News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
There's no one single model doing projections.
Five Thirty Eight's, which is one prominent one, has favored Harris somewhat for a while.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/
Nate Silver -- who started Five Thirty Eight and is now off doing his own thing and runs a fork of the model that Five Thirty Eight used to run -- had them, last I looked, had Harris and Trump at about about even chances.
Both Silver's model and Five Thirty Eight's model agreed that the debate improved Harris's chances.
Important to note that Nate Silver works for Peter Theil, who has donated heavily to Trump pacs, and is responsible for giving us JD Vance.
Do you have a source on Silver working for Thiel?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymarket
Interesting.
Tl;Dr: Nate Silver is an "advisor" to Polymarket, a gambling platform based on real world events. Peter Thiel is an investor for Polymarket.
It seems like a stretch to say that "Nate Silver works for Thiel," but it's pretty sad to see Nate Silver working for a likely illegal crypto scam.
Nate Silver is a paid advisor to a company that Peter Thiel runs, it's not a stretch at all, wake up.
I do that for a lot of Thiel types. Believe me, I don't work for them, and I'm vocal about my opposite values from them
The Wikipedia link above mentions nothing about that. Do you have a different source?
Nah, just pointing out a possible conflict of interest.
So "Peter Thiel runs Polymarket" is a fact that you made up?
Nah you're right it's just a billionaire funding a company that just coincidentally hired Nate. Nothing to see here, billionaires can be trusted.
You should go through crunchbase. Anyone in tech has worked at a place with evil investors. They just care whether you hit your numbers after finding product market fit. I'm a conspiracy theorist. This is not it.
Just a clarification, Silver doesn't run a fork of the old 538 model. He took the model with him. 538 developed their own after he left.
Crazy that is already 60% instead of 64% since you posted this. No deeper comment there other than just noting how fluid this election is. We are one Harris mistake (and remember, mistake tolerance for Harris is significantly lower than Trump; Trump is basically one long series of mistakes that has little effect on his numbers; if Harris mispronounces Gaza once she loses 5%), one unexpected event, one butterfly-wing flap from those numbers going to even or worse.
40% of the time Trump wins. 40% of the time, an authoritarian leader assumes the presidency of the most powerful country in the world.
I stand by my statement that no Harris supporter should feel confident or comfortable. That's... frighteningly high.
Five-thirty-eight is a joke. Who did Five-thirty-eight project to win in 2016? Yeah.
Who did professor Allan Lichtman predict to win in 2016? The winner! He uses a strange science technique that have retrospectively lined up with presidential winners since 1860. He has an impressive tract record of ten successful predictions - note he predicted Gore in 2000 but there is very persuasive evidence that Gore actually did win had the vote counts been honestly counted. Hence the Brooks Brothers riot that threw the election to the Supreme Court.
Republicans are now positioning for that to happen again in 2024.
This is the ignorant “I don’t understand statistics” take. If Nate Silver had given Clinton a 100% chance to win, then maybe you’d have some sort of point. But, in fact, the 538 projection gave Trump a much higher chance than most of the major election models, to the point that I remember Nate having to defend himself against angry people on Twitter over and over. He wrote an article ahead of the election pointing out that if an outcome has a 30% chance of happening, not only is it possible, but in fact you expect it to happen 3 in 10 times. I was very nervous on Election Day 2016 specifically because I had been closely following 538 projections.
This post is further evidence that everyone should be required to take a statistics course. It's like saying "statistical probability says there is a 66.6% chance of me rolling this six-sided die and getting a 1, 2, 3, or 4, but I rolled a 5, so that model is WRONG!!"
I hope you can see how dumb that sounds.
Additionally, Lichtman referred to the popular vote in his book, essay on the topic (neither of which I assume you've read), and in all previous predictions. So he was actually wrong about his 2016 prediction given Trump lost the popular vote, much though Lichtman has tried to revise history since then.