3 ms·

Never heard of this company before. LinkedIn shows five employees, most of whom joined in 2024 and a company founded ding in 2023. Seems pretty unlikely that th

Never heard of this company before. LinkedIn shows five employees, most of whom joined in 2024 and a company founded ding in 2023. Seems pretty unlikely that this group has identified a blowout that all the bigger and far more experienced players refuse to point to - could be wrong, of course, and maybe they've got a brand new model that is best in class, but seems unlikely.

dragontamer 2y ago
All polls have numerous corrections, as simple random sampling is basically impossible. The way polls actually work is that they build up the "typical voter" (a graph of race, ethnicity, age, past behaviors, etc. etc.), and then sample those groups, and then add up the numbers at the end. This is the dirty truth about polling, its impossible to get clean data so these "cleanup" steps have substantial room for errors. Worse: pollsters talk to each other, meaning a lot of them share methodologies. So we're likely to see every pollster make the same mistake in the same direction. Its just the nature of how communication works. --------- This blogpost has numerous claims: 1. Senate Race predicts the Presidential race -- It looks like everyone's senate race numbers match up. But the typical media have 2. Independent voters -- I dunno about this one. I can believe its true, but I'm not seeing how they picked out (or the methodology) behind independent voters. I've also witnessed a lot of behavior where my friends tell me they're independent but then suddenly spout off extreme political viewpoints. I don't understand why people like to pretend they're independent, but... if they do that kind of make-believe or pretend to a pollster, the independent vote number will be wrong. So the argument almost entirely lies on the Senate vs Presidential race numbers. So there-in lies the question. Are we about to see unprescedented levels of split ticket votes, and are they all going to be for Trump for President / Democrat for Senate? That.... seems unlikely to me. The Senate Race correlation with the Presidential race is a very strong argument to me. At least within my social circle, I cannot imagine anyone voting for a Democrat in the Senate but Trump for President. ------- So the blogpost's argument is that we use this new metric (ie: Senate polls) and try to calculate out the correlation to the Presidential race. Its... a new theory but one that I can largely get behind. I have to imagine that the people are reasonably consistent between Senate Races and Presidential Races with regards to party affiliation.
015a 2y ago
You're probably right (and I do use the term "probably" in a rigorous way to mean, statistically, when there are 10 pollsters and 1 reports different data, they are statistically less likely to be correct). However: Many would have said the same thing about Nate Silver in 2008 or the minority of pollsters which predicted a Trump win in 2016. The political landscape is in increasingly uncharted waters right now.

dragontamer 2y ago

All polls have numerous corrections, as simple random sampling is basically impossible. The way polls actually work is that they build up the "typical voter" (a graph of race, ethnicity, age, past behaviors, etc. etc.), and then sample those groups, and then add up the numbers at the end. This is the dirty truth about polling, its impossible to get clean data so these "cleanup" steps have substantial room for errors. Worse: pollsters talk to each other, meaning a lot of them share methodologies. So we're likely to see every pollster make the same mistake in the same direction. Its just the nature of how communication works. --------- This blogpost has numerous claims: 1. Senate Race predicts the Presidential race -- It looks like everyone's senate race numbers match up. But the typical media have 2. Independent voters -- I dunno about this one. I can believe its true, but I'm not seeing how they picked out (or the methodology) behind independent voters. I've also witnessed a lot of behavior where my friends tell me they're independent but then suddenly spout off extreme political viewpoints. I don't understand why people like to pretend they're independent, but... if they do that kind of make-believe or pretend to a pollster, the independent vote number will be wrong. So the argument almost entirely lies on the Senate vs Presidential race numbers. So there-in lies the question. Are we about to see unprescedented levels of split ticket votes, and are they all going to be for Trump for President / Democrat for Senate? That.... seems unlikely to me. The Senate Race correlation with the Presidential race is a very strong argument to me. At least within my social circle, I cannot imagine anyone voting for a Democrat in the Senate but Trump for President. ------- So the blogpost's argument is that we use this new metric (ie: Senate polls) and try to calculate out the correlation to the Presidential race. Its... a new theory but one that I can largely get behind. I have to imagine that the people are reasonably consistent between Senate Races and Presidential Races with regards to party affiliation.

015a 2y ago

You're probably right (and I do use the term "probably" in a rigorous way to mean, statistically, when there are 10 pollsters and 1 reports different data, they are statistically less likely to be correct). However: Many would have said the same thing about Nate Silver in 2008 or the minority of pollsters which predicted a Trump win in 2016. The political landscape is in increasingly uncharted waters right now.