[Politics] The 2024 US Election - Trump v Harris

[jordanseagull]

The number of "polls" being fact checked as AI generated falsifications now is the new scary reality....

Got any examples? Genuinely curious.

 

[Crawley Dingo]

Sorry, but that’s rubbish. Order on the ballots is decided by a draw.

Positions on the ballot paper: How ballot draws work

Positions on the ballot paper: How ballot draws work

www.aec.gov.au

A draw for a reason.

 

[Mellotron]

Someone saying they’re 99% sure of something would put their view of the odds at 1/100. Harris is 6/4. It’s a silly, exaggerated Twitter claim no matter what’s going on.

It would be reasonable to argue Harris should be the favourite given the evidence, though.

Oh yes I agree with that. 99% is too far.

I do however think it is starting to look like she will win, and that it MIGHT be more comfortable than many expect.

 

[tedebear]

Got any examples? Genuinely curious.

Was reading it in these two:

Republicans preparing to reject US election result if Trump loses, warn strategists

Polling experts point to ‘fake polls’ exaggerating his support, with baseless lawsuits alleging fraud already filed

www.theguardian.com

AI deepfakes can sway voters and disrupt elections | FT Transact

Around 2bn voters will go to the polls this year, but for those looking to disrupt elections, AI-generated deepfakes could have significant political and economic repercussions. Tech companies and governments are working on ways to combat the spread of misinformation but, as the FT’s Hannah...

www.ft.com

 

[Mellotron]

Was reading it in these two:

Republicans preparing to reject US election result if Trump loses, warn strategists

Polling experts point to ‘fake polls’ exaggerating his support, with baseless lawsuits alleging fraud already filed

www.theguardian.com

AI deepfakes can sway voters and disrupt elections | FT Transact

Around 2bn voters will go to the polls this year, but for those looking to disrupt elections, AI-generated deepfakes could have significant political and economic repercussions. Tech companies and governments are working on ways to combat the spread of misinformation but, as the FT’s Hannah...

www.ft.com

The recent Trump surge was incredibly suspicious.

Given everything that’s come before, it’s hard not to think we will hear in a few months or years that there was dodgy polling going on.

 

[Zeberdi]

Interesting article in the Guardina about polling

Dead-heat poll results are astonishing – and improbable, these experts say

It’s possible the tied race reflects not the sentiments of the voters, but rather risk-averse decision-making by pollsters

www.theguardian.com

Yes indeed.

Basically backing up what I said above and have been saying for several days - the polling is not reliable enough for people to be calling a result here for one party or the other.

I certainly would not trust all these tweets flooding X (Elon Musk in charge of the chicken coop doesn’t give me much confidence!)) nor take anything the betting odds suggest seriously.

 

[Eeyore]

You understand what’s happening with the betting patterns?

I'm not sure the betting as it is, or the patterns, really matter. I'd offer BREXIT as an indicator. And early poll analysis is corruptible with the power of emphasis. I'd say it's a case of we won't know until Wednesday or whenever it is. It's even harder to work out what is going on over there than it is here. Truth is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Mellotron]

Money where mouth is. If I’m wrong I’m wrong.

 

[Mellotron]

I'm not sure the betting as it is, or the patterns, really matter. I'd offer BREXIT as an indicator. And early poll analysis is corruptible with the power of emphasis. I'd say it's a case of we won't know until Wednesday or whenever it is. It's even harder to work out what is going on over there than it is here. Truth is in the eye of the beholder.

There was no early voting with Brexit.

One of the main reasons I have some confidence is that all early actual quantifiable data looks pretty positive for Harris.

 

[tedebear]

The recent Trump surge was incredibly suspicious.

Given everything that’s come before, it’s hard not to think we will hear in a few months or years that there was dodgy polling going on.

Indeed, the only thing (even though Trump won't believe it if he loses) that remains to be fact will be the actual votes now....

 

[Mellotron]

 

[nwgull]

I'd like that to be true. But I'm 'meh' about it. It's just lone voices in Twitter.

Jon Ralston, a well-respected Nevada iournalist, does not seem to be saying the same thing. In terms of early voting by voters with registered affiliation, the Reps are ahead. Obviously registered Reps can vote for Harris.

 

[Zeberdi]

There was no early voting with Brexit.

One of the main reasons I have some confidence is that all early actual quantifiable data looks pretty positive for Harris.

You are assuming that votes for each candidate have been counted - they haven’t. Just the number of voters. There is no way of telling who they voted for except by assuming that in States where you have to register an affiliation with a Party to vote, those that all registered with Republicans will vote Trump and all those that registered as Democrats, will vote Harris and then guess how many of those are swing voters - there is no onus on voting for the affiliated party so it is just not verifiable data.

Also, Republicans tend more to vote in person on Election day rather than mail in ballots - early voting in person is probably about even.

 

[bhafc99]

Indeed, the only thing (even though Trump won't believe it if he loses) that remains to be fact will be the actual votes now....

Actual votes are pretty irrelevant in Trump’s dodgy plan to fiddle the Electoral College.

 

[Mellotron]

You are assuming that votes for each candidate have been counted - they haven’t. Just the number of voters. There is no way of telling who they voted for except by assuming that in States where you have to register an affiliation with a Party to vote, those that all registered with Republicans will vote Trump and all those that registered as Democrats, will vote Harris and then guess how many of those are swing voters - there is no onus on voting for the affiliated party so it is just not verifiable data.

Also, Republicans tend more to vote in person on Election day rather than mail in ballots - early voting in person is probably about even.

I’m fully aware of all of this.

I haven’t assumed the votes have been counted for each candidate at all.

 

[Triggaaar]

Jon Ralston, a well-respected Nevada iournalist, does not seem to be saying the same thing. In terms of early voting by voters with registered affiliation, the Reps are ahead. Obviously registered Reps can vote for Harris.

Well someone's very wrong then. How do we find the truth?

 

[Eeyore]

Well someone's very wrong then. How do we find the truth?

I'll let you know Wednesday. Absolutely. 100% I have SAUCES.

 

[knocky1]

Well someone's very wrong then. How do we find the truth?

Ask Musk's America PAC to knock on every voter's door in the USA to find out.
5 minute job.

 

[Mellotron]

The thread behind the prediction is interesting

 

[Greg Bobkin]

Jeez! How many more days of this predictive guesswork bollocks?!