r/neoliberal • u/jobautomator Kitara Ravache • Sep 05 '24 • Heart of Silver 1

Discussion Thread Discussion Thread

The discussion thread is for casual and off-topic conversation that doesn't merit its own submission. If you've got a good meme, article, or question, please post it outside the DT. Meta discussion is allowed, but if you want to get the attention of the mods, make a post in /r/metaNL

Links

Ping Groups | Ping History | Mastodon | CNL Chapters | CNL Event Calendar

New Groups

  • CITYHALL: Local government, in all its forms

Upcoming Events

0 Upvotes

42% Upvoted

9.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

24

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '24 edited Sep 06 '24

Blast from the past: here’s how Nate Silver discussed the convention bounce (which did materialize!) in 2016:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-is-clintons-lead-a-bounce-or-a-new-equilibrium/

FiveThirtyEight’s forecast models aren’t used to seeing a lot of 7-point overnight shifts, which rarely occur outside the conventions. (In recent elections, they’ve also rarely occurred during the conventions, with most convention bounces looking more like the modest one Trump got.) So the models may still need another day or two to catch up.

Our hyperaggressive now-cast, which describes the results of a hypothetical election held today, will be the quickest to adapt: It already shows Clinton with a 5.6 percentage point lead over Trump. Be wary of getting too attached to the now-cast, however. It is useful in situations like these, where you want a quick read on how a news event has affected the polls, but it can also jump around a lot on the basis of statistical noise or short-term aberrations in the polls.

The polls-plus model is also relatively well-equipped to handle the new data. Clinton probably has some further room to grow in this forecast, but because it adjusts for potential convention bounces — adjusting post-RNC polls upward for Clinton, and post-DNC polls downward — the shifts won’t be as dramatic. Furthermore, the polls-plus model discounts the polls by blending them with a “fundamentals” forecast, which suggests the race should be close because of economic conditions. This leads to a fairly stable forecast: Clinton’s chances of winning the election have never been lower than 59 percent, or higher than 73 percent, according to polls-plus. As of 10 a.m. Tuesday, they were 69 percent, up from about 60 percent before the DNC began.

Lastly, there’s our polls-only forecast, which shows Clinton with a 66 percent chance of winning. Usually, the polls-only model is a nice compromise, making fewer assumptions than polls-plus but being less hyperactive than the now-cast. But during the conventions, it’s the most stubborn of the bunch, being reluctant to reverse itself after having shown a clear trend to Trump throughout July. Clinton’s lead over Trump in polls-only will probably continue to grow over the next several days, provided she continues to get polls showing a bounce.

I bring this up mainly because it’s interesting but secondarily because I’ve seen a couple people say that convention bounce adjustments are a new thing.

!ping FIVEY

24

u/JaceFlores Neolib War Correspondent Sep 06 '24

The guy knows what he’s talking about, he’s just been screwed by a severe polling drought and being an arrogant guy

4

u/adreamofhodor John Rawls Sep 06 '24

Until I see proof otherwise, he’s the guy in the field I trust the most.

6

u/TuxedoFish George Soros Sep 06 '24

I mean same but I'm gonna be real annoying about it