NPR suggests otherwise today: See other thread I'm always skeptical of polling. The amount of corrections needed are so large it's getting very finicky. Polls far out from actual elections also...
I'm always skeptical of polling. The amount of corrections needed are so large it's getting very finicky. Polls far out from actual elections also have limited value as so many voters say they decide to vote and who to vote for very close to election day.
There's a whole lot of time for politics before the 5th of November.
Giving up now is certainly not what any party should do. What's the line for best results come election day? I don't know. Loads of internal party strife while Trump gets to sit and do nothing surely isn't ideal in any case.
The trouble is NPR is covering national polling. It doesn't matter at all if Biden wins the popular vote. Due to the electoral college, the only thing that matters is swing states, and Biden isn't...
The trouble is NPR is covering national polling. It doesn't matter at all if Biden wins the popular vote. Due to the electoral college, the only thing that matters is swing states, and Biden isn't looking good in those.
I wouldn't be comfortable putting too much stock into 538. It's not the same 538. They've been gutted and are under new management. They also overweight non-polling data in their prediction, just...
I wouldn't be comfortable putting too much stock into 538. It's not the same 538. They've been gutted and are under new management. They also overweight non-polling data in their prediction, just look at their final prediction vs what their polling data says.
There's a lot to be concerned about, and I think people just want to pretend everything is fine. Biden has massively outspent Trump in places like PA, and he's trailing by 7 points. That's a nightmare scenario and people are rightfully sounding the alarm.
I mean, I think the title is definitely somewhat clickbait, but it’s not an apples to apples comparison you’re making either. One is just a polling aggregator that’s crunching a series of numbers....
I mean, I think the title is definitely somewhat clickbait, but it’s not an apples to apples comparison you’re making either.
One is just a polling aggregator that’s crunching a series of numbers. Sosnik (a long time Democrat strategist) knows how the game is played, how much money they have to spend and where they have to spend it as well as how Rs get to play out their hand as well. I’m inclined to believe him.
It’s not just him either, a majority of Democratic strategists are freaking out right now.
Do you have a source for this majority? And are they freaking out because that is what their job is when Biden makes mistakes or trends down, or are a majority of them calling for him to be...
It’s not just him either, a majority of Democratic strategists are freaking out right now.
Do you have a source for this majority? And are they freaking out because that is what their job is when Biden makes mistakes or trends down, or are a majority of them calling for him to be replaced because they believe that is a better path to victory?
I would've been happy if Biden didn't run, I'd have been good with him stepping aside after the debate. I've got tons of anxiety about the election, and I'm frustrated with the apparent inability of the DNC to groom talent from what you'd think would be a mucher larger pool.
That said, the only thing I think is pretty clearly a wrong decision is indecision.
At this point I doubt Biden is being replaced. And if that's the case, I find it hard to not think that two months later I'm going to be looking back at all of the attempts to build consensus to replace Biden as something other than doing the GOPs job for them.
Trump had his party do a 50+ point change in opinion Russia. Lindsey Graham went from calling him deranged and unfit to being a sycophant calling him unfairly persecuted. The religious right went from being disgusted by his vulgarity and cheating on his pregnant wives to rationalizations about the Lord using imperfect vessels. Personally I find all that disgusting and hypocritical, but damn if it ain't powerful.
Well, a lot of people are saying that's true but it's all off the record. But the reading between the lines is pretty clear. The Democrats are in open revolt at this point, everyday more congress...
Do you have a source for this majority? And are they freaking out because that is what their job is when Biden makes mistakes or trends down, or are a majority of them calling for him to be replaced because they believe that is a better path to victory?
Well, a lot of people are saying that's true but it's all off the record. But the reading between the lines is pretty clear. The Democrats are in open revolt at this point, everyday more congress members and senators are coming forward calling on him to resign. Politico is reporting that a group of high-ranking Democrats are approaching Biden today and trying to convince him to resign. They'd really only do this if they felt it was necessary because obviously it's not really ideal mid-election to strong arm your candidate into stepping down.
At this point I doubt Biden is being replaced.
Honestly, I'd be surprised if he's still running in two weeks.
Don’t overestimate the abysmally poor political instincts of low-tenure centrist Dems in conservative districts. They are famously cowardly and have always been the first to join the circular...
They'd really only do this if they felt it was necessary because obviously it's not really ideal mid-election to strong arm your candidate into stepping down.
Don’t overestimate the abysmally poor political instincts of low-tenure centrist Dems in conservative districts. They are famously cowardly and have always been the first to join the circular firing squads against their colleagues. These types were almost single handedly responsible for the Dems’ abysmal showing in 2010 because they failed to really get behind the ACA. There’s something about the candidate recruitment process with the DCCC that seems to select for invertebrates.
I mean reporting is making this sound like anything but low-tenure centrist Dems and given the statements from people like Pelosi it certainly doesn't inspire confidence.
I mean reporting is making this sound like anything but low-tenure centrist Dems and given the statements from people like Pelosi it certainly doesn't inspire confidence.
None of the senior ones are telling him to step down, they’re saying they’ll respect whatever decision he makes which is really all they can do realistically.
None of the senior ones are telling him to step down, they’re saying they’ll respect whatever decision he makes which is really all they can do realistically.
The political science consensus is usually on the side of over-weighting the non-polling factors early and diminishing its weight as you get closer to Election Day. Lots of people haven’t thought...
The political science consensus is usually on the side of over-weighting the non-polling factors early and diminishing its weight as you get closer to Election Day. Lots of people haven’t thought about it yet or made up their minds, usually undecideds don’t really start to pay attention until October and that’s when you get a more solid picture of voter intent and turnout potential.
Remember polls are a snapshot in time and this current moment is the worst news cycle Biden has had since his plagiarism scandal decades ago. Making definitive claims about how things will look in November based on polling done right this moment is basically ignorant of what the stats are actually saying and the limits of quantitative methods.
Nate Silver has sort of turned into an extremist on technical analysis over fundamentals based models, but that’s not very well suited for situations like we’re in right now where the data has severe defects that we don’t really understand the root causes of.
A 1% lead with the reality of Biden's declining mental state only now finally starting to settle in with liberal media providers is pretty bad. That's way less than even Hillary had in 2016, and...
A 1% lead with the reality of Biden's declining mental state only now finally starting to settle in with liberal media providers is pretty bad. That's way less than even Hillary had in 2016, and she had the backing of literally every liberal media channel out there.
And it's only gotten worse for Biden recently, just last night he introduced Zelensky as "President Putin" and Kamala as "Vice President Trump."
Things are very bleak for left leaning voters who's only rallying cry is "vote blue no matter who" which is not exactly a reassuring sentiment.
I think the DNC would do us all a huge favor and get someone under the age of 70 to take Biden's place so we have an actually attractive candidate to vote for, and not just "Not Trump"
A president is not just the person but the vp and cabinet and judges. You aren’t just voting for the person. And there is a stark stark difference between how the two candidates will proceed there.
A president is not just the person but the vp and cabinet and judges. You aren’t just voting for the person.
And there is a stark stark difference between how the two candidates will proceed there.
The DNC will have to find new candidates for 2028 if Biden is re-elected, since it would be his second term. That's of course assuming there actually is a 2028 election... I'm reminded of a...
The DNC will have to find new candidates for 2028 if Biden is re-elected, since it would be his second term.
That's of course assuming there actually is a 2028 election...
I'm reminded of a saying: Democrats need to fall in love. Republicans only need to fall in line.
Has that not reversed with as of late post Obama? Trump has the heart of the Republican party and has rewritten it in his image, whereas Dems are having to compromise on the most moderate centrist...
Has that not reversed with as of late post Obama? Trump has the heart of the Republican party and has rewritten it in his image, whereas Dems are having to compromise on the most moderate centrist candidates available.
The phenomenon of Sanders-Trump voters in 2016 seems to indicate an unwillingness to compromise that ultimately helped Trump win the election. As far as I am aware, the number of people who...
The phenomenon of Sanders-Trump voters in 2016 seems to indicate an unwillingness to compromise that ultimately helped Trump win the election. As far as I am aware, the number of people who switched from voting R to D after Trump won the primaries in 2016 is much lower.
I don't think it's reversed. I think the phenomenon we're observing is that Republicans already had an internal culture of "fall in line" and then Trump managed to hijack it through sheer force of...
I don't think it's reversed. I think the phenomenon we're observing is that Republicans already had an internal culture of "fall in line" and then Trump managed to hijack it through sheer force of personality. And now you have both the people who are reluctantly falling in line, in addition to his hardline base that has "fallen in love". The combination of the two is what makes him such a force to be reckoned with.
The odds he gave Trump in 2016 were 30%. Biden has about 23% right now. But more importantly, as Nate points out every time, the model is wrong. The model is wrong because the model assumes that a...
The odds he gave Trump in 2016 were 30%. Biden has about 23% right now. But more importantly, as Nate points out every time, the model is wrong. The model is wrong because the model assumes that a candidate is actually capable of giving it their all and turning it around. For example, it's 23% with the assumption that Biden is giving live interviews every day that are going perfect. If this is not happening (it's not, he had even more gaffes during the NATO speech), the model can't account for that.
Nate also thinks Biden is senile and has dementia and shouts it over and over again. It’s safe to say Nate’s a bit deranged about this, as he tends to get on any topic that requires subject matter...
Nate also thinks Biden is senile and has dementia and shouts it over and over again. It’s safe to say Nate’s a bit deranged about this, as he tends to get on any topic that requires subject matter expertise beyond just stats. Paul Krugman had to publicly dress him down about this at one point.
The model doesn’t assume candidates are giving it their all, it takes pretty well grounded political science findings about what impacts election outcomes and prices them in. Most people aren’t obsessively watching interviews and press coverage 24/7. That’s not what moves the dial. How vaguely positive people feel about their financial situation does.
My read is entirely different. Nate has been sounding the alarm for years now and has been ignored. 'Lo and behold, the age issue reared its head in the worst way possible, and now we're...
My read is entirely different. Nate has been sounding the alarm for years now and has been ignored. 'Lo and behold, the age issue reared its head in the worst way possible, and now we're scrambling. If we (or really, Biden) had listened to these concerns before 2024, maybe we wouldn't be in this situation.
Anecdotally, very few people in my circle follow politics like I do. They all know what happened in the debate, and they're all less likely to vote Biden now. Not voting for Trump either, but plenty are staying home because "both sides are the same". This is absolutely not just a problem for people who watch news 24/7.
In other words Nate’s staked out a deranged claim early and is determined to try to post his way to being right because he dug in his heels and his pride now relies on tanking Biden’s candidacy....
In other words Nate’s staked out a deranged claim early and is determined to try to post his way to being right because he dug in his heels and his pride now relies on tanking Biden’s candidacy. This dudes entire sense of self worth revolves around cultivating a reputation as some kind of Delphic oracle on the back of being the first one to apply bog standard Bayesian stats to polling. There is no way you can read the tone of Nate Silver’s tweeting and walk away thinking this is a clear eyed rational person here.
The only reason he has any rep at all is because political punditry is dominated by innumerate morons. He was like an invasive species outcompeting weak native fauna.
Anecdotally, very few people in my circle follow politics like I do. They all know what happened in the debate, and they're all less likely to vote Biden now. Not voting for Trump either, but plenty are staying home because "both sides are the same". This is absolutely not just a problem for people who watch news 24/7.
It’s July. Dukakis was 12 points up at this point.
So we have to hope that Trump gets on a tank to win. I'm sorry, this is a lot of vitriol for someone who sounded the alarm that Biden was too old, and now the old age is a problem. It's not Nate...
So we have to hope that Trump gets on a tank to win.
I'm sorry, this is a lot of vitriol for someone who sounded the alarm that Biden was too old, and now the old age is a problem. It's not Nate Silver's fault that he's running at 81, and it's not the media's fault that he's given less interviews than Trump.
You might be right. But if your only strategy here is hope the polls are going to change, then I'm fucking worried, because that's not a strategy. That's a prayer.
That was before a polarized America, the 24 hour news cycles and the Internet. Apart from a Trump implosion, it's just not feasible for Biden to make those kinds of inroads in the time he has...
It’s July. Dukakis was 12 points up at this point.
That was before a polarized America, the 24 hour news cycles and the Internet. Apart from a Trump implosion, it's just not feasible for Biden to make those kinds of inroads in the time he has left. And that was before Saturday.
Biden probably does not have 4 months here. He realistically has more like 1.5 (provided he doesn't slip further) because at some point Democratic money will shift away from the Presidency and towards salvaging the house and senate.
There's also The Economist Ultimately, I don't put much faith in any of these models, they're all far too hand-wavy. I think the level of alarm* that we're seeing from high level Democrats is a...
Ultimately, I don't put much faith in any of these models, they're all far too hand-wavy. I think the level of alarm* that we're seeing from high level Democrats is a far worse indicator because they are collectively a lot more in tune with the mechanics of the race than the pundits.
*When Joe Biden comes out and says he is staying on no matter what and then the next day every senior Democrat pretends it never happens and says they look forward to and will respect whatever decision he makes -- it's hard to read that as anything but a complete lack of confidence in his campaign and a public reprimand of Biden.
For the most part they’re getting and operating on the same info. as the pundits, maybe with a little additional internal polling data. They’re as prone to overreaction as anyone else.
because they are collectively a lot more in tune with the mechanics of the race than the pundits.
For the most part they’re getting and operating on the same info. as the pundits, maybe with a little additional internal polling data. They’re as prone to overreaction as anyone else.
0 of the 10 individual polls listed in that link give Biden a better chance at winning than Trump. Averaging all the polls gives Trump a 1.9% lead. 538's simulation (most prominent in your link)...
0 of the 10 individual polls listed in that link give Biden a better chance at winning than Trump. Averaging all the polls gives Trump a 1.9% lead.
538's simulation (most prominent in your link) goes against that grain and gives Biden a 1% edge.
The current structure of the electoral college means Biden must win the popular vote by several points to have better than even odds of winning. Clinton, for example, won 48%-46% but Trump still...
The current structure of the electoral college means Biden must win the popular vote by several points to have better than even odds of winning. Clinton, for example, won 48%-46% but Trump still got over 300 EVs.
If Trump is winning the popular vote at all, or even tied, he's winning the election easily.
Right, but 538's simulation accounts for that, and it still says "toss up." Voters may be a lagging indicator, though. I think what's going on here is a party revolt. There is a coalition of...
Right, but 538's simulation accounts for that, and it still says "toss up."
Voters may be a lagging indicator, though. I think what's going on here is a party revolt. There is a coalition of prominent Democrats, and Nancy Pelosi seems to be taking a leading role, who want him out. That coalition is growing and speaking in public more. They want him to do it, but they want him to resign. When Pelosi says he needs to make a decision, that's a fig leaf. There's only one decision that's acceptable to them.
I don't normally read the New York Times, but the Washington Post is reporting on this in a way that suggests that the people they talk to are okay with this. The debate made it okay to break loyalty with Biden. There were private doubts before that, but they waited to see how he'd do.
This is a "the party decides" kind of thing. Can the party still decide, though? That's pretty old-fashioned. We're used to parties making decisions using primaries. Is the machinery still there to put that aside and actually decide on a candidate at the convention, like in the old days? How do they actually get someone else on the ballot in each state?
It would be wild, but I don't expect it to happen quite that way.
Trump could defy establishment Republicans and essentially take over the Republican party, but I don't think Biden has it in him to defy establishment Democrats all that long; he's going to be increasingly isolated and also isn't crazy, so although he's taking it hard, I do expect a resignation.
It's not up to us and the polls don't tell the story. I hope party leaders know what they're doing.
Averaging polls is not always a valid thing to do. In any case, I think the only polls that really matter are swing states, and (from what I have seen) Trump is leading in those. That being said,...
Averaging polls is not always a valid thing to do. In any case, I think the only polls that really matter are swing states, and (from what I have seen) Trump is leading in those. That being said, 4 months is still a long time until the election and a lot can happen. In July of 1988, Dukakis was up 17 points, but we never got a President Dukakis.
The bulk of polls currently indicate a higher chance of Trump winning a commanding mandate level electoral landslide than Biden winning by even the slightest of margin. They've had errors in the...
The bulk of polls currently indicate a higher chance of Trump winning a commanding mandate level electoral landslide than Biden winning by even the slightest of margin. They've had errors in the past, but they've been in Trump's favor. And they've been consistently trending in the wrong direction for months. What about that inspires confidence?
It's not so dire when you look at national turnout levels... but when you factor in the role of the electoral college, it is indeed extremely dire.
I mean, just yesterday, the editorial board put out an article expressing that "Donald Trump loathes our laws, puts self over country, and is dangerous for America. He is fully unfit to lead."...
I mean, just yesterday, the editorial board put out an article expressing that "Donald Trump loathes our laws, puts self over country, and is dangerous for America. He is fully unfit to lead."
What more do you want them to do? Would you rather they ignore that Biden has been looking worse? Perhaps they should talk about the back handsprings he did for them in private?
The problem is that the media saying "Biden is unfit to lead because he'll lose the election" is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Meanwhile, criticism is pointless without an alternative plan - and...
The problem is that the media saying "Biden is unfit to lead because he'll lose the election" is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Meanwhile, criticism is pointless without an alternative plan - and that's assuming it's even possible to switch candidates without SCOTUS blocking the replacement candidate from being put on the polls.
Mostly, it's a matter of "don't switch horses mid-stream". It's a clusterfuck, but if there's no alternate plan then there's no point criticising the current one.
FWIW the closest thing to an alternate plan is to have Kamala Harris as the new candidate - it doesn't even require a change in roles, just a change in campaign and some unofficial statements about who will wear the pants in the oval office. The problem is that Dems will lose their incumbency, and Trump effectively is also an incumbent - lots of people believe Trump was the real president during 2020-2024. Sigh.
It definitely feels like they could kind of do something like a live updated article on each candidate and maybe updates when something big happens. But that doesn't drive clicks. People would...
It definitely feels like they could kind of do something like a live updated article on each candidate and maybe updates when something big happens. But that doesn't drive clicks. People would rather read 5 articles that regurgitate the same talking points with a slightly different spin.
The New York Times, every other publication, the donors, at least 3 house democrats, half the internet, I don't know if I would describe it as fear mongering at this point, it's looking at every...
The New York Times, every other publication, the donors, at least 3 house democrats, half the internet, I don't know if I would describe it as fear mongering at this point, it's looking at every media appearance this guy does and having no confidence he can get swing voters to turn up at the polls. People in general are losing confidence he can win the election, might as well look at if the party can pivot before it's too late.
Apparently they have a "petty feud." Everyone in article reads kind of poorly, but NYT comes out looking better after this past month so I'm guessing it's emboldened them. It has also surprised...
Apparently they have a "petty feud." Everyone in article reads kind of poorly, but NYT comes out looking better after this past month so I'm guessing it's emboldened them.
Although the president’s communications teams bristle at coverage from dozens of outlets, the frustration, and obsession, with the Times is unique, reflecting the resentment of a president with a working-class sense of himself and his team toward a news organization catering to an elite audience — and a deep desire for its affirmation of their work. On the other side, the newspaper carries its own singular obsession with the president, aggrieved over his refusal to give the paper a sit-down interview that Publisher AG Sulzberger and other top editors believe to be its birthright.
...
“All these Biden people think that the problem is Peter Baker or whatever reporter they’re mad at that day,” one Times journalist said. “It’s A.G. He’s the one who is pissed [that] Biden hasn’t done any interviews and quietly encourages all the tough reporting on his age.”
It has also surprised me, as I see them as a mainstream Democrat outlet.
I have kinda different take. This is just voter activation. Trump won against Hillary partly because people thought it was a given that Hillary won (and they didn't like her enough to bother with...
I have kinda different take. This is just voter activation. Trump won against Hillary partly because people thought it was a given that Hillary won (and they didn't like her enough to bother with voting). Same thing with Brexit.
I suppose there's an argument for the exact opposite too. The dread of Trump's "inevitable" win will lower the voter turnout.
Idk how they can keep running him, he didn’t look well yesterday I can see how he might have been better than the debate but he still wasn’t good enough. Time only marches forwards.
Idk how they can keep running him, he didn’t look well yesterday I can see how he might have been better than the debate but he still wasn’t good enough.
NPR just published some states showing that Biden is still in a statistical tie with Trump. A group of about 4 universities did some research and said about the same.
NPR just published some states showing that Biden is still in a statistical tie with Trump.
A group of about 4 universities did some research and said about the same.
As I did for Times Opinion in April, I’ve drawn on my years as a Democratic strategist to look at polling, advertising and campaign spending in the key states in this election. As several maps illustrate below, I’ve never seen such a grim Electoral College landscape for Mr. Biden: He not only faces losing battleground states he won in 2020, he is also at risk of losing traditional Democratic states like Minnesota and New Hampshire, which Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama carried. If current trends continue, Mr. Trump could rack up one of the most decisive presidential victories since 2008.
I dont know, people have the memories of mayflies when election season comes. Nearly getting assassinated for sure will be a big talking point for the rest of the election, but I feel like it will...
I dont know, people have the memories of mayflies when election season comes.
Nearly getting assassinated for sure will be a big talking point for the rest of the election, but I feel like it will lose its edge after the next 4 or 5 scandals occur before November.
VOTE. I can't stress enough the importance of voting, we need to remind people that despite the political despair that it's still ultimately important to vote.
VOTE.
I can't stress enough the importance of voting, we need to remind people that despite the political despair that it's still ultimately important to vote.
This is unfortunately the reality of current polling.
Putting your head in the sand will not prevent Trump from winning in November.
NPR suggests otherwise today: See other thread
I'm always skeptical of polling. The amount of corrections needed are so large it's getting very finicky. Polls far out from actual elections also have limited value as so many voters say they decide to vote and who to vote for very close to election day.
There's a whole lot of time for politics before the 5th of November.
Giving up now is certainly not what any party should do. What's the line for best results come election day? I don't know. Loads of internal party strife while Trump gets to sit and do nothing surely isn't ideal in any case.
The trouble is NPR is covering national polling. It doesn't matter at all if Biden wins the popular vote. Due to the electoral college, the only thing that matters is swing states, and Biden isn't looking good in those.
I wouldn't be comfortable putting too much stock into 538. It's not the same 538. They've been gutted and are under new management. They also overweight non-polling data in their prediction, just look at their final prediction vs what their polling data says.
They're also a clear outlier here:
https://www.realclearpolling.com/maps/president/2024/toss-up/electoral-college
https://elections2024.thehill.com/forecast/2024/president/
There's a lot to be concerned about, and I think people just want to pretend everything is fine. Biden has massively outspent Trump in places like PA, and he's trailing by 7 points. That's a nightmare scenario and people are rightfully sounding the alarm.
Not exactly making the case that "all but vanished" isn't sensational.
I mean, I think the title is definitely somewhat clickbait, but it’s not an apples to apples comparison you’re making either.
One is just a polling aggregator that’s crunching a series of numbers. Sosnik (a long time Democrat strategist) knows how the game is played, how much money they have to spend and where they have to spend it as well as how Rs get to play out their hand as well. I’m inclined to believe him.
It’s not just him either, a majority of Democratic strategists are freaking out right now.
Do you have a source for this majority? And are they freaking out because that is what their job is when Biden makes mistakes or trends down, or are a majority of them calling for him to be replaced because they believe that is a better path to victory?
I would've been happy if Biden didn't run, I'd have been good with him stepping aside after the debate. I've got tons of anxiety about the election, and I'm frustrated with the apparent inability of the DNC to groom talent from what you'd think would be a mucher larger pool.
That said, the only thing I think is pretty clearly a wrong decision is indecision.
At this point I doubt Biden is being replaced. And if that's the case, I find it hard to not think that two months later I'm going to be looking back at all of the attempts to build consensus to replace Biden as something other than doing the GOPs job for them.
Trump had his party do a 50+ point change in opinion Russia. Lindsey Graham went from calling him deranged and unfit to being a sycophant calling him unfairly persecuted. The religious right went from being disgusted by his vulgarity and cheating on his pregnant wives to rationalizations about the Lord using imperfect vessels. Personally I find all that disgusting and hypocritical, but damn if it ain't powerful.
Well, a lot of people are saying that's true but it's all off the record. But the reading between the lines is pretty clear. The Democrats are in open revolt at this point, everyday more congress members and senators are coming forward calling on him to resign. Politico is reporting that a group of high-ranking Democrats are approaching Biden today and trying to convince him to resign. They'd really only do this if they felt it was necessary because obviously it's not really ideal mid-election to strong arm your candidate into stepping down.
Honestly, I'd be surprised if he's still running in two weeks.
Don’t overestimate the abysmally poor political instincts of low-tenure centrist Dems in conservative districts. They are famously cowardly and have always been the first to join the circular firing squads against their colleagues. These types were almost single handedly responsible for the Dems’ abysmal showing in 2010 because they failed to really get behind the ACA. There’s something about the candidate recruitment process with the DCCC that seems to select for invertebrates.
I mean reporting is making this sound like anything but low-tenure centrist Dems and given the statements from people like Pelosi it certainly doesn't inspire confidence.
None of the senior ones are telling him to step down, they’re saying they’ll respect whatever decision he makes which is really all they can do realistically.
The political science consensus is usually on the side of over-weighting the non-polling factors early and diminishing its weight as you get closer to Election Day. Lots of people haven’t thought about it yet or made up their minds, usually undecideds don’t really start to pay attention until October and that’s when you get a more solid picture of voter intent and turnout potential.
Remember polls are a snapshot in time and this current moment is the worst news cycle Biden has had since his plagiarism scandal decades ago. Making definitive claims about how things will look in November based on polling done right this moment is basically ignorant of what the stats are actually saying and the limits of quantitative methods.
Nate Silver has sort of turned into an extremist on technical analysis over fundamentals based models, but that’s not very well suited for situations like we’re in right now where the data has severe defects that we don’t really understand the root causes of.
A 1% lead with the reality of Biden's declining mental state only now finally starting to settle in with liberal media providers is pretty bad. That's way less than even Hillary had in 2016, and she had the backing of literally every liberal media channel out there.
And it's only gotten worse for Biden recently, just last night he introduced Zelensky as "President Putin" and Kamala as "Vice President Trump."
Things are very bleak for left leaning voters who's only rallying cry is "vote blue no matter who" which is not exactly a reassuring sentiment.
I think the DNC would do us all a huge favor and get someone under the age of 70 to take Biden's place so we have an actually attractive candidate to vote for, and not just "Not Trump"
A president is not just the person but the vp and cabinet and judges. You aren’t just voting for the person.
And there is a stark stark difference between how the two candidates will proceed there.
The DNC will have to find new candidates for 2028 if Biden is re-elected, since it would be his second term.
That's of course assuming there actually is a 2028 election...
I'm reminded of a saying: Democrats need to fall in love. Republicans only need to fall in line.
Has that not reversed with as of late post Obama? Trump has the heart of the Republican party and has rewritten it in his image, whereas Dems are having to compromise on the most moderate centrist candidates available.
The phenomenon of Sanders-Trump voters in 2016 seems to indicate an unwillingness to compromise that ultimately helped Trump win the election. As far as I am aware, the number of people who switched from voting R to D after Trump won the primaries in 2016 is much lower.
I don't think it's reversed. I think the phenomenon we're observing is that Republicans already had an internal culture of "fall in line" and then Trump managed to hijack it through sheer force of personality. And now you have both the people who are reluctantly falling in line, in addition to his hardline base that has "fallen in love". The combination of the two is what makes him such a force to be reckoned with.
fivethirtyeight is dead, that's just ABC wearing it's skin. They fired all of the staff a couple of years ago.
See Nate's new Silver Bulletin (https://www.natesilver.net/p/nate-silver-2024-president-election-polls-model) for fivethirtyeight's spiritual successor; he gives Biden about a 25% chance of winning today.
That’s better than the odds he gave Trump in 2016, and that was based on immediate pre-election polling haha
The odds he gave Trump in 2016 were 30%. Biden has about 23% right now. But more importantly, as Nate points out every time, the model is wrong. The model is wrong because the model assumes that a candidate is actually capable of giving it their all and turning it around. For example, it's 23% with the assumption that Biden is giving live interviews every day that are going perfect. If this is not happening (it's not, he had even more gaffes during the NATO speech), the model can't account for that.
Nate also thinks Biden is senile and has dementia and shouts it over and over again. It’s safe to say Nate’s a bit deranged about this, as he tends to get on any topic that requires subject matter expertise beyond just stats. Paul Krugman had to publicly dress him down about this at one point.
The model doesn’t assume candidates are giving it their all, it takes pretty well grounded political science findings about what impacts election outcomes and prices them in. Most people aren’t obsessively watching interviews and press coverage 24/7. That’s not what moves the dial. How vaguely positive people feel about their financial situation does.
My read is entirely different. Nate has been sounding the alarm for years now and has been ignored. 'Lo and behold, the age issue reared its head in the worst way possible, and now we're scrambling. If we (or really, Biden) had listened to these concerns before 2024, maybe we wouldn't be in this situation.
Anecdotally, very few people in my circle follow politics like I do. They all know what happened in the debate, and they're all less likely to vote Biden now. Not voting for Trump either, but plenty are staying home because "both sides are the same". This is absolutely not just a problem for people who watch news 24/7.
In other words Nate’s staked out a deranged claim early and is determined to try to post his way to being right because he dug in his heels and his pride now relies on tanking Biden’s candidacy. This dudes entire sense of self worth revolves around cultivating a reputation as some kind of Delphic oracle on the back of being the first one to apply bog standard Bayesian stats to polling. There is no way you can read the tone of Nate Silver’s tweeting and walk away thinking this is a clear eyed rational person here.
The only reason he has any rep at all is because political punditry is dominated by innumerate morons. He was like an invasive species outcompeting weak native fauna.
It’s July. Dukakis was 12 points up at this point.
So we have to hope that Trump gets on a tank to win.
I'm sorry, this is a lot of vitriol for someone who sounded the alarm that Biden was too old, and now the old age is a problem. It's not Nate Silver's fault that he's running at 81, and it's not the media's fault that he's given less interviews than Trump.
You might be right. But if your only strategy here is hope the polls are going to change, then I'm fucking worried, because that's not a strategy. That's a prayer.
That was before a polarized America, the 24 hour news cycles and the Internet. Apart from a Trump implosion, it's just not feasible for Biden to make those kinds of inroads in the time he has left. And that was before Saturday.
Biden probably does not have 4 months here. He realistically has more like 1.5 (provided he doesn't slip further) because at some point Democratic money will shift away from the Presidency and towards salvaging the house and senate.
There's also The Economist
Ultimately, I don't put much faith in any of these models, they're all far too hand-wavy. I think the level of alarm* that we're seeing from high level Democrats is a far worse indicator because they are collectively a lot more in tune with the mechanics of the race than the pundits.
*When Joe Biden comes out and says he is staying on no matter what and then the next day every senior Democrat pretends it never happens and says they look forward to and will respect whatever decision he makes -- it's hard to read that as anything but a complete lack of confidence in his campaign and a public reprimand of Biden.
For the most part they’re getting and operating on the same info. as the pundits, maybe with a little additional internal polling data. They’re as prone to overreaction as anyone else.
0 of the 10 individual polls listed in that link give Biden a better chance at winning than Trump. Averaging all the polls gives Trump a 1.9% lead.
538's simulation (most prominent in your link) goes against that grain and gives Biden a 1% edge.
The current structure of the electoral college means Biden must win the popular vote by several points to have better than even odds of winning. Clinton, for example, won 48%-46% but Trump still got over 300 EVs.
If Trump is winning the popular vote at all, or even tied, he's winning the election easily.
Right, but 538's simulation accounts for that, and it still says "toss up."
Voters may be a lagging indicator, though. I think what's going on here is a party revolt. There is a coalition of prominent Democrats, and Nancy Pelosi seems to be taking a leading role, who want him out. That coalition is growing and speaking in public more. They want him to do it, but they want him to resign. When Pelosi says he needs to make a decision, that's a fig leaf. There's only one decision that's acceptable to them.
I don't normally read the New York Times, but the Washington Post is reporting on this in a way that suggests that the people they talk to are okay with this. The debate made it okay to break loyalty with Biden. There were private doubts before that, but they waited to see how he'd do.
This is a "the party decides" kind of thing. Can the party still decide, though? That's pretty old-fashioned. We're used to parties making decisions using primaries. Is the machinery still there to put that aside and actually decide on a candidate at the convention, like in the old days? How do they actually get someone else on the ballot in each state?
It would be wild, but I don't expect it to happen quite that way.
Trump could defy establishment Republicans and essentially take over the Republican party, but I don't think Biden has it in him to defy establishment Democrats all that long; he's going to be increasingly isolated and also isn't crazy, so although he's taking it hard, I do expect a resignation.
It's not up to us and the polls don't tell the story. I hope party leaders know what they're doing.
Averaging polls is not always a valid thing to do. In any case, I think the only polls that really matter are swing states, and (from what I have seen) Trump is leading in those. That being said, 4 months is still a long time until the election and a lot can happen. In July of 1988, Dukakis was up 17 points, but we never got a President Dukakis.
Most of the polls they used for that simulation still favor Trump, so I suppose yes that's still the reality of current polling unfortunately.
The bulk of polls currently indicate a higher chance of Trump winning a commanding mandate level electoral landslide than Biden winning by even the slightest of margin. They've had errors in the past, but they've been in Trump's favor. And they've been consistently trending in the wrong direction for months. What about that inspires confidence?
It's not so dire when you look at national turnout levels... but when you factor in the role of the electoral college, it is indeed extremely dire.
I mean, just yesterday, the editorial board put out an article expressing that "Donald Trump loathes our laws, puts self over country, and is dangerous for America. He is fully unfit to lead."
What more do you want them to do? Would you rather they ignore that Biden has been looking worse? Perhaps they should talk about the back handsprings he did for them in private?
The problem is that the media saying "Biden is unfit to lead because he'll lose the election" is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Meanwhile, criticism is pointless without an alternative plan - and that's assuming it's even possible to switch candidates without SCOTUS blocking the replacement candidate from being put on the polls.
Mostly, it's a matter of "don't switch horses mid-stream". It's a clusterfuck, but if there's no alternate plan then there's no point criticising the current one.
FWIW the closest thing to an alternate plan is to have Kamala Harris as the new candidate - it doesn't even require a change in roles, just a change in campaign and some unofficial statements about who will wear the pants in the oval office. The problem is that Dems will lose their incumbency, and Trump effectively is also an incumbent - lots of people believe Trump was the real president during 2020-2024. Sigh.
A lot of people on reddit definitely seem to be in the "ignore Biden" crowd from what I've seen. Never seen such denial in my life
It definitely feels like they could kind of do something like a live updated article on each candidate and maybe updates when something big happens. But that doesn't drive clicks. People would rather read 5 articles that regurgitate the same talking points with a slightly different spin.
The New York Times, every other publication, the donors, at least 3 house democrats, half the internet, I don't know if I would describe it as fear mongering at this point, it's looking at every media appearance this guy does and having no confidence he can get swing voters to turn up at the polls. People in general are losing confidence he can win the election, might as well look at if the party can pivot before it's too late.
Apparently they have a "petty feud." Everyone in article reads kind of poorly, but NYT comes out looking better after this past month so I'm guessing it's emboldened them.
It has also surprised me, as I see them as a mainstream Democrat outlet.
The institution changed with the head editor change awhile back. They started doing a lot more both-sides equivalency.
I have kinda different take. This is just voter activation. Trump won against Hillary partly because people thought it was a given that Hillary won (and they didn't like her enough to bother with voting). Same thing with Brexit.
I suppose there's an argument for the exact opposite too. The dread of Trump's "inevitable" win will lower the voter turnout.
Idk how they can keep running him, he didn’t look well yesterday I can see how he might have been better than the debate but he still wasn’t good enough.
Time only marches forwards.
NPR just published some states showing that Biden is still in a statistical tie with Trump.
A group of about 4 universities did some research and said about the same.
archive link
I dont know, people have the memories of mayflies when election season comes.
Nearly getting assassinated for sure will be a big talking point for the rest of the election, but I feel like it will lose its edge after the next 4 or 5 scandals occur before November.
Depends on if there's another near-assassination. If Trump can do one a month, he can ride this narrative all the way to the election.
In my ignorant European view, America was lost when Al gore lost the 2000 election.
That's when the election was messed with by the hanging chad controversy. Ugh. Another of our shining moments.
With Roger Stone and GOP staffers organizing the Brooks Brothers riot.
VOTE.
I can't stress enough the importance of voting, we need to remind people that despite the political despair that it's still ultimately important to vote.
With these headlines, I assume NYT is in the camp of replacing the democratic candidate?