this post was submitted on 16 May 2024
-25 points (14.3% liked)

politics

19082 readers
3660 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.
  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
top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dogsnest@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I have no idea who Nate Silver is but he's trying desperately for Gold at mental gymnastics.

Or pure tripe.

[–] sxan@midwest.social 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Nate Silver is the founding, or one of the original founders, of 538 - which has, I see, been acquired by ABC News. He's a statistician of some repute, and competent; he's pretty good at explaining and summarizing stats to non-math types. He's gotten a lot of heat for forecasting results that were wrong, starting with the Clinton/Trump election in 2016, but if much of that is because people are terrible at understanding probability, and if you tell the average person something has an 80% chance of happening, they take it at a guarantee.

The issue is that 538 was pretty reliable at the start, but then something happened with polling and things started to go against predictions frequently enough that they sort of became just another voice - instead of a source you might use to bet on. The ABC acquisition probably didn't help.

Anyway, I digress. Nate was the statistician face behind 538. I don't know what he's doing now.

[–] Twinklebreeze@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

He has a substack. He left 538 and took his election model with him.

[–] sxan@midwest.social 1 points 5 months ago

Has it corrected? He mentions in TFA that polling started to get really wrong as early voting for more popular, and wasn't properly accounted for. I admit, I was one of the ones that lost faith in 538 because of the repeated dissonance. They knew something was off, but seemed unable to adjust their models to account for it. I still appreciate his analysis, but I'd love it if he's addressed the issues in the modeling.