Posted on 06/26/2024 2:37:51 PM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
Nate Silver, the founder and former editor-in-chief of FiveThirtyEight, released his election model on Wednesday, showing former President Donald Trump with a two in three chance to win the White House.
Silver, who exited FiveThirtyEight in 2023, released the model entitled, “The presidential election isn’t a toss-up” on his Substack at natesilver.net.
According to a screenshot of what appears to be a paywalled portion of the forecast that has gone viral on X, Silver gives Trump a robust 65.7 percent chance to win the White House in November.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
One would need to examine the inner details of how he came up with his model. It is still early but I do hope he is right because we will need some cushion as I doubt his model takes into account dem fraud.
There is a reason the Biden side of things is hoping for something big at the debate. They need something to change.
A Nate Silver prediction doesn’t exactly increase my confidence, but I guess we take what we get.
I stopped doing it after 2016 when I became convinced that the polls were either juiced or that voter fraud was endemic and disqualified all the polls.
-PJ
I only trust Larry Sabato’s model.
In a lawful election, where the 15th Amendment was followed and there were no drop boxes or mail-in ballots are people who throw out (R) ballots, probably.
But that isn’t the election we get to face. We get to face an election where they finely tune the (D) ballots to the ballot.
Larry Sabato is a TDS punk.
The only way Biden wins the election is to steal it. It needs to be said early and often. What doesn’t need to be said is what will happen to voters who are ineligible or vote twice. They’ll know.
In a totally fair election - and with an honest news media - I’d give Trump a 100% chance of winning - because no one in their right mind would vote for this insanity if they were not being deceived.
However, since elections are far from fair and the people are totally deceived - it’s a crap shoot.
Another factor it seems to me is the lack of good samples. Most people I know screen calls so we won’t get polled. So only the less savvy people take the calls from the pollsters?
You have special expertise so maybe you can weigh in on whether it is even possible to truly get good data for political polls these days.
I agree completely. Everyone knows the Demx are going to cheat in every way possible.
I hope you aren’t serious. You don’t have a sarcasm tag.
We need healthy majorities in the House and Senate for real Constitutional change to government to be made and to get the Obama Swamp drained.
Part of it is quality of respondent. The pollsters try to compensate for this by oversampling by several orders of magnitude; they then filter out their responses in order to keep the responses that fit the target demographics so they can get a sample that is representative across naational statistics like age, race or ethnicity, gender, geography, education, earnings, party affiliation, etc.
It gets harder and harder as people stop answering their phones due to spam telemarketing, or people no longer have landlines and are now mobile (area codes no longer represent regions). To compensate for this they also solicit responses on-line (like YouGov) where they offer people discount coupons for completing their surveys. This approach can self-select for people who are on-line or people who are looking for discounts. These factors might have hidden biases (on-line might screen out the elderly, discount hunters might screen out the wealthy).
So the best thing one can do is just track the changes in the polls from week to week (which is what I used to do), as well as look at the cross-tabs for inconsistencies in the answers.
Silver and I did the math to figure out how to convert poll results and margins of error into probabilities of winning or losing. Silver had the backing and resources of the New York Times, I only had myself and publicly available poll data (I wouldn't pay for subscription fees).
I usually started about now to set a pre-convention baseline and then compare the changes as we headed towards the conventions and then the debates. I also did the House and the Senate in one combined report.
I might revive the Presidential race just to see what it looks like. We'll see...
-PJ
Right.. but the stupidity of voting for Mondale is nothing compared to the insanity of voting for these crooks.
I suspect his model has no parametric value for fraud and cheating.
Makes sense. Thanks for your insights.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.