this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2024
483 points (97.1% liked)

politics

19096 readers
3418 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Volunteer for Florida dems

Florida's voter registration deadline is on the earlier side in a few days on Monday. Make sure to register to vote! https://vote.gov/register

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 37 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Here are the actual poll results which the article helpfully does not link to.

Napolitan News surveys ask an initial question to determine the voter preference for each candidate. Then, a follow-up question is asked of uncommitted voters to see which candidate they are leaning towards. The results are then reported “with leaners.”

On the initial ask– the number without leaners– it was Trump 50%, Harris 47%.

This Napolitan News Service survey of 774 Likely Voters was conducted online by Scott Rasmussen on September 25-27, 2024. Field work for the survey was conducted by RMG Research, Inc. and has a margin of error of +/- 3.5.

I think articles like this based on a single poll which appears to be an outlier are uninformative, but I guess they get clicks.

[–] BreadstickNinja@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (3 children)

It's not that much of an outlier. Nate Silver is tracking Trump's lead in Florida across numerous polls at +3%. With leaners, this poll found +2%. Off the average by one point with a 3.5% margin of error. Which is to say, well in line with other results.

The article is sensationalistic and likely wrong in portraying that as a toss-up or close to tied. Trump won Florida in 2020 by +3%. A result that suggests he has a similar lead suggests that he'll win by about as much as he did in 2020.

Silver has seven recent polls that inform the Florida average. Not a single one shows Harris ahead. Trump has also outperformed his polling in both of the last two contests, so his actual lead in Florida may be greater than the polling average suggests, but there is nothing to suggest Harris is ahead or likely to pull ahead.

Trump is likely to win Florida. The race still hinges primarily on Pennsylvania. Harris is not gaining ground. The race is locked in essentially a dead heat, with a tiny edge for Harris if you believe the polls and a tiny edge for Trump if you believe he'll again outperform the polls.

I detest these articles and the conspiratorial side of me thinks they're planted by the right to encourage complacency among Democratic voters. This election is as close as they come and requires everyone to show up and vote.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Trump won Florida in 2020 by +3%

Trump won Florida by 3% where the polling suggested he was trailing by 3%, to just sharpen that point a bit.

[–] SemioticStandard@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Yeah, people are delusional if they think Florida, which overwhelmingly voted for DeSantis, has any chance of going to Harris.

[–] rayyy@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Nate Silver

He predicted a Hillary win in 2016. Go with the guy who gets it right, professor Allan Lichtman. He actually correctly predicted a Gore win in 2000 but the vote count was stopped by the Brooks Brothers riot and subsequently awarded to Bush by the right wing Extreme Court.

[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I’m not defending modern Nate Silver as a person — he seems to have become a bit of a gambling addict — but in 2016, 538’s model had Trump’s chances at like 33% and the competing models had his chances at 1-2%. It wasn’t a bad model so much as a “when polls are off, they tend to be off in the same direction” situation. The 2016 538 model at least took that into account.