Who Is Favored To Win The 2024 Presidential Election?
projects.fivethirtyeight.com
538’s 2024 presidential election forecast model showing Democrat Kamala Harris’s and Republican Donald Trump’s chances of winning.

For the first time since 538 published our presidential election forecast for Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, Trump has taken the lead (if a very small one) over Harris. As of 3 p.m. Eastern on Oct. 18, our model gives Trump a 52-in-100 chance of winning the majority of Electoral College votes. The model gives Harris a 48-in-100 chance.

    • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.todayEnglish
      83·
      2 months ago

      Nate Silver IS a right winger, though, so I don’t believe anything on his site, and I especially don’t believe him on this topic. Even if he wasn’t outright a right winger, polls do not matter and are frequently incorrect for various reasons.

      Plus, he’s no longer affiliated with 538.

      • Lauchs@lemmy.world
        46·
        2 months ago

        Calling Silver a right winger is more than a bit silly. He’s not as far left as some but damn, to call hin right wing, that’s just some kind of ridiculous.

        And no, he’s not affiliated with 538 but he is explaining how polling aggregation, which 538 and others do, works.

        • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.todayEnglish
          41·
          2 months ago

          Again, even if he isn’t an outright right winger, that’s fine. I’m willing to back off on that. But polls do not matter, and in fact the only thing they seem to do is reduce turnout. I really don’t care about Nate’s thoughts, and never have since 2016. I think a lot of people stopped trusting polls and definitely stopped trusting him back then.

          • Lauchs@lemmy.world
            14·
            2 months ago

            All they do is predict the future.

            Here’s 538 going over the 2020 predictions (in a historically difficult polling year):

            Even in a year when the polls were mediocre to poor, our forecasts largely identified the right outcomes. They correctly identified the winners of the presidency (Joe Biden), the U.S. Senate (Democrats, after the Georgia runoffs) and the U.S. House (Democrats, although by a narrower-than-expected margin). They were also largely accurate in identifying the winners in individual states and races, identifying the outcome correctly in 48 of 50 presidential states (we also missed the 2nd Congressional District in Maine), 32 of 35 Senate races1 and 417 of 435 House races.

            • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.todayEnglish
              3·
              2 months ago

              They sure didn’t get 2016 right, which is what I referenced and what caused distrust. Just because they got 2020 right doesn’t mean they’ll get 2024 correct. It’s meaningless and only serves to make people feel like they don’t have to turn out. They definitely don’t just “predict the future”.

              Also, I’m not sure if quoting the very pollsters that got 2016 wrong will make people trust them now. It’s certainly not working for me.

              • Lauchs@lemmy.world
                13·
                2 months ago

                Goodness gracious.

                In 2016, 538 argued trump had a 1/4 chance of winning. And the thing about 1/4 changes is that they happen every so often, about, oh. 1/4 times.

                And meanwhile, if you actually read what I quoted, you’ll note how astoundingly accurate they were in 2020.

                And if you or anyone else is dumb enough to see “trump has a 51% chance of winning” and that somehow makes you not want to vote, damn, how many tries does it take you to put your shoes on the correct feet? Three?

                • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.todayEnglish
                  3·
                  2 months ago

                  And if you or anyone else is dumb enough to see “trump has a 51% chance of winning” and that somehow makes you not want to vote, damn, how many tries does it take you to put your shoes on the correct feet? Three?

                  I already voted, so don’t attempt insinuate that I’m not voting. You do realize that most people do not vote, right? And that most people are indeed idiots when it comes to politics? It’s those people that will not turn out when it’s needed because they saw a pollster say their candidate was ahead.

                  We’re in a country where a known racist conman was elected.

                  • Lauchs@lemmy.world
                    23·
                    2 months ago

                    You do realize that most people do not vote, right?

                    Except that isn’t true. In 2020, 2/3rds of eligible voters voted. Which, if your math is rusty, is a healthy majority of people.

                    And that most people are indeed idiots when it comes to politics? It’s those people that will not turn out when it’s needed because they saw a pollster say their candidate was ahead.

                    I mean, if this is correct, polls showing trump ahead should depress Right votes which I presume we agree is a good thing. (Though, this seems counter to the whole narrative about Republican pollsters flooding the zone.)

                    I dunno, it really seems like you have a lot of problems with polls that are simply misunderstanding, like not knowing how aggregation works, not understanding what a probabilistic prediction is or just ignoring reality (like the impressive number of accurate predictions in most cycles.)

                    I think to dislike something, you should be moderately informed about it. Your attitude to polling feels a bit like right wing attitudes towards lgbtq stuff “I don’t get it, I don’t want to learn about it so I dislike it!”

    • surge_1@lemmy.world
      31·
      2 months ago

      Well yeah, but that’s assuming their pollster quality metric is actually good. Without knowing the result, who’s to say that previously reputable pollsters weren’t “bought” this cycle. With the billionaire interest and dark money floating around, why not?

      Polls are shit, go vote!

      • Lauchs@lemmy.world
        33·
        2 months ago

        This is getting into some pretty nonsense conspiracy level.

        Given that high quality pollsters like Emerson, Sienna, the Times are all showing similar movements in their polls, your theory about buying out reputable pollsters requires most pollsters to simultaneously burn their reputations, be open to corruption etc allegations and presumably suffer criminal penalties as most of their polls are technically done for a client. And none of whom are instead exposing the very offer as a huge media boost? And for what? So the polls look marginally better for trump?

        This kind of wishful thinking reminds me of listening to stolen election nonsense, where yeah, you can make believe a conspiracy where the Dems bought off a bunch of judges, election officials, forensic analysts etc but it beggars belief.