483
Florida is nearing toss-up status as top Republican poll shows Trump’s lead nearly vanished
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2024
483 points (97.1% liked)
politics
19096 readers
3324 users here now
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 politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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 a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's not how your earlier comments are phrased. The earlier comments declare that this is a given structural bias and that it will always exist. How is entirely ignoring the 2012 election any more real than saying we can't be sure?
You just lack reading comprehension.
The quote is:
The previous comments said, "the best most recent estimate of structural bias", which was Trump v Biden 2020. Its the best because its not a simulation or modeling. Its two measured values. I've seen simulations and statistical models to estimate things like structural bias, but none of them are as good as a measurement. We should use the measurement.
I get it. You've got an axe to grind. And at this point you might be better off inside a warm fantastic cocoon where Harris is crushing it and is going to win FL and TX. It might be the last light of joy you get to experience.
My response was more so to the "you don't get to 'wish'" part. It could go the same way, it could not. It's not consistent year to year. Assuming it is when long term data does not support that, isn't helpful
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/weve-updated-our-pollster-ratings-ahead-of-the-2020-general-election/
No where am I claiming that Harris definitely will necessarily be underestimated, I am saying it is possible. Or perhaps even just underestimated by less. Dismissing the possibility out of hand by N=1 is what I am responding to
Is the cocoon warm?