I can’t wait for this afternoon’s Newsweek headline of “Donald Trump dominating in swing states”, followed by this evenings headline “Harris and Trump tied in swing states”.
DeusExHyena on
This is just a list of most states?
[deleted] on
[removed]
localistand on
Nate has that hustle. Keeps his name in the news. His best performing model.
Cimmerian_Barbarian on
Good. Out with the old, in with the new.
inmatarian on
Shifted, or the post convention bump was real and he can’t weight it down to zero forever?
QanonQuinoa on
So if this is accurate we will be completely reliant on PA again. It’s going to be a long election week I’m afraid.
Supermunch2000 on
Vote.
Make your voices heard.
Remember that in the poll booth, nobody is there to look over your shoulder – vote for who **you** want to vote for and nobody else will know.
h0sti1e17 on
This is misleading. Of the 12 states all but two and one district were/are still solidly blue or red anyway. It doesn’t matter that she gained in Montana or Washington and that Trump gained in Maryland and California.
BangerSlapper1 on
Shit article. With a shit headline.
The states ‘shifting to’ Harris are just those where she’s improved in the polls, even if she’s still ahead or behind by safe margins. E.g., Virginia, where she’s ahead of Trump by 7.3 pts, per the article.
Hell, the article also states that California has shifted toward Trump. Yes, going from -31 to -30 is technically a shift. Surprised DC isn’t listed as shifting to Trump, since I believe he’s gone from 4.89% of the vote to 4.8908%.
F this article. And F Newsweek in general.
Rockin_freakapotamus on
Nate Silver owes us all an apology for assuring so many people that Hillary Clinton was a sure win in 2016. Fuck the polls, vote.
DirtDevil1337 on
lmao that comment about California… okay.
Big_Discipline_9666 on
Lol in a tight race, a headline like this can only be from newsweek
OddNothic on
> They include Michigan, Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas and New Hampshire, as well as Virginia, Montana, Ohio, Nebraska’s 2nd district, Washington and Missouri.
Trended towards Harris? In Ohio? She’s down by 8-9 points there. She can trend all she wants, but it means nothing. 6 points down in Texas with a month to go? Harris is not happening there, and is not relevant.
It’s all more Newsweek clickbait.
Votes matter, polls less so, Newsweek not at all.
No_nukes_at_all on
so that’s why Trump hasn’t mentioned Nate in weeks..
> Neither is considered a swing state, but polls in both have shown a more closely contested race than recent years, with Harris leading Trump by 7.3 points in Virginia and Trump leading Harris by 3.6 points in Florida.
> 538's poll tracker shows Trump is leading Harris by one point in Arizona and Georgia, and 0.6 points in North Carolina, while Harris leads by between one and two points in Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
Forget polls and models, just vote. Polls and models are nothing put predictions with a small percentage of the electorate surveyed.
robert_d on
Vote. Register to vote. Confirm registration.
KulaanDoDinok on
Here’s why that’s bad for Joe Biden
RedditAdminsWivesBF on
We all know how wrong polls can be so we must vote. It is our last line of defense against tyranny. I, for one, don’t want to live in a theocratic state. Gilead cannot be our future.
BusinessCat88 on
That’s cause his model clearly is fucked. Polls changed by 1-2 points but Silver’s accounting for “convention bump” meant the chances swung 20 points. In this case his finger on the scale is overriding anything from polls. You could have nothing but 50:50 polls and Silver’s model would oscillate based on his accounting for various factors which no longer play any sort of role.
7figureipo on
Political polling is an example of an attempt to hide behind mathematical rigor (of statistics, in this case) when the entire field is pretty terrible at actual empirical application of that rigor. Polls are *at best* a snapshot in time of a narrow sample population. The sample sizes simply aren’t big enough at the cross-tab level to give actual meaningful results (in a truly rigorous sense of the word).
It’s best to just assume your candidate of choice (which had better be Harris, if you value our republic) needs volunteers and staff to work very hard, and for everyone to get out and vote.
OutlawLazerRoboGeek on
Well, it’s Newsweek, so let me guess… 12 States but none of those actually matter for the election. Plus 12 others moved towards Trump, and the other 26 stayed about the same.
Nothingburger overall.
How did I do, not even reading the article?
Krakengreyjoy on
Reminder that Nate Silver’s models are not reliable.
Just vote.
brianwhite12 on
Just vote
DROP-TABLE- on
DRAG NATE SILVER TO HELL.
States didn’t “shift” to Harris, she’d had them since her campaign got off the ground.
The only difference is that, about a month before the election results will solidify which 2024 election polling aggregators were accurate or not, Nate Silver has decided to try to preserve his Silver Bulletin model’s integrity by finally taking his thumb off of the scales in favor of Donald Trump.
He made no secret that he was doing this, admitting that he was straight up subtracting from Kamala Harris’ lead in polls because he thought the Democrats were on a “sugar high”.
This is why for the last few weeks as other aggregators’ models, like FiveThirtyEight (which Nate Silver created and then sold to ABC), showed Harris with a 55-60% chance to win the election, Nate was out there foghorning on Twitter that his new Silver Bulletin model (which is more or less a copy-paste of the FiveThirtyEight model) showed TRUMP with a 60% chance to win.
Now suddenly just weeks before the final national vote is known, Nate’s Silver Bulletin is showing a 55% chance for a Harris victory—exactly what FiveThirtyEight is showing—and Silver is trying to pin it on momentum in the polls toward Harris. THIS IS BULLSHIT. He just stopped manipulating his data set.
So in summation:
1. Do not trust the polls. Polling methodology, particularly around sampling outreach in the age of the smartphone and demographic response weighting post-COVID, is wildly fucked.
2. Do not trust the aggregators. It’s a lot easier for them to manipulate their models for clicks, views and engagement than it is for them to make money by being establishing a reputation as an election oracle, particularly when they operate in an environment as fickle as forecasting probabilities.
3. Polls don’t vote, people do. VOTE
4. DRAG NATE SILVER TO HELL
jmfranklin515 on
I feel like the news is like “Kamala Harris is doing great” one day and literally the very next day it’s “bad news for Kamala Harris, swing states slipping out of her grasp, country imperiled by near certainty of a Trump presidency/dictatorship” only to go back to “Kamala has this election in the bag” again the following day. Feels like they’re just cherry picking polls and trends and trying to overstate their significance to craft a back-and-forth narrative to keep us glued to the news.
28 Comments
Jeez, get me off this pollercoaster.
I can’t wait for this afternoon’s Newsweek headline of “Donald Trump dominating in swing states”, followed by this evenings headline “Harris and Trump tied in swing states”.
This is just a list of most states?
[removed]
Nate has that hustle. Keeps his name in the news. His best performing model.
Good. Out with the old, in with the new.
Shifted, or the post convention bump was real and he can’t weight it down to zero forever?
So if this is accurate we will be completely reliant on PA again. It’s going to be a long election week I’m afraid.
Vote.
Make your voices heard.
Remember that in the poll booth, nobody is there to look over your shoulder – vote for who **you** want to vote for and nobody else will know.
This is misleading. Of the 12 states all but two and one district were/are still solidly blue or red anyway. It doesn’t matter that she gained in Montana or Washington and that Trump gained in Maryland and California.
Shit article. With a shit headline.
The states ‘shifting to’ Harris are just those where she’s improved in the polls, even if she’s still ahead or behind by safe margins. E.g., Virginia, where she’s ahead of Trump by 7.3 pts, per the article.
Hell, the article also states that California has shifted toward Trump. Yes, going from -31 to -30 is technically a shift. Surprised DC isn’t listed as shifting to Trump, since I believe he’s gone from 4.89% of the vote to 4.8908%.
F this article. And F Newsweek in general.
Nate Silver owes us all an apology for assuring so many people that Hillary Clinton was a sure win in 2016. Fuck the polls, vote.
lmao that comment about California… okay.
Lol in a tight race, a headline like this can only be from newsweek
> They include Michigan, Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas and New Hampshire, as well as Virginia, Montana, Ohio, Nebraska’s 2nd district, Washington and Missouri.
Trended towards Harris? In Ohio? She’s down by 8-9 points there. She can trend all she wants, but it means nothing. 6 points down in Texas with a month to go? Harris is not happening there, and is not relevant.
It’s all more Newsweek clickbait.
Votes matter, polls less so, Newsweek not at all.
so that’s why Trump hasn’t mentioned Nate in weeks..
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.newsweek.com/nate-silver-model-states-trending-swing-harris-leads-trump-1962457) reduced by 85%. (I’m a bot)
*****
> Twelve states have trended towards Kamala Harris in the past month, according to pollster Nate Silver's forecast.
> Neither is considered a swing state, but polls in both have shown a more closely contested race than recent years, with Harris leading Trump by 7.3 points in Virginia and Trump leading Harris by 3.6 points in Florida.
> 538's poll tracker shows Trump is leading Harris by one point in Arizona and Georgia, and 0.6 points in North Carolina, while Harris leads by between one and two points in Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/1fughio/12_states_have_shifted_to_kamala_harris_in_past/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ “Version 2.02, ~694558 tl;drs so far.”) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr “PM’s and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.”) | *Top* *keywords*: **point**^#1 **state**^#2 **Harris**^#3 **lead**^#4 **Trump**^#5
Forget polls and models, just vote. Polls and models are nothing put predictions with a small percentage of the electorate surveyed.
Vote. Register to vote. Confirm registration.
Here’s why that’s bad for Joe Biden
We all know how wrong polls can be so we must vote. It is our last line of defense against tyranny. I, for one, don’t want to live in a theocratic state. Gilead cannot be our future.
That’s cause his model clearly is fucked. Polls changed by 1-2 points but Silver’s accounting for “convention bump” meant the chances swung 20 points. In this case his finger on the scale is overriding anything from polls. You could have nothing but 50:50 polls and Silver’s model would oscillate based on his accounting for various factors which no longer play any sort of role.
Political polling is an example of an attempt to hide behind mathematical rigor (of statistics, in this case) when the entire field is pretty terrible at actual empirical application of that rigor. Polls are *at best* a snapshot in time of a narrow sample population. The sample sizes simply aren’t big enough at the cross-tab level to give actual meaningful results (in a truly rigorous sense of the word).
It’s best to just assume your candidate of choice (which had better be Harris, if you value our republic) needs volunteers and staff to work very hard, and for everyone to get out and vote.
Well, it’s Newsweek, so let me guess… 12 States but none of those actually matter for the election. Plus 12 others moved towards Trump, and the other 26 stayed about the same.
Nothingburger overall.
How did I do, not even reading the article?
Reminder that Nate Silver’s models are not reliable.
Just vote.
Just vote
DRAG NATE SILVER TO HELL.
States didn’t “shift” to Harris, she’d had them since her campaign got off the ground.
The only difference is that, about a month before the election results will solidify which 2024 election polling aggregators were accurate or not, Nate Silver has decided to try to preserve his Silver Bulletin model’s integrity by finally taking his thumb off of the scales in favor of Donald Trump.
He made no secret that he was doing this, admitting that he was straight up subtracting from Kamala Harris’ lead in polls because he thought the Democrats were on a “sugar high”.
This is why for the last few weeks as other aggregators’ models, like FiveThirtyEight (which Nate Silver created and then sold to ABC), showed Harris with a 55-60% chance to win the election, Nate was out there foghorning on Twitter that his new Silver Bulletin model (which is more or less a copy-paste of the FiveThirtyEight model) showed TRUMP with a 60% chance to win.
Now suddenly just weeks before the final national vote is known, Nate’s Silver Bulletin is showing a 55% chance for a Harris victory—exactly what FiveThirtyEight is showing—and Silver is trying to pin it on momentum in the polls toward Harris. THIS IS BULLSHIT. He just stopped manipulating his data set.
So in summation:
1. Do not trust the polls. Polling methodology, particularly around sampling outreach in the age of the smartphone and demographic response weighting post-COVID, is wildly fucked.
2. Do not trust the aggregators. It’s a lot easier for them to manipulate their models for clicks, views and engagement than it is for them to make money by being establishing a reputation as an election oracle, particularly when they operate in an environment as fickle as forecasting probabilities.
3. Polls don’t vote, people do. VOTE
4. DRAG NATE SILVER TO HELL
I feel like the news is like “Kamala Harris is doing great” one day and literally the very next day it’s “bad news for Kamala Harris, swing states slipping out of her grasp, country imperiled by near certainty of a Trump presidency/dictatorship” only to go back to “Kamala has this election in the bag” again the following day. Feels like they’re just cherry picking polls and trends and trying to overstate their significance to craft a back-and-forth narrative to keep us glued to the news.