Kamala Harris Predicted to Win By Nearly Every Major Forecaster

IBDaMann

IBDaMann

Well-known member

newsweek-desktop-tablet.svg

Kamala Harris Predicted to Win By Nearly Every Major Forecaster​

Published Nov 05, 2024 at 12:06 PM EST / Updated Nov 06, 2024 at 12:17 AM EST

By Martha McHardy
US News Reporter

As polls open, Vice President Kamala Harris is predicted to win the election by almost every major forecaster.

Nate Silver's latest forecast now gives Harris a slight edge in the Electoral College, projecting her with a 50 percent chance of victory compared to former President Donald Trump's 49.6 percent. The model shows Harris securing 271 Electoral College votes to Trump's 267.

This marks a shift from Silver's earlier predictions, where Trump held a narrow advantage. On Monday, Silver's forecast favored Trump with a 50.4 percent chance to Harris's 49.2 percent, and the day prior, Trump had a 52.6 percent likelihood of winning to Harris's 47 percent.

Other aggregators echo the close race but similarly give Harris a small advantage. FiveThirtyEight currently projects her with a 50 percent chance of winning, forecasting 270 Electoral College votes for Harris to Trump's 268.

Meanwhile, U.K. newspaper The Economist predicts that Harris will win 276 votes to Trump's 262—a scenario also reflected by forecaster Larry Sabato. Race to the White House predicts she will win 275 electoral votes.

Her largest win is predicted by CNanalysis, which forecasts that the vice president will win 308 Electoral College votes to Trump's 230, giving Harris a 70 percent of winning.

The only forecasters that show Trump is predicted to win are DecisionDeskHQ, which shows that Trump is projected to win 276 votes to Harris' 262, and J.L. Partners, which shows the former president will win 287 Electoral College votes to Harris' 251. DecisionDeskHQ shows Trump has a 54 percent chance of winning, while J.L. Partners shows he has a 60 percent chance of winning.

Newsweek has contacted the Harris and Trump campaigns for comment via email.

Since Harris became the Democratic nominee for president in late July, polls have been close, with Harris taking the lead for most of August and September, but at the beginning of October, the vice president saw her chances plunge as Trump made gains in crucial battleground states. Since then, the race has been virtually tied.

Recent polls show the candidates within just 1 and 2 points of each other. For example, AtlasIntel's latest poll, conducted between November 3 and 4, shows that Trump is leading by 1 point, while Research Co.'s latest poll, conducted between November 2 and 3, shows Harris ahead by 2 points.

In both polls, the candidate's lead is within the margin of error. Harris and Trump are also within 1 and 2 points of each other in every swing state, according to FiveThirtyEight and Nate Silver.
 
It's almost as if "nearly every major forecaster" are Democrats engaging in manipulative press releases rather than any sort of "forecasting" (or honesty).............
 
gfm7175 said:
It's almost as if "nearly every major forecaster" are Democrats engaging in manipulative press releases rather than any sort of "forecasting" (or honesty).............
Click to expand...
No, it's a failure of the polling process. In a world of smart phones, polling by phone no longer is an accurate reflection of how people in a particular area feel about anything. Today, people that move--and much of American society moves every few years--take their phone, and phone number, with them.

What this means is pollsters trying to poll say, New Yorkers, might well be polling people living in Florida, Texas, or Arizona who moved from New York but kept their phone number. The other problem is people can see who's calling and many may just ignore the call meaning you aren't getting a true random sample.

Thus, it is likely that polls are now off by several times the claimed sample error. If you add in that as you move Right politically, you're likely to find people don't want to respond to pollsters and simply won't answer their messages or calls.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
No, it's a failure of the polling process. In a world of smart phones, polling by phone no longer is an accurate reflection of how people in a particular area feel about anything. Today, people that move--and much of American society moves every few years--take their phone, and phone number, with them.

What this means is pollsters trying to poll say, New Yorkers, might well be polling people living in Florida, Texas, or Arizona who moved from New York but kept their phone number. The other problem is people can see who's calling and many may just ignore the call meaning you aren't getting a true random sample.

Thus, it is likely that polls are now off by several times the claimed sample error. If you add in that as you move Right politically, you're likely to find people don't want to respond to pollsters and simply won't answer their messages or calls.
Click to expand...

We actually agree here.

I don't think it's some intentional thing. It's just hard to poll now. I'm not sure what the fix is, really.
 
BartenderElite said:
We actually agree here.

I don't think it's some intentional thing. It's just hard to poll now. I'm not sure what the fix is, really.
Click to expand...
Well, when I was in college, one of the classes I took in statistics included sampling systems. Political polls--and a big chunk of other polls--are run by area code, zip code, and on a county basis in the US. All of that was developed over decades where these were stable things. Your phone was a landline, and mobility wasn't off the hook frequent like it is today.

With counties, the massive movement of people into western states with huge counties represents a shift from decades ago where population was mostly centered in small counties in eastern states. Arizona has counties that are larger than some New England area states. The problem comes when the sample size is by county. Let's say your sample is 100 persons per county. In Arizona you might sample 500 to 1000 people over the entire state. Back East, that sample could occur within a large urban area of a state leaving 80% unsampled.

Area codes are nearly meaningless today since everyone tends to just keep their phone number. There's really no longer a way to look up who lives in a particular city by phone number. The days of something like a phone book are dead and gone. Some people change phone numbers like they change clothes too. Buy a new phone, get a new phone number...

Zip codes and mailing addresses still will work, if you can get that information on the group to be polled.

I'd say it's going to be a decade or more before it gets sorted out if it even does.
 
gfm7175 said:
It's almost as if "nearly every major forecaster" are Democrats engaging in manipulative press releases rather than any sort of "forecasting" (or honesty).............
Click to expand...
It's the perfect jab at Trump. "Ha! You're not going to win, nanny-nanny-boo-boo!" The best part is that it's like screaming "RACIST!" or "HITLER!", it never gets old.

 
BartenderElite said:
I don't think it's some intentional thing.
Click to expand...
... but it is. All polls now are identical to "studies." People and organizations pay money for particular poll results in order to sway opinion and to motivate with false hope that is assumed to be true.

Polls are entirely underhanded. Just like we don't have news anymore (only leftist propaganda), we no longer have polls either. We only have disinformation in the form of fake news and fake polls.

BartenderElite said:
It's just hard to poll now.
Click to expand...
There is absolutely no intention to poll honestly. There is only the full intention of providing the paying customer the desired poll results.

BartenderElite said:
I'm not sure what the fix is, really.
Click to expand...
Start your own polling agency, always be honest, don't work for hire, and put everyone else out of business when you are discovered to be the only accurate pollster in existence.

I trust that you read the Newsweek article showing how virtually all election forecasters relied on all the fake polls that were selling false hope to Democrat voters, how they therefore all arrived at the same conclusion that predicted a Kamala win, and you can see how they all ate crow just as they all did in 2016.

All of them. You can put them all out of business and achieve the wealth of the Incas.
 
IBDaMann said:

newsweek-desktop-tablet.svg

Kamala Harris Predicted to Win By Nearly Every Major Forecaster​

Published Nov 05, 2024 at 12:06 PM EST / Updated Nov 06, 2024 at 12:17 AM EST

By Martha McHardy
US News Reporter

As polls open, Vice President Kamala Harris is predicted to win the election by almost every major forecaster.

Nate Silver's latest forecast now gives Harris a slight edge in the Electoral College, projecting her with a 50 percent chance of victory compared to former President Donald Trump's 49.6 percent. The model shows Harris securing 271 Electoral College votes to Trump's 267.

This marks a shift from Silver's earlier predictions, where Trump held a narrow advantage. On Monday, Silver's forecast favored Trump with a 50.4 percent chance to Harris's 49.2 percent, and the day prior, Trump had a 52.6 percent likelihood of winning to Harris's 47 percent.

Other aggregators echo the close race but similarly give Harris a small advantage. FiveThirtyEight currently projects her with a 50 percent chance of winning, forecasting 270 Electoral College votes for Harris to Trump's 268.

Meanwhile, U.K. newspaper The Economist predicts that Harris will win 276 votes to Trump's 262—a scenario also reflected by forecaster Larry Sabato. Race to the White House predicts she will win 275 electoral votes.

Her largest win is predicted by CNanalysis, which forecasts that the vice president will win 308 Electoral College votes to Trump's 230, giving Harris a 70 percent of winning.

The only forecasters that show Trump is predicted to win are DecisionDeskHQ, which shows that Trump is projected to win 276 votes to Harris' 262, and J.L. Partners, which shows the former president will win 287 Electoral College votes to Harris' 251. DecisionDeskHQ shows Trump has a 54 percent chance of winning, while J.L. Partners shows he has a 60 percent chance of winning.

Newsweek has contacted the Harris and Trump campaigns for comment via email.

Since Harris became the Democratic nominee for president in late July, polls have been close, with Harris taking the lead for most of August and September, but at the beginning of October, the vice president saw her chances plunge as Trump made gains in crucial battleground states. Since then, the race has been virtually tied.

Recent polls show the candidates within just 1 and 2 points of each other. For example, AtlasIntel's latest poll, conducted between November 3 and 4, shows that Trump is leading by 1 point, while Research Co.'s latest poll, conducted between November 2 and 3, shows Harris ahead by 2 points.

In both polls, the candidate's lead is within the margin of error. Harris and Trump are also within 1 and 2 points of each other in every swing state, according to FiveThirtyEight and Nate Silver.
Click to expand...
Lie, majority of pollsters and forecasters predict a close election, all within a margin of victory

Amazing how Trumpkins can’t even accept winning, still playing the martyr
 
archives said:
Lie, majority of pollsters and forecasters predict a close election, all within a margin of victory Amazing how Trumpkins can’t even accept winning, still playing the martyr
Click to expand...
That was Newsweek's article. You are are still unhinged from Trump's victory; your meltdown will probably last a few weeks.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
No, it's a failure of the polling process.
Click to expand...
I have to respectfully disagree. Any "failure of the polling process" by 'nearly every major forecaster' is 100% intentional, being done by Democrats, and is meant to manipulate public opinion. There is no logical way to explain away why 'nearly every major forecaster' ALWAYS "misses" in a manner that shows more support for Democrats than there actually is. If these "misses" were genuine misses, then they would also (just as often) miss in the opposite direction (showing more support for Republicans than there actually is). There are VERY FEW forecasters who will miss in such a manner.

You will also notice that they follow a general pattern of severely inflating Democrat support (especially during the Summer) and then "herding" (closer to reality) a few weeks before (s)election day. It's not a "failure of the polling process"; it's done intentionally with the intent to manipulate public opinion.
 
archives said:
Lie, majority of pollsters and forecasters predict a close election, all within a margin of victory

Amazing how Trumpkins can’t even accept winning, still playing the martyr
Click to expand...
Winning was thrust upon us. You morons lost big.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
No, it's a failure of the polling process.
Click to expand...
Also, how about that Ann Selzer "Dem +3" "poll" in Iowa??? :rofl2:

Trump ended up winning Iowa by 13 points btw, so Ann "missed" that one by SIXTEEN POINTS ... You can't tell me that's not being done intentionally........

Since when has any pollster ever missed in favor of Republicans by 16 points??
 
archives said:
Lie, majority of pollsters and forecasters predict a close election, all within a margin of victory

Amazing how Trumpkins can’t even accept winning, still playing the martyr
Click to expand...
:lies:

How about the Ann Selzer "Dem +3" poll in Iowa??? How much did Trump win Iowa by again??? 13 points??? So she "missed" her own state by SIXTEEN POINTS??? I'm sure that was just an honest mistake....... :rolleyes:
 
gfm7175 said:
I have to respectfully disagree. Any "failure of the polling process" by 'nearly every major forecaster' is 100% intentional, being done by Democrats, and is meant to manipulate public opinion. There is no logical way to explain away why 'nearly every major forecaster' ALWAYS "misses" in a manner that shows more support for Democrats than there actually is. If these "misses" were genuine misses, then they would also (just as often) miss in the opposite direction (showing more support for Republicans than there actually is). There are VERY FEW forecasters who will miss in such a manner.

You will also notice that they follow a general pattern of severely inflating Democrat support (especially during the Summer) and then "herding" (closer to reality) a few weeks before (s)election day. It's not a "failure of the polling process"; it's done intentionally with the intent to manipulate public opinion.
Click to expand...
I can't see that sort or level of collusion. There are simply too many pollsters out there. What they share in common is the methodologies they use to get their numbers. If the data and methods of parsing it are fucked up, then the results are fucked up. Garbage in, garbage out. Now there are some, not all but some, that skew their polls by over- or under-representing groups in their sample. The honest ones list such things. The questionable ones don't.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I can't see that sort or level of collusion. There are simply too many pollsters out there. What they share in common is the methodologies they use to get their numbers. If the data and methods of parsing it are fucked up, then the results are fucked up. Garbage in, garbage out. Now there are some, not all but some, that skew their polls by over- or under-representing groups in their sample. The honest ones list such things. The questionable ones don't.
Click to expand...
If all the various media outlets can collude with each other, then all the various polling firms can do it too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top