He got 2000 “wrong”… Or did he?

  • lennybird@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    81
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Meaningless considering he still hasn’t predicted whether or not Biden will win this election. He says he needs another month lol.

    Edit: As a bonus he can’t even apply his own rubric to a new potential candidate. So the real questions are: How could he possibly know they’d be worse, and why the fuck is he even saying anything?

    • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Not meaningless, his prediction system always gives the incumbent an advantage over anyone else in his party.

      • lennybird@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        And yet, he hasn’t predicted yet because there are many other “keys”. Case-in-point: see how incumbency worked for Trump.

        Also should be noted other reputable science-based algorithm designers like Nate Silver advises Biden to step down.

        Finally, the unprecedented nature of an open convention also means this guy has nothing to go on for extrapolation.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Also should be noted other reputable science-based algorithm designers like Nate Silver advises Biden to step down.

          Nate’s algorithm is just a poll of polls. And his reasoning is incredibly short term and superficial.

          Nate wasn’t suggesting Biden drop out back in January when other candidates could run to replace him. He’s only saying it now, because Biden’s polling is at an all time low.

          If Biden recovers (likely, as the memory of the debate fades behind other current events) the pundits will start singing a different tune quickly enough.

          • lennybird@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Nate’s algorithm is just a poll of polls. And his reasoning is incredibly short term and superficial.

            That isn’t true. Far more involved than that. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-fivethirtyeights-2020-presidential-forecast-works-and-whats-different-because-of-covid-19/

            Nate went further post-debate performance, knowing where Biden stands in a variety of polling and that this was the worst debate perhaps in the history of debates they was a make-or-break moment for the campaign desperate to reach a widespread audience. Biden capturing the attention of 50 million people will not happen again between now and November. For many Americans this debate, which Republicans will never let anyone forget, will be the last thing they remember.

            More importantly there will be no major positive event that overrides it. That event, if it existed, already passed with Trump’s conviction.

            Nobody can provide me a single data-point where Biden isn’t performing significantly worse than his 2020 race where he won by merely 40,000 votes across 3 battleground states. Time to face hard truths.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              That isn’t true. Far more involved than that

              Step 1: Collect, analyze and adjust polls

              The entire baseline for his predictions, plus or minus some additional adjustments. Everything after that is rooted in the original poll-aggregate foundation.

              Nate went further post-debate performance, knowing where Biden stands in a variety of polling and that this was the worst debate perhaps in the history of debates

              He was not telling Biden to drop out the day before the debate. He was telling Biden to drop out the day after, but before he actually inserted “bad debate performance” into his model and rerun a thousand model elections. This is what always gets Nate in trouble. He shoots from the hip on hot-button issues, rather than remaining academic.

              More importantly there will be no major positive event that overrides it.

              Trump tanked two debates against Hillary and still squeaked through on election day. Nobody is going to be thinking about this debate by the time the Olympics are over.

              Nobody can provide me a single data-point where Biden isn’t performing significantly worse than his 2020 race where he won by merely 40,000 votes across 3 battleground states.

              2020 had some of the highest turnout in US history, thanks to mail-in voting and quarantine. 2024 is going to see a huge drop off in participation. It isn’t immediately clear which candidate is going to suffer the worst from the deficit in support, as Biden has banked hard on appeasing moderate conservative voters while Trump trundles further and further out into right-wing.

              They’re both deeply disliked candidates.

              • lennybird@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                lol my guy, you are reaching for some serious straws. If you’re not going off of this data, what ARE you going off, exactly…? Vibes? This is more denial than I can handle.

                He was not telling Biden to drop out the day before the debate. He was telling Biden to drop out the day after,

                Well no fucking shit! That’s called adapting to new information. Any good scientist or analyst does it. When an unprecedented event like THAT debate performance occurs, then yes, that means you must go back and readjust the model. Models only work if they actually factor in the latest information — you get this, right? Have you SEEN the post-debate polling coming out? It’s TERRIBLE:

                Post-Debate: “72 Percent Say Biden Unfit Mentally, Cognitively.”

                Post-Debate: “64% of Independents want Biden replaced on the ballot”; that’s more than they want Trump replaced on the ballot by 1%, by the way.

                Post-Debate: “Undecided voter focus group leans toward Trump after debate”

                Trump tanked two debates against Hillary and still squeaked through on election day. Nobody is going to be thinking about this debate by the time the Olympics are over.

                You live in this magical fairy-tale world where Trump is held to the same standard as Biden when he clearly is not. If voters were as informed as you and me then we wouldn’t have either of these fucking candidates. Neither of those poor debates come remotely close to what we saw yesterday from the person espousing to be the fighter to take on Donald Trump. It doesn’t change the reality reflected in every single piece of data we have in battleground states. Now you can choose to bury your head in the sand and go off vibes if you want, but good luck with that.

      • batmaniam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        Yeah you say that and should be right but I’m more worried about January than I am November…