• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

zeke said:
poor guys. must have been tough for them, but they did it.

but lol at them moving GA and NC to the top of this list all of a sudden.

View attachment 22006


View attachment 22007
Click to expand...

and remember, RCP uses some goofy bullshit in their averages. If you look at the NC polls in their averages, there are 4 polls released in the last 2 weeks

Trafalgar: Trump +2
TIPP: Trump +3
Quinnipiac: Harris +3
SurveyUSA: Harris +3

Same list, but with pollster ratings in brackets

Trafalgar: Trump +2 (1.8)
TIPP: Trump +3 (1.8)
Quinnipiac: Harris +3 (2.8)
SurveyUSA: Harris +3 (2.8)

There are 107 listed polling firms in 538's database with better than a 1.8 and only 10 with better than a 2.8

#FloodingTheZone
 
Screenshot 2024-09-18 141041.png



ok now we're cooking. big swing towards Harris now.

Nate's update today has his polling averages basically back in line with the rest of the polling averages now.

The only outlier of the polling averages is of course RCP, which has been working overtime to try and keep the race close......but even they're now being forced to show a lead for Kamala.
 
Last edited:
Preston said:
Nate has Trump winning at 52% now. Far cry from the 62 or 64% or whatever he had him at a few days ago.
Click to expand...

seems pretty silly based on the size of his dem lead in WI MI PA. must still be a lingering convention bounce metric but that seems even sillier at this point.

i'll stick with the crisp hard polling averages myself. and then decide if i think the trump effect is enough to more than counter the roe effect.
 
zeke said:
seems pretty silly based on the size of his dem lead in WI MI PA. must still be a lingering convention bounce metric but that seems even sillier at this point.

i'll stick with the crisp hard polling averages myself. and then decide if i think the trump effect is enough to more than counter the roe effect.
Click to expand...
His other argument that I think is having most of the impact is that he states that the fundamentals favor Trump "significantly."
 
Wish he could have waited one day to announce it.

We were already on track for a couple record high market closes today along with a huge good polling day for kamala, which would have shut up the "market's going up only cuz trump is winning" shit.

but now he gets to blame the fed helping her out.
 
Preston said:
His other argument that I think is having most of the impact is that he states that the fundamentals favor Trump "significantly."
Click to expand...

huh. he says that as wages are up, markets are up, unemployment low, and Harris' crushes Trump on net faves.

the only "fundamental" I can think Nate is talking about is his inflation hobby horse from a few months ago - he was very anti-WillStancil's "Vibecession" analysis, and went out of his way to argue that inflation was even more of an issue than the consensus thought.
 
I don't know what he uses or bases it on. It's just the only thing I can think of that would make his model such an outlier (convention thing no longer makes sense). I do know that he gives less "weight" to fundamentals than other models but if they really do favor Trump "significantly", that could make up for that and cause his wonky results. He did give a couple mentions to the fundies favoring trump recently though I'm not sure if that gap has closed.
 
Preston said:
I don't know what he uses or bases it on. It's just the only thing I can think of that would make his model such an outlier (convention thing no longer makes sense). I do know that he gives less "weight" to fundamentals than other models but if they really do favor Trump "significantly", that could make up for that and cause his wonky results. He did give a couple mentions to the fundies favoring trump recently though I'm not sure if that gap has closed.
Click to expand...
ehhh I'm not buying it. lotsa other folks, like Lichtman, base their analyses on the 'fundamentals' and come to different conclusions
 
Wayward DP said:
ehhh I'm not buying it. lotsa other folks, like Lichtman, base their analyses on the 'fundamentals' and come to different conclusions
Click to expand...
Well Nate's fundamentals clearly say something different than Lichtman. I'm not saying it's right! It's most likely wrong. But that is most likely the explanation for his weird projections despite being just about dead on with his polling averages.
 
I mean the big negative in his fundamentals is shown right there - his model thinks real disposable wage growth over the past couple years is a big negative.

If that's true then yeah that should be pretty bad for the "incumbent".....but I really don't think it's true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top