TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

Nov 2023 Mod notice:


There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.

If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.

Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.

If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.


In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.

Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM

nova92 Since: Apr, 2020
#328701: Sep 23rd 2020 at 8:16:37 PM

Real Clear Politics isn't that great because they're biased in the polls that they include in their averages.

Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#328702: Sep 23rd 2020 at 8:19:17 PM

270 to Win normally works on mobile, you can play around with a number of different combinations on there.

You’re correct that the Clinton states plus the three mid-west states is enough for a Biden win, he could’ve even afford to loose a small Clinton state (so Nevada, New Hampshire or Maine) in such a scenario.

There are also other paths, like picking up Michigan, Arizona and North Carolina. Or Florida and any other swing state.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
DingoWalley1 Asgore Adopts Noelle Since: Feb, 2014 Relationship Status: Can't buy me love
Asgore Adopts Noelle
#328703: Sep 23rd 2020 at 8:29:39 PM

Speaking of 270towin, since we're only 40 Days away from Election day, I think we should start sharing our maps from it.

Here is mine, with a Biden win of 353-185. I think (as of today) Biden will flip: Arizona, Nebraska-2, Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Florida (and Maine-2). Until Ginsburg died I was thinking he would also flip Iowa and Georgia, but I think the Evangelicals of these 2 will come home to roost (IE Come out in droves to vote for their guy).

Edited by DingoWalley1 on Sep 23rd 2020 at 11:33:31 AM

Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#328704: Sep 23rd 2020 at 8:31:38 PM

You also have Ohio flipping I noticed.

MrHellboy The Shadow from A world of my own Since: Dec, 2017 Relationship Status: Yes, I'm alone, but I'm alone and free
The Shadow
#328705: Sep 23rd 2020 at 8:32:32 PM

I didn't think 538 could be trusted. Weren't they way off in 2016?

BTW, the place I saw Trump was ahead in some states was this rolling update thread from Reddit: https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/iy8ken/discussion_thread_2020_general_election_daily/

The hardest thing in this world is to live in it.
Draghinazzo (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I get a feeling so complicated...
#328706: Sep 23rd 2020 at 8:34:26 PM

I didn't think 538 could be trusted. Weren't they way off in 2016?

To my recollection, they gave Trump a 30% or so chance by the end. Which is a much more substantial chance than most people think. The fact that trump won does not mean they were wrong, and to insist otherwise is a misunderstanding of statistics.

Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#328707: Sep 23rd 2020 at 8:35:20 PM

Like the day before the election 538 literally put out an article titled “Trump is one normal sized polling error away from winning”, they also gave him the best chance of any of the professional election forecasters (30%ish).

Reddit is certainly not to be trusted.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#328708: Sep 23rd 2020 at 8:36:15 PM

They repeatedly and constantly said that Trump was within normal deviation of winning. They were practically the only place to suggest that Trump could win based on actual empirical models rather than wishy washy feelings.

So no, they are perfectly trustworthy. They even give a full range of results and probabilities for every statewide race ffs.

AzurePaladin She/Her Pronouns from Forest of Magic Since: Apr, 2018 Relationship Status: Mu
She/Her Pronouns
#328709: Sep 23rd 2020 at 8:36:19 PM

They were closer than most other polling aggregates.

Now, Nate Silver in particular has made some embarrassing errors, in particular tweeting 6 hours apart that pundits were overstating Trump's chances of trying to soft coup and having an Oh, Crap! reaction to Trump refusing to say he'd let a peaceful transition of power happen and implying the opposite, but as far as polling aggregates go they're pretty good.

Edited by AzurePaladin on Sep 23rd 2020 at 11:36:57 AM

The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -Fighteer
RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#328710: Sep 23rd 2020 at 8:38:34 PM

Anything Nate Silver puts out that isn't describing models is just punditry and therefore perfectly worth ignoring, no matter how he might frame it in terms of Bayesian probability by talking about priors.

Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#328711: Sep 23rd 2020 at 8:42:17 PM

Hell when it comes to it he himself will admit that you should ignore that stuff, I believe he’s called himself a good statistician but an average-at-best pundit.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Gilphon (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#328712: Sep 23rd 2020 at 8:51:08 PM

Worth noting: According to 538, Biden now has a better chance of winning Alaska (20%) than Trump does of winning Wisconsin (19%)

BearyScary Since: Sep, 2010 Relationship Status: You spin me right round, baby
#328713: Sep 23rd 2020 at 8:53:52 PM

Random thought about the possibility of Trump losing: I can see him not preparing a speech if he loses on election night. Or not appearing at all to concede.

[up]As an Alaskan, nice. smile

Edited by BearyScary on Sep 23rd 2020 at 7:54:19 AM

Do not obey in advance.
jjjj2 from Arrakis Since: Jul, 2015
#328714: Sep 23rd 2020 at 8:55:06 PM

[up]That's so eminently likely as to have a probablity greater than 99%

You can only write so much in your forum signature. It's not fair that I want to write a piece of writing yet it will cut me off in the mid
Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#328715: Sep 23rd 2020 at 9:01:38 PM

I'd be wary of Silver lately with punditry...his model has gotten real questionable.

RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#328716: Sep 23rd 2020 at 9:02:44 PM

On what grounds is the model questionable? And please don't say "it's not just a polling average".

Because if you're going to use that argument it's actually overly sceptical of Biden's chances.

Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#328717: Sep 23rd 2020 at 9:10:22 PM

Because he's trying to measure things that are nigh impossible to mathematically quantify like the size of New York Times headlines.

And yes, I do believe it's overly skeptical of Biden's chance.

Edited by Lightysnake on Sep 23rd 2020 at 9:10:42 AM

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#328718: Sep 23rd 2020 at 9:12:49 PM

Personally I think he's trying to find ways to occupy his mind in the wake of so many sports being cancelled. He's pretty obviously hurting from not being able to analyze sports, something he seems to really enjoy.

Edited by M84 on Sep 24th 2020 at 12:13:49 AM

Disgusted, but not surprised
RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#328719: Sep 23rd 2020 at 9:13:30 PM

By factoring them into a generic numerical term which basically widens or narrows the range that the simulation is going to be sampling outcomes from. This is no different than polls trying to estimate how their sample represents the population and adjust to compensate.

Like... this is how you model things with uncertain variables. You can't just pretend they're not there.

Sure, you can complain that the things being estimated in don't make sense, but it's not like he's saying "a big NY Times headline is a 1% shift to Trump!"

Clarste One Winged Egret Since: Jun, 2009 Relationship Status: Non-Canon
One Winged Egret
#328720: Sep 23rd 2020 at 9:13:37 PM

I mean it's extremely easy to quantify the size of the New York Time's headlines.

Maybe a little harder to tie that to the election odds, but probably not impossible.

Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#328721: Sep 23rd 2020 at 9:18:10 PM

2012 Nate Silver was the guy saying "Why does anyone bother with data that's not polls?"

2020 Nate Silver is just "It could be this or it could be that, the conclusion is that there's no conclusion." And no, factoring the size of headlines into his model based on nothing more than their physical size is not sound, just because Silver claims it "creates uncertainty."

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#328722: Sep 23rd 2020 at 9:19:35 PM

TBF, 2012 Nate Silver wasn't as focused on political data as he was on sports.

2020 Nate Silver by contrast has pretty much nothing but political data to focus on since the pandemic led to most sports being cancelled.

Edited by M84 on Sep 24th 2020 at 12:21:00 AM

Disgusted, but not surprised
Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#328723: Sep 23rd 2020 at 9:21:02 PM

But he was focused a lot on political data. He called every race except for like one senate one in a red state

and therein lies the problem: he's worked in punditry to his model.

Edited by Lightysnake on Sep 23rd 2020 at 9:21:57 AM

RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#328724: Sep 23rd 2020 at 9:22:28 PM

[up][up] That was my point yesterday. In 2012 he'd been entirely focused on sports models and had turned that to political polling.

He's had 8 years of political experience and two presidential elections to consider how other terms might factor into things, and what's easy to abstract into a minor inclusion to polling terms.

Honestly the font size of the NY Times headline being in there makes bugger all difference practically. It's probably, what, a *1.01 modifier on the uncertainty term which already includes much bigger things?

[up] Except he hasn't, because he's not ascribing them with definite positive or negative effects, only using them to tweak the variance.

Edited by RainehDaze on Sep 23rd 2020 at 5:23:09 PM

AzurePaladin She/Her Pronouns from Forest of Magic Since: Apr, 2018 Relationship Status: Mu
She/Her Pronouns
#328725: Sep 23rd 2020 at 9:22:55 PM

I can't help but feel deja-vu at "Nate Silver is overestimating Trump's chances, the Democrat will cinch this."

The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -Fighteer

Total posts: 417,856
Top