick up the phone for numbers we don't recognize. We grew up in the tech world and know better. Boomers and GenX will pick up the phone and proudly proclaim their position. Recently polls have suggested that the right wing is ahead, yet they keep losing. Because they're losers, and I'm happy that my generation is blocking that bullshit. I hope the younger generations keep up with ending totalitarian rule and will continue the fight against psychopathy.

[–] CitizenKong@lemmy.world 20 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Generally yes, but no reason to get complacent. A large number of young people are also skewing right, particularly young men.

[–] arefx@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Also, the amount of young men for idolize people like Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson is concerning, but nothing will be done to address it. Social media is just as bad for their appearance and mental health issues as IG beauty standards are for young women, ie mewing, etc.

[–] GhostTheToast@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Not only losers, they are weird

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 26 points 3 months ago (1 children)

So Harris up by 1.5% is actually "tied", but trump up on Biden by 1.4% is "leads" (and explicitly different from "tied"!). No mention of margin of error in that paragraph.

I don't mind that. It bothers me when a paper-thin lead is reported as just a "lead" cuz it kills people's sense of urgency.

[–] RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

True. They could honestly both be an attempt at reverse psychology by a liberal staff.

[–] Coelacanth@feddit.nu 26 points 3 months ago (4 children)

National polling averages are nice and all, but what's the situation in the critical swing states? Popular vote should be fairly meaningless unless either side is up but like 25 points.

[–] Irremarkable@fedia.io 18 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Fairly promising, at least in relation to Biden v Trump numbers

AZ: mostly even GA: mostly even MI: mostly even, Harris with a lead depending on how much you trust Morning Consult's numbers MN: Harris leads NV: mostly even WI: mostly even, slight lead for Harris

If I'm remembering right, most of those had Trump leading prior to Biden dropping out

[–] casmael@lemm.ee 5 points 3 months ago

Yeah I think you’re right about these states polling differently following Biden’s withdrawal. Pretty sure I remember trump being ahead in at least 4 of that set.

[–] RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

So if polls do tend to swing right these days, which looks possible, this could all be really good news....

[–] Dnb@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 months ago

Wouldn't the majority counting for president be nice

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] expatriado@lemmy.world 24 points 3 months ago (1 children)

but one of them has the forward momentum

[–] Black616Angel@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 3 months ago

And the other one has media attention all day every day since 2015. Never underestimate pure media attention.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 17 points 3 months ago

Cool. Let's make it 65/35.

[–] rayyy@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago (1 children)

One has momentum and a convention bump coming up. The other is OLD, tired and really WEIRD.

[–] absentbird@lemm.ee 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Super old, with an atrocious VP. Worst presidential ticket in my lifetime by far.

[–] P00ptart@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Same, which is sad because I was 18 when bush was president. But if take bush 1000X over trump.

[–] absentbird@lemm.ee 4 points 3 months ago

Yeah, I couldn't stand Bush, but he was a way stronger candidate than trump.

[–] meep_launcher@lemm.ee 9 points 3 months ago

They didn't ask me and I'm sure as hell voting.

Fuck these Chrystal balls we're voting and we're winning

[–] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

Margin of error might have been smaller before than it is now. Makes a ton of sense because the race has changed so rapidly.

[–] tjp@lemm.ee 8 points 3 months ago

So Harris up by 1.5% is actually "tied", but trump up on Biden by 1.4% is "leads"

Not sure this is what they are doing, but the republican advantage in the electoral college could explain the terminology here. With polls a dead heat, democrats are losing every time.

[–] SteveFromMySpace@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

It’s not “a little weird” they clearly explained it. It’s SOP for assessing polling and you clearly got that based on what you wrote. They did the same thing when margins were closer for Biden and Trump. This is always how it has been done. It would be weird to suddenly stop doing that.

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Was the post edited in the last 5 minutes? Seems it addressed this and gave an example of how it was different for Trump v Biden.

[–] SteveFromMySpace@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I can’t speak to that one individual case but I listen to the podcast pretty regularly and I don’t think I’ve ever listened to a single episode that didn’t mention the margin of error at some point. They almost bring it up too much to the point where it almost feels like they’re hedging their bets. But given what OP wrote I can see why they do now

[–] Irremarkable@fedia.io 8 points 3 months ago

Yeah calling this weird is simply a complete misunderstanding of basic statistics. If the lead is within the margin of error, it's absolutely fair to call it tied.

[–] Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Yeah, because all of the "mainstream" news channels actually skew right, since they're constantly overcorrecting to appear non-biased.

[–] thrawn@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Nate Silver has similar numbers. I don’t have a great deal of faith in polls or poll aggregators, but both of those put together is a good sign.

[–] Pulptastic@midwest.social 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

He used to be 538, not surprised they have similar methodologies

[–] thrawn@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Yeah but he had significantly more pessimistic numbers for Biden from model launch to dropping out. Whether 538 was overly optimistic for the dems or Silver was overly pessimistic, it’s good news either way when both agree Harris is up

load more comments
view more: next ›