How long is it going to take the "common man" to sort out that what the billionaires want ain't what the rest of us need - they can only pick one or the other to vote for. 3 Billionaires Have Largely Funded Republican Nominee for Wisconsin Governor - The New York Times 92%!
The sad little playground bullies who make up the Republican party are turning on each other (with a truly hilarious lack of self-awarness). https://www.politico.com/news/2026/...-focused-on-helping-gop-win-midterms-01106033
I’m trying to keep a level head but the Senate Leadership Fund (Republican Senate Super PAC) pulling all their money from North Carolina and putting it in Kansas and other bits of evidence are pushing me to think this really could be a wave.
Not sure. For the last several election cycles, polls have almost always underestimated the Republican results. I'll believe the results when I see them. And I'll believe that the current administration will accept those results and allow them to be applied when I see that.
Yam Tits had a rally this evening to try propping up Tampaxton and he was interrupted at least seven times by hecklers and protesters inside the venue. BTW, Wheels skipped the rally, claiming a scheduling conflict.
Did he manage to get through it without making fun of Paxton's appearance? That's been one of the more oddball things lately in his ongoing descent into senility ...
As I said I am trying to keep my hopes in check but in the Trump era it has mostly been the Presidential elections where there was significant polling errors for Republicans. Midterms have (on the aggregate been pretty accurate):
His punditry, yes. But his math still maths. It’s ironic because the whole reason he got famous was his disregard for punditry and popular wisdom to focus just on the math. Which then elevated him to a pundit, LOL.
He's dead to me forever. There are some horrors too egregious to ever be forgiven. Redemption can never come for one such as him. Not ever.
You mean like his math that got 2016 wrong? Or the math that’s caused him to burn through a bunch of money gambling? I’m not saying he’s claiming something so that he can rack up a big win on Polymarket by betting against it, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
It’s not his fault people don’t understand how odds work. When he predicted that Hillary had a 64% chance of winning (compared to everyone else who had her in the 90s) the fact that Trump won didn’t mean Silver was wrong. Thats not how odds work. As to the above graph it is a simple average of the polls 21 days out v the results on Election Day. Much more straightforward than a prediction.
If you actually read Silver's article rather than the headline tweet, he's HEAVILY caveating the headline, to the point it may as well be "this might be happening or could be a blip". There are only three presidential elections in the dataset, all involving Trump, so it's impossible to distinguish a general polling bias from a Trump-specific effect. And averaging hundreds of polls doesn't give you hundreds of independent observations when they're all subject to the same election-level errors. There's also no indication of uncertainty around those averages, and a mean error close to zero doesn't necessarily mean accurate polling — large errors in opposite directions can simply cancel out. It's an interesting observation worth investigating, but the graphic makes the evidence look considerably more conclusive than Silver himself admits it is. As a scientist, there's an issue with pseudoreplication here: Imagine you're testing whether a new fertiliser improves plant growth. You grow 100 plants in each of three greenhouses and measure all 300 plants. You might claim you've conducted 300 independent experiments. But you haven't. You've conducted three greenhouse experiments, each containing 100 plants. If one greenhouse is warmer, sunnier or better watered than the others, all 100 plants in it might grow better for reasons unrelated to the fertiliser. Measuring more plants doesn't eliminate that shared influence. That's essentially the problem with Silver's polling data - he's got hundreds of polls across three presidential elections, but if all the polls in a particular election were affected by the same underlying problem — for example, systematically underestimating turnout among Trump supporters — they aren't hundreds of independent pieces of evidence that polling generally favours Democrats. Silver kinda mentions this by saying “Well, maybe not much, because that’s hard to distinguish from random variation.” and his coin-toss analogy, but the chart doesn't take the issue into account, it assumes it doesn't exist. He's done some arse-covering in the article, but the tweet is deliberately provocative - some might even say... punditry.
By that logic, you could argue that if he’d predicted that Hillary had a 99% chance of winning, only for her to still lose, he did nothing wrong because his model allowed for a chance of Trump winning.
This shit box is terrified of the mid-terms. He clearly wants to start some shit before the elections.
Yeah, Maine has had Somali immigrants for 25+ years, and we're a smoking crater, and we're all dead. I'm dead right now. You've been talking to a spooky ghost all these years. Oooooooo!!!! Ain't the internet something? Tell your grandkids about this day.
Yep, just like what these fucknuggets have been doing with the Haitians in Springfield, Ohio. I've been there, and JD Vance is so full of shit. Most of the people living there like the Haitian community and welcome them there as part of it. Yet even here in the part of Ohio where I live, there were people claiming they had seen Haitians in Springfield eating the dogs and the cats, never providing one shred of evidence of it being true. I suspect similar things are happening in Minneapolis, and in other places where there is a large immigrant population who happen to have brown skin. Trump has to fan the flames of our, unfortunately, significant and deep rooted xenophobia because he knows, as I'm sure others in the party know, that the internals are probably looking bad. His popularity is at an all time low, the lowest in history, so he's lashing out. We should view anyone who supports Trump as being collaborators in bigotry and violence. There is no reasonable MAGA conservative, there is no reasonable Trump voter, and people are going to have to keep that in mind when they see these ghouls, and when they walk into the voting booth in November.
I don't know the ins and outs of how he did his modeling then, but I do remember that he'd accurately pegged the states that would be key in the election. One of which was Florida, the others were WI and PA, with a third one. His claim was that if Trump lost Florida, he could still win the election by winning those three states. Now, it's pretty rare in US Presidential elections for a candidate to lose his home state. Yes, yes, yes, Trump was officially a resident of NY at the time, but let's face it, there was no way in hell that Trump was going to win NY. Florida? The odds would have been in Trump's favor, given that state's voting history. (Surely we all remember the 2000 election, right?) Once FL went for Trump, it was basically over for Hillary. She had to take WI, PA, and whatever that other state was. She didn't. Steve Bannon, in the days before the election, was pointing out that national polling had Hillary winning the popular vote, but when you looked at state-by-state polling, Trump was heavily favored to win the Electoral College, which is what counts when it comes to the Presidential election. Remember, Silver doesn't just look at all the polls and average them together to come up with his projections. He weights the polls, giving more credibility to those that he thinks are more accurate than those that he thinks are less accurate. There's some merit to that, but there's also problems with that as well. For example, since the rise of people ditching landlines for cellphones, polling has gotten less and less accurate across the board. I'm a bit of an early adopter, so I can't be seen as "normal," but I'd ditched my landline by like '06, maybe even a year or two earlier. The iPhone was nearly a decade old by '16, and lots more folks had dropped their landline by that point, and I think that even as early as '12 folks like Silver were saying the switch away from landlines was making polling unreliable. That makes weighting polls a lot trickier, because even if a poll was highly accurate during the previous election cycle, doesn't mean that it would be accurate during the next. Also, remember that Silver said that there was nothing wrong with how he modeled his predictions, because it allowed for the possibility of Trump winning. Okay, but he still got it wrong. This means that there's a problem. Maybe it's with the way that polling is conducted, or maybe it's something that he did, but if his model can't take into account the possibility that there's problems with polling in a way that more accurately reflects the outcome of the election, then I'd say that it was flawed. Remember, he didn't say that the election would be close (which it was), or that Hillary stood a better chance of winning the popular vote than the Electoral College, he said that there was a 70% chance she'd be our next President. If he'd put Hillary's chances of winning at closer to 50%, I think people would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt when Trump won. But to be off by 20%? Well, that's a bit much. Especially when individual polls claim to have a margin of error of around +/- 5%. Or to put it another way, if a doc told you that a loved one had a 70% chance of surviving surgery, only for that loved one to die during surgery, would you say, "Well, the doc allowed for the possibility that something could go wrong, so no biggie"? Or would you say, "Hmm. Perhaps the doc isn't very good at their job because they must have missed something and that's why they gave the estimate that they did." Notice I'm not saying the doc's incompetent, I'm allowing for the possibility that there could have been an underlying condition they didn't know about. But wouldn't you expect the doc to say something along the lines of, "I'm terribly sorry, I must have missed something before the surgery that would have indicated there could be larger problems"?
Yep. It's the Trump Trash factor: The low-information, low-propensity voters who don't respond to polls and don't generally vote at all, but will crawl out from under their rocks for their Lord and Savior Trump — but for nobody else.
Un-interference is interference to these fuckers? Of course it is. They'd call arresting the Hamburglar "cutting off supply chains".
Jack Kimble is the greatest and most patriotic politician in the US, if you think he's done something wrong you're clearly mistaken.
