Who's paying him?

It’s in the OP

I often skip the first line because in many posts it's repeated a couple times before you get to the point of the article!

Thanks!

...a lot of polls are intended and written to do that.

and your overall point correct, but it's also an indictment on the EC that trump could be trailing the popular vote polls and have a 58% chance of being elected.

We get various polls saying different things on a daily basis. The only thing I am taking away from it is that we have to keep up the GOTV efforts because this election like the last two will be very close.

Close my ass.
Let's dump the electoral college after we win in November.

I just looked at 538 and they show Harris ahead in the polling average for 5 of the 7 "swing" states. She trails in just Arizona (by 0.4) and North Carolina (by 0.5). That does not indicate any kind of an edge for Trump.

Many of the polls have methodology that is a little concerning. For instance, the Florida and Texas polls today from Emerson both oversampled women by 9 points yet people are saying these states are now in play. They're not.

Nor did a reference a single poll. Fact is, the polling averages (of all polls that 538 uses) currently show Harris ahead in 5 of the 7 swing states. Ergo, going strictly by recent polling, Harris currently has the edge, not Trump.

It’s not just today’s polls. Yes she is up in the averages but some of these polls are skewed if you read the methodology. I believe this is why democrats like Carville, Silver and today Gretchen Whitmer are saying what they are saying. I honestly don’t know why this happening but pretending it isn’t is unwise.
Trying to give us a false sense of security? Trying to take resources from must win states to pipe dream states?

What's your problem? Apparently you just joined strictly to jump hijack an argument and start arguing about the accuracy of polls when that had nothing to do with the original post. Make a separate post if you feel that strongly about but quit hijacking others' discussions. I made no claims as to whether the polls are accurate The facts I posted were 100% true. Based on strictly the polling averages, Harris is ahead. It doesn't matter if polls are skewed. I'm not arguing Harris is definitely ahead, just that the polling averages are currently in her favor. The current averages show Harris ahead. Absolutely inarguable.

“It doesn’t matter if polls are skewed”…really?

You're just trolling. Not worth wasting any more time on you.

Not a troll …been here silently for 15 years. Learned A lot here but the polls and the possibility of another 4 years of the tfg are frightening. Keeping our heads in the sand and ignoring what Whitmer, Carville, Sabado and Dershowitz are saying is an invitation to disaster.
If seeing headline polls without digging into them gives you solace, there’s no crime in that but as Whitmer said” it isn’t true in Michigan”.

HaHaHaHa.

Reliable Democrat for many years. Funny how you ignored the others, especially Gretchen.

You think people should listen to the guy who served as one of Trumps attorneys. You've just outed yourself.

Still nothing about dismissing Gretchen, Carville, Silver and Sabado. Yes Dershowitz turned but he was a democrat for decades. We ignore what is happening at our own peril and this feels like 2016 all over again.
I’m phone banking, contributing and doing all I can. What are you doing besides ignoring and stating platitudes?

I’ve been here silently for 15 years. Read and listened. But I don’t think our people are seeing what’s happening. Polls are skewed, rah rah everything is great. It’s not; look at the methodology of the polls, people don’t know what Kamala’s positions are, and the idea of of tfg getting in again are terrifying.
Thanks for the welcome…I guess. But we better wake up or it’s gonna happen again.

to finally register and post?

To the person who thinks we should listen to a guy who has defended Trump at every opportunity over the past 10 years (claims Trump is innocent of all charges) and has served as his attorney. Oh, and he also defended Epstein. Tells people how seriously they should take anything you have to say. (Hint: You have exactly 0 credibility)

Still haven’t addressed what Whitmer, Silver Sabado and Carville have said. Why not? Look what’s gonna happen is gonna happen but ignoring where we are right now is a big mistake.

Don't think you're fooling anyone.

Show me any election that had turnout disparity of 9 points between men and women after Dobbs…

You think oversampling women is a clear error?

And how is it you're so sure that neither of those states are in play?

Oh. That's right! You're a poster on the intertubz. Case closed!

Such samples for a political poll are always going to be weighted according to the turnout model, so an oversampled subgroup will be shifted to reflect registration demographics and expected turnout level. In the end, since the subset was oversampled and de-emphasized by weighting, it mainly means the subset was measured somewhat more accurately than any it decreased through exclusion. Undersampling then becomes a bigger predictive problem since the under-representation increases "blurriness" on the margin for an undersampled subgroup. This all typically gets swept under the rug with a global MOE across the entire sample, but it's mixed in there anyway and becomes one of the underlying causes of "outliers".

That said, I agree about FL and TX -- they shouldn't be included in "swing state roundup" amalgamations, but Silver tried it anyway, maybe because he's morphed into a RW troll looking to agitate liberals, I don't know. Still, FL and TX aren't swing states yet, and if either became a swing state the GOP would be out of power for some time. Fools' gold at this point, maybe not forever.

Was not connecting Silver to 538. Just pointing out what 538's polling averages are currently showing since I could retrieve them very quickly..

my impression of him then was he was a dishonest asshole

...who makes up their minds because of what he says?

that silver is using these polls and adding them to the mix, skewing *his* average. Does anyone know if any of that is true?

FLA and TX are not the traditional swing states, and if he is adding them it would make it look like Harris is doing worse int the swing states. But I don't know if that's what you're referring to.

It's not an ideal situation for the Democrats but it absolutely was a swing state in 2000 (literally decided the election), 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2020.

He went from 5-9% to +.3.% which is pretty amazing for Texas. Emerson is one of the more accurate pollsters.

+3 Tr - 9/3-9/5 - Emerson Coll (LV)
+9 Tr - 8/14-8/31 - Activote (LV)
+8 Tr - 8/14-8/31 - Quantus (RV)
+5 Tr - 8/21-8/22- Public Policy Poll (RV)
+5 Tr - 8/5-8/16 - YouGov/Univ of Houst (LV)
+6 Tr - 7/31-8/13 - Activote (LV)

I’m not a Silver apologist, but using the polls and adding them to the mix is how polling averages work. That is the way 538 , 270 to win and RCP do their averages. IMO, due to the crazy swings in the polls - which is often due to bias and house effect - it is more accurate to average them out.

It has an A- rating. Most of the polls that have come out this year are pitiful on both sides (Rep and Dem). Emerson has a +.05 Dem bias and a +1.5 Rep house effect - which is not too bad.

Emerson's final 2020 poll: Biden 50, Trump 45 (+5). Actual results? Biden +4.5. Pretty dang accurate.

Republicans won the national vote by 3 points in 2022.

Emerson had Oz +1 in their final PA poll. The final outcome was with the MOE.

Emerson had Warnock +2 in the Georgia runoff. He finished at 2.8.

Emerson had Arizona tied. Kelly won +4.9.

So, not that far off in close elections.

Did you read the crosstabs for today’s polls? If you haven’t, please do and report back.

You must appease the poll fetishist!

And in some cases, their 10 points off in the other direction.

The odds are that some poll somewhere is close to reality. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. But I think they are completely missing, perhaps deliberately, the biggest factor of voter enthusiasm. And they're missing a lot of younger voters who use apps rather than cell numbers to communicate.

And then there's just the general bias that Trump gets from the people who work in the media who are Trumpies.

My best guess, and we'll see come Nov. 5, is that Harris carries all seven battlegrounds, including PA by 5, Arizona, Georgia and Nevada by 3, Wisconsin by 7, Michigan by 8, North Carolina by 2 and Florida and Ohio by 1 each.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Silver obviously has his marching orders to create the perception that Trump is winning as the OP suggests.

That will provide Fox, Musk, and other right wing networks and platforms fodder to cry foul when Kamala Harris wins.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=19412119

who know all about polling. How come I don’t recognize them or don’t see their membership star?

One doesn’t need to know all about polls to take 2 minutes to read the crosstabs and methodology. Most polls reveal them. Taking anything at face value from any media agency is a recipe for disappointment.

At least one person here (who had verifiably never posted on DU before) apparently decided now was the time to join strictly so he could hijack this thread and start arguing about something that wasn't even relevant to the discussion at hand.

He proved himself to be totally incompetent in previous recent elections. Seems like he should just be regarded as Mr. Irrelevant at this point.

Looking at Silver Bulletin's probabilities of winning with Harris +2 to +3 nationally -- which is where she is:

Harris 56.3% Trump 42.7%
https://www.natesilver.net/p/the-electoral-college-bias-has-returned

were only battleground state...... plus Texas and Florida for some reason. Totally putting his finger on the scale. If you take off Texas and Florida, and do the same math process, you get Harris ahead by 78%. Really.

You can see it here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100219424232

That's eye opening.