Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
In 2022, Dem strategist Simon Rosenberg flatly asserted that there would be no "red wave" and the Dems would overperform expectations.
Nate Silver said the only way Rosenberg could come to that conclusion was that he'd been ingesting "hopium."
Rosenberg was right. Silver was wrong (though he'll die before admitting it).
Then Rosenberg started The Hopium Chronicles, which I suggest you read
Party strategists always say their party is going to do well. It’s part of their job. I don’t think this is particularly meaningful, unless you think there’s some particular methodology he has access to that’s better than Silver’s.
His methodology was better since he was right and Silver was wrong.
This is a perfectly succinct, textbook example of Outcome Bias.
Betting $1 with a 1 in 3 chance to win $2 is objectively a bad idea; the odds are against you. It doesn't cease to be a bad idea if you happen to win the $2 after 1 bet.
Nothing like one person being right and another being wrong in bringing the amateur philosophers out.
Tell me you don't understand directionally or literal numbers without telling me....
Tell me you don't know simple English without telling me...
Trump does still lead in our national average — however narrowly. But the bigger problem for Biden though is that elections in the United States aren’t determined by the popular vote.
That's a problem for all of us. If the president were elected by popular vote, Trump would never have been president.
Neither would George W. Bush. Republicans have won the popular vote only once in the last 32 years, and that was Bush as the incumbent in 2004 - which wouldn't have happened had Gore been the incumbent.
This is a center-left country, with an election system that gives extreme right-wingers oversized influence.
This far from being a left center country.
The left is larger than the right, here. How does that make it not a center-left country? We're sure as hell not a right-wing country, and much of our government is an accident of antiquated and stupid systems, not a true reflection of the people.
Those that think they are on the left is larger. When they support politicians viewed around the world as right wing, they too are right wing
It's all statistics. It means that if we ran the 2024 election millions of times in his model, Trump would win more than Biden. But we will only get one shot, so the number is kind of useless.
I was watching the Mets game this weekend on ESPN, and they were ahead of the Cubs by a few runs. ESPN has a tracker that estimates "Win Probability" and their model gave the Mets a 75% chance to win. But have you seen the Mets this year? They've blown a bunch of games late. Every Mets fan watching knew that their bullpen wasn't good enough to merit that rating.
The Mets did end up winning that game. (Thanks, Grimace.) But that doesn't change the fact that no matter what math is behind their win prediction model, it just doesn't feel right to apply statistics like that to one-off events.
.
I predict people will get sick of that shit. Especially when they start branding it as AI-driven.
Edit: with the exception of that football-predicting octopus. He’s cool.
.