This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
What's interesting is that they've added a bunch of subjective inputs to this year's model to add uncertainty. It's not clear at all that they're warranted, but they do have the impact of making the race look a lot closer than it would be otherwise. 538 added 20% to the normal uncertainty on election day by itself, for example.
Thanks @Dinsy Ejotuz. My thought too.
Besides the above link, Silver/538 also posted this.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
First, I can't tell if all of the above was written by Saints or if some of it was written by Nate Silver, so I apologize in advance if Saints did not write it. Board software does not allow me to remove his name from the quote box, nor does it allow me to create a new quote box. :(
I find this weird. It's as if they're suggesting that they know it's wrong (voting for Trump) but they're going to do it anyway.
People have studied this. There is no statistical evidence of a silent Trump vote.
I don’t know about wrong but there is a stigma attached to being a Trump supporter. A lot of people just don’t want to deal with that.
How exactly would you prove this if they were indeed silent. I have a number of close friends who support Trump but don’t make mention of it outside their inner circle.
Yep - this is what Silver had to say in your link regarding how far out we are and how thing could change:
I can't find the exact numbers but basically up until election day, there was a HUGE number of undecideds in 2016. Those broke significantly for Trump on election day.
At some point we have to assume people are telling the truth but in this scenario couldn't a portion of those claiming to be undecided be "secretive" and planning to vote Trump?
I just posted an article on why that probably wasn't true in 2016. But even if that's true, the number of undecideds is in the 8-10% range. It was double that in 2016.
Yep, just read it - that makes more sense. In particular the idea that the areas where you would expect folks to not have to be "shy" he outperformed polling.
Hardly a convincing argument, and based on some pretty steep assumptions that are easy to disagree with.
I don't think they believe it's wrong they just don't want to have an argument with the triggered guy on the left that calls them racist, sexist, and 1000s of other things to score a gotcha point or shame them.
I just want to touch on the bolded. 538 had him at a 21 percent chance but a late influence was comey announcing an investigation into Hillary. That had to boost his chances significantly.
You phrased this hyperbolically, as is the norm in this forum, but I think your point is correct: Trump voters don't believe that voting for Trump is wrong, but they do believe that many will judge them negatively for it.
The number of undecided voters wasn't quite double in 2016 -- this article says it was 15%, which broke heavily in favor of Trump for a variety of reasons.
I don't find this terribly different than "Speeders don't believe that speeding is wrong, but they do believe that many will judge them negatively for it" or "Smokers (tobacco or MJ, take your pick) don't believe that smoking is wrong, but they do believe that many will judge them negatively for it" or (hyperbolically) "Racists don't believe that racism is wrong, but they do believe that many will judge them negatively for it". I think one needs to own one's beliefs, not try to hide them.
Why do you tire of this? He's absolutely correct despite a significant portion of the country consistently screaming, "the polls were wrong!"
Yeah this is the problem. Your false equivalence implies you dictate what is racist instead of the other guy. The speed limit is clearly posted.
So is a ban on smoking MJ, yet I don't think smoking MJ is wrong. However, I own my opinion on that rather than trying to hide it.
Yeah, I thought that was odd too. This reminds me of a FF who should I start. Just because FBGs recommends you start Julio Jones based on data doesn't mean he's going to have a big game on a given week. It also doesn't mean that the prediction of him having a good week was a bad prediction.
So a Trump supporter may have an immigration ban belief but don't feel like listening to the left tell them they hate all brown people either. Why does everyone have to be like you and advertise all their beliefs? You know damn well what I'm talking about where the left loves to shame the right and twist words around.
A. You're just making stuff up to cast aspersions at those on "the other side".
Correct. And to add to that, FBGs would have been "wrong" but ranking JJ 1st in their WR rankings during a week where somebody like a Mecole Hardman catches two bombs for TDs and was rank like 55th and outscores JJ by ten points.
That's a great point. And I see it very much from the Fantasy Football lens.
