politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Hmm, I wonder why he's losing his shit?
https://votehub.com/
btw: If you have any info on this site that's good or bad, I'd love to hear feedback. I'm looking for a decent poll aggregator.
"In partnership with Kalshi"
No thanks. Even if accurate, gives me a bad feeling.
You're right, I didn't catch that. There has to be something.
Don't know much about this site, but hopefully they don't do the turn that RealClearPolitics did, and holy shit, was that a turn. If people thought Musk buying Xitter made things worse, RCP enters the chat....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealClearPolitics#2017_onward
Yeah, someone pointed that out to me. I had no idea they went conservative.
Nate Silver has in depth models for the whole midterms. I would trust his judgment over this random site. They’re a polling aggregator and you’re dependent on their weighting of the underlying polls. Silver spends a lot of time explaining his modeling and decisions, I didn’t see that on a (cursory) glance of your link
I wouldn't get too excited about Nate's models....
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/29/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-nate-silver-poll-prediction
Yeah, as I recall his prediction tightened up as that campaign went on, but I think it made a lot of folks complacent, and ultimately did more harm than good back then.
In June 2016? She probably did have an 81% chance of winning. I'm not a huge Silver fan but this is a really dishonest way to try to discredit him, and it also doesn't understand statistics because that still gives trump a 1 in 5 chance to win.
Should Silver just start lying or stop printing his numbers because uneducated Americans don't know how to read them? It wasn't his job to help Clinton win.
I remember Clinton supporters telling me my vote want needed and they would win without progressives. I'm pretty sure that was a hell of a lot more damaging than Nate Silver.
100 percent.
polling, for the most part, is just another way establishment media shapes public opinion by preemptively announcing who is "electable".
all they have to do is keep pushing headlines like "Latest Poll from Dogshit Analytics Shows Reasonable Americans Hate Socialism" and in-group / herd psychology does the rest.
His numbers are still good but his commentary sucks. I had to unsubscribe because I was sick of having his edgelord opinions shoved in my face.
I was getting his bulletins for awhile, it's not just these sources. I watched him flirt with his own opinions being his sourcing.
https://www.salon.com/2024/09/06/nate-silver-faces-backlash-for-pro-model-skewing/
https://www.pastemagazine.com/politics/the-sudden-shocking-fall-of-nate-silver
Odd to link to a Salon article complaining that Silver’s model wasn’t favoring Harris in an election she lost and when Silver’s model exactly predicted the winning map
Again, I received his newsletters and had to dump him. I am the source.