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

OT: American Politics

thehabhater said:
That gets you to 270 even.
Click to expand...
Those numbers do not compare favorably to 2020. At all. Which in itself doesn't tell you much. Worth posting here, I like seeing everything because I'm a nerd and i need something to fill my time before the election. But I'm not sure how much we can take away from these things.
 
MindzEye said:
He's just the easiest to make fun of.

The same methodologies based on the same assumptions will generate the same results. The aggregator industry swung and missed in 2022 in the face of the lesser challenges to the data than they're facing this time around. No "common sense" being applied for a lack of a better term. An entire industry of bullshit polling firms have popped up, often by the same people running the partisan firms they now weight poorly in their analysis, but these new firms are cool. The people who missed 2022 assure us that they've got it this time though.

Fabrizio? Can't trust that guy. These new guys Fabrizio, Dinkum, & Deep just dropped a N=1200 LV poll in Michigan though with 50.8% of their LV's being female? I see nothing wrong with that. That's just clean, crisp data baby.
Click to expand...
I think we have reached the "Rotten Tomatoes" stage for Polling Aggregators.

With Movie Reviews, a single review doesn't matter too much to most people. Maybe the reviewer was having an off day, or the movie wasn't their cup of tea. Maybe they don't like the director, or you just don't vibe with the reviewer (I know I have reviewers whose tastes reflect mine, and reviewers whose tastes don't).

So to get a good sense of whether a movie is good or not, take all the "good" reviewers and aggregate them to give you a better understanding if that movie is good or not.

But Rotten Tomatoes got too big. Movies lived or died on a "fresh" ranking or not. Studios had billions of dollars at stake on a "fresh" ranking.

So what did they do? They started to game the system. Paid reviewers for good reviews, got bots to leave good reviews, and spent money to flood the zone.

The same is happening with polling aggregators. People started to figure out that an individual poll is kinda worthless. It is just a snapshot of that day/time period. What you needed to do was get an average of polls to see what the populace was thinking, and weed out bias and noise to get a clearer picture of what was going on.

We all know this and they became Rockstars.

But with popularity, comes scrutiny. And the gaming started. But only gaming on one side. Dems seem to want to spend their money on their ground game, Pshaw.

So we get aggregates that say the race is tight, a coin flip.

And the frustration with Nate Silver is: he doesn't think the gaming has started or realized it yet. And seems arrogant enough to believe his algorithm will straighten it out in the end. But smart people have spent time working out ways to game the system, like all sports teams do when a new advance stat changes the game in sports.

To be useful, you have to be one step ahead of the gamers.
 
Man, just realized the damage to women if the first woman as President is this woefully unqualified and ill equipped for the position.

What a disaster that could be
 
Fwiw, I've got Kamala at 292 (MI, WI, PA, NV) with a shot at 308.

I dug through the Atlas (Trump +3) Georgia poll and this jumps off of the page:

1730392752710.png

Georgia was a 56% female turnout in 2020....before Dobbs. Predicting a 49.6% female electorate in Georgia is nuts imo.
 
Last edited:
Pwner said:
I think we have reached the "Rotten Tomatoes" stage for Polling Aggregators.

With Movie Reviews, a single review doesn't matter too much to most people. Maybe the reviewer was having an off day, or the movie wasn't their cup of tea. Maybe they don't like the director, or you just don't vibe with the reviewer (I know I have reviewers whose tastes reflect mine, and reviewers whose tastes don't).

So to get a good sense of whether a movie is good or not, take all the "good" reviewers and aggregate them to give you a better understanding if that movie is good or not.

But Rotten Tomatoes got too big. Movies lived or died on a "fresh" ranking or not. Studios had billions of dollars at stake on a "fresh" ranking.

So what did they do? They started to game the system. Paid reviewers for good reviews, got bots to leave good reviews, and spent money to flood the zone.

The same is happening with polling aggregators. People started to figure out that an individual poll is kinda worthless. It is just a snapshot of that day/time period. What you needed to do was get an average of polls to see what the populace was thinking, and weed out bias and noise to get a clearer picture of what was going on.

We all know this and they became Rockstars.

But with popularity, comes scrutiny. And the gaming started. But only gaming on one side. Dems seem to want to spend their money on their ground game, Pshaw.

So we get aggregates that say the race is tight, a coin flip.

And the frustration with Nate Silver is: he doesn't think the gaming has started or realized it yet. And seems arrogant enough to believe his algorithm will straighten it out in the end. But smart people have spent time working out ways to game the system, like all sports teams do when a new advance stat changes the game in sports.

To be useful, you have to be one step ahead of the gamers.
Click to expand...
I'm unsure (or just plain forgot) but didn't the original owners sell out the 'business'. Much like how the original scout message boards (or whatever it originally was called) went downhill fast after it was sold to someone else?

It had a decent message board (RT) but it got axed a long time ago. Don't remember the reason (though it might've been during the same period many message boards withered.
 
Pwner said:
I think we have reached the "Rotten Tomatoes" stage for Polling Aggregators.

With Movie Reviews, a single review doesn't matter too much to most people. Maybe the reviewer was having an off day, or the movie wasn't their cup of tea. Maybe they don't like the director, or you just don't vibe with the reviewer (I know I have reviewers whose tastes reflect mine, and reviewers whose tastes don't).

So to get a good sense of whether a movie is good or not, take all the "good" reviewers and aggregate them to give you a better understanding if that movie is good or not.

But Rotten Tomatoes got too big. Movies lived or died on a "fresh" ranking or not. Studios had billions of dollars at stake on a "fresh" ranking.

So what did they do? They started to game the system. Paid reviewers for good reviews, got bots to leave good reviews, and spent money to flood the zone.

The same is happening with polling aggregators. People started to figure out that an individual poll is kinda worthless. It is just a snapshot of that day/time period. What you needed to do was get an average of polls to see what the populace was thinking, and weed out bias and noise to get a clearer picture of what was going on.

We all know this and they became Rockstars.

But with popularity, comes scrutiny. And the gaming started. But only gaming on one side. Dems seem to want to spend their money on their ground game, Pshaw.

So we get aggregates that say the race is tight, a coin flip.

And the frustration with Nate Silver is: he doesn't think the gaming has started or realized it yet. And seems arrogant enough to believe his algorithm will straighten it out in the end. But smart people have spent time working out ways to game the system, like all sports teams do when a new advance stat changes the game in sports.

To be useful, you have to be one step ahead of the gamers.
Click to expand...

Exactly this.

GOP operatives are not dumb. They've realized the value in creating horse race narratives and that's what flooding the zone is about. That they continue doing this and spending the money on this tells us that this is doing whatever they want it to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top