this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2024
-2 points (48.6% liked)

politics

19096 readers
3565 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
 

Democratic strategist David Axelrod wrote on social media after President Biden’s Thursday night press conference that his odds of winning the presidential race this fall are “very very slim.”

Axelrod said Biden’s team “has not been very candid” with the president after Biden at the presser said no poll or person is telling him he cannot win in November.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LibertyLizard 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I don’t understand how this is possible with the current polling consistently showing a Trump edge and his structural advantage in the EC. Worth noting that ABC inexplicably laid off Nate Silver and he took his model system with him. I imagine they’ve built something similar to replace it but it remains untested compared to their past predictions.

That said, Biden clearly has a chance to win, so I think Axelrod may be overstating it here. But Trump does seem to be a clear favorite from the available information.

[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago (3 children)

You’re not going to change my mind on fashion models. Even when they’re wrong, you’re better off just shutting your mouth so they let you in the club. (Or clüb for my continental friends.)

I think Nate Silver is clever but not a rigorous intellectual. His “model” is not even open source, and predicting presidential elections has 50ish data points and fewer than 10 that are uncertain. He made a good model but it is what it is: a model of the last election. (Nothing has changed. We can assume it’s the same as last time, right?)

I also just assume he’s gonna get on the right wing grift circuit before too long. One last score is saying “woke is bad.” And he can justify anything to himself.

[–] LibertyLizard 1 points 4 months ago

All good points, I’m not necessarily saying Nate’s is better, just that the fivethirtyeight model is probably different from past years.

There’s also the economist which shows Trump a 3/4 favorite. I have little knowledge of their methods or history so take that with a grain of salt but it’s worth considering.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

(Nothing has changed. We can assume it’s the same as last time, right?)

I’m hoping you dropped the /s,

Immigration voters (well the dem-base immigration voters,) the Muslim vote. He’s always been soft with women and the black vote.

And he barely squeaked it out last time. Anyone who’s telling him he’s likely to win is lying through their teeth. Probably because of there’s a new pres, they’re likely to lose their jobs.

Details.

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

https://www.axios.com/2024/07/16/nate-silver-polymarket Nate Silver did, in fact, do the right wing grift thing.