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
![]()
![]()
This is what I'm getting it. People keep conflating "unlikely" with "impossible" (at least with regards to Biden's chances) and it's a bit grating.
To be more specific, people are looking at the exact same percentages, but interpreting them differently depending on whether Biden or Trump is ahead.
It's a form of cynicism that serves nothing but to make you even more anxious.
Edited by LSBK on Oct 23rd 2020 at 6:21:21 AM
I think the main problem is people confusing the results of predictive models based on polling data versus the polling data itself. People see "35% for Trump" they think to themselves "well, there's no way in hell he'll win with only 35% of the votes!" even when what's being reported is that there's a 35% chance of him winning, not that 35% of people polled plan to vote for him.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.She was referring to the thing about people not understanding how polls and percentages work when they dismiss 2016's polling.
It was literally the two posts above her.
I'm well aware of it.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangThis conversation is pretty much a recent xkcd
at work.
Like, the odds in Texas are 65% to Trump and 35% Biden, with North Carolina being the reverse. But instead of looking at that and coming to the conclusion that neither is safe, that seems to be primarily interpreted as "Biden has no shot at Texas, and he might really be at risk of losing North Carolina."
There's this pervasive bias to always interpret things as really favoring Trump. And, like, if the point was to be thinking of bad scenarios in order analyse how Biden could still win it would be one thing, but that's not happening.
It mostly just seems to be people freaking themselves out more than they need to, because they're not noticing the inconsistency with how they're interpreting things.
Edited by LSBK on Oct 23rd 2020 at 6:33:36 AM
Honestly - and speaking as someone who has been concerned about people relying on the polls too much - I think voter suppression gets seriously oversold as a genuine threat to the election. It's mostly effective at chipping around the margins, which only matters in cases where it's already a pretty close call.
Like, by far the most concerning thing regarding voter suppression measures isn't actually the effect they'll have as it is how many of them have been upheld by the courts. I'm way more worried about Trump stealing the election through the judiciary than I am anything else at this point.
Edited by nrjxll on Oct 23rd 2020 at 7:25:18 AM
My question with regards to polling is as follows:
The polling and narrative suggests a Biden win, with several paths to victory. Trump still can win, but he again needs several states to break for him to make it work.
538 discussed this recently, saying that whilst we may not know results for Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania on the night we will probably know Florida. And if Florida goes blue then Trump's chances in their model drop to below 1%.
So, with that said, what would the result need to look like for the public (but Democrats in general) to call BS? Obviously, if Trump won California then everyone would know something fishy was going on, but if Trump manages another narrow and improbable win it will more than likely be accepted.
So what's the point where any discrepancy between predictive polling and the result suggests that there is something suspicious about the result as opposed to another systemic polling error?
The main thing that would lead people to call BS is republicans doing something like not counting all mail-in ballots before a certain time period. Basically any news that indicates that GOP-controlled states didn't do their due dilligence to accurately measure results or outright disregarding results and stealing the election for their states.
I would trust polls more if Voter Suppression wasn’t such a serious issue.
Also the Electoral College being rigged.
Ok, I get where you're coming from but let me explain how neither of this is quite how you think.
Firstly, voter suppression. Voter suppression is not based on making voting impossible, but rather making it much harder. That's why it's called suppression instead of nullification. This means that when people vote at normal or lower levels then they get unfairly suppressed. But, when they vote in high numbers then even things like gerrymandering can be overwhelmed. Unfair but definitely not insurmountable.
The Electoral college is the exact same, it unfairly empowers a minority of voters but if you're winning by double digits then you're almost certainly winning over many of those people. Ergo, it's illegitimate but more than possible to overcome.
These things are bad but they're definitely beatable and thus the polls are not irrelevant. Far from it.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Oct 23rd 2020 at 5:46:50 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangVoter apathy is a bigger issue than suppression I think. That being said, it is abundantly clear that attempts are being made to fudge numbers. I'm not saying the election is a sham, but it's getting kinda hard to take any results seriously when multiple parties and countries are being found to have their fingers in the cookie jar.
Just Having FunThis is why 538 is expressing the chances of the candidates winning a particular election as "XX in 100" rather than "XX%" — they wanted to avoid this kind of conflating in people's minds when they read the statements.
The damned queen and the relentless knight.The important thing to consider here is that the GOP needs to get lucky and/or implement voter suppression to a considerable level to make up for the national deficit they have.
Consider rolling a die. Getting a 6 the first time is not the most likely result but it is statistically not that implausible. But needing to roll it a second time, and then a third time after, or a fourth, etc all in a row, it starts to look much more unlikely. Eventually, it's very likely something will give.
![]()
![]()
Voter apathy is upsetting - among the many reasons I am terrified of Trump winning is the prospect that it's going to convince a lot of young people who are predisposed to progressive positions to not vote because the game is too rigged - but it really, really doesn't seem to be an issue this year. Pretty much everywhere is reporting unusually high levels of turnout.
Also this. Which ties into what I said above - I don't think voter suppression will change the election that much because so many people do seem motivated to vote this year.
Edited by nrjxll on Oct 23rd 2020 at 8:01:33 AM
Voter apathy is a bigger issue than suppression I think. That being said, it is abundantly clear that attempts are being made to fudge numbers. I'm not saying the election is a sham, but it's getting kinda hard to take any results seriously when multiple parties and countries are being found to have their fingers in the cookie jar.
I don't really agree, apathy exists because of voter suppression. At least in part.
When the price of voting is exorbitant then that will naturally disincline people to voting. That's obviously not the only reason for voting apathy, I believe unrepresentative systems that dilute voting power are another logical cause, but I think it would be a mistake to view voter apathy as a problem instead of a symptom of a problem.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yanghttps://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/23/pennsylvania-court-ballot-signatures-431794
Penn's Supreme Court has rejected handwriting analysis for confirming identity. Thank God.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.The very end of that article is the most worrying.
Republican legislative leaders and Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf held talks about extending those processing times, but it appears they have totally collapsed. The state legislature adjourned earlier this week, and is not expected back until after Election Day, with no deal with the governor.

She was referring to the thing about people not understanding how polls and percentages work when they dismiss 2016's polling.
It was literally the two posts above her.
Edited by Wryte on Oct 23rd 2020 at 4:15:22 AM