I’m sure this is interesting data, but the GIF with fading transitions moving that quickly is rather useless.
It should be noted that this is the RCP projection, and the 538 projection and Nate Silver’s independent projection have both stayed around 50/50
Showing time in animated form is lazy and unclear. That’s just a bad graph.
A simple two time state, before and after, would suffice to get the point across.
Awful graph, awful gif, awful post
We can’t trust the polls cause Trump has a lot of people who will vote for him that are too afraid to admit it, just like when he went against Hillary
Beautiful my ass, it’s impossible to tell when it starts and when it finishes and look at the difference in distributions at the same time
it is insane how close it is it is beyond comprehension that you would think Trump should be president. I wouldn’t trust him running a Burger King.
this means Less-Than-Nothing
I remember CNN using polls and saying Clinton was going to win a landslide…
I kinda get what this chart is saying but I’m not sure about two parts: the purple line and what is the median in this case – or why is the median needed?
This is neat, but the data you’re using probably inflates Harris’s odds a little. During this period I think both 538 and Silver have had her around 60%. Should nothing change, regression will increase her chances as we get closer to Election Day, though.
“Statewide polls” – Which state? This seems like important information to just leave out.
I remember when polls showed a 99% victory for Hillary
This is gonna be the longest five weeks ever.
text almost unreadable and impossible to put into context
That doesn’t really fit with RCP’s website, which, right at this moment, gives Trump 281 EVs. So… uh, how did you find your way to the reverse in Harris’ favour as a median? What was your methodology, and how does it differ from RCP’s to arrive at opposite “conclusions”?
Hillary was ahead at this point too.
The only poll that matters is on election day.
Let’s revisit this around Nov 12th or so?
Not beautiful and predictions mean nothing
Donald Trump has historically out performed the polls. So what I’m curious about is do these predictions have those same old projections techniques used? Or did they correct their data collection techniques to be more accurate?
It would be beautiful if the red had zero chance. How do people support a rapist that tried to overthrow the America.
I either don’t understand how national polling works, or I don’t understand why pollsters don’t weigh state polls by EC votes when reporting national polls. Per the New York Times, the gap between VP Harris and Pres. Trump is, on average, 3% in Harris’ favor. But I don’t get what that means in terms of answering the question “if the election were to happen today who would you vote for”. This is a *faaaaar* better representation of the trends.
I understand everyone’s gripes that the data is too fast, but I like it this way. I don’t necessarily want to see individual numbers, I want to see what the trend qualitatively is.
I don’t get to vote in this election.
Does this account for ratf*cking?
Do it with an aggregate of polls.
Cause currently every battleground state is trending 1-2% Trump. Which is a very different result than this gif
I’m sure the comments will be very civil and open-minded
If you compare the first and last frame you will see that there is the slightest of shifts towards Harris, easily within the margin of error. Maybe you want to plot the average over time in a static chart instead to highlight trends.
These polls do not mean anything trump lost in 2016 and yet was still crowned president by the “electoral college”.
Still too close. Get out an vote.
Okay, but does this factor in all the voter suppression, jerrymandering, state level corruption, USPS corruption and the silent majority?
Some made up data from some nobody somewhere getting paid to make up data
You think imma tell a reporting company who imma vote for before I vote? No, I think I’ll keep it to myself.
Anyone trusting polls right now is insane.
If any video shouldn’t repeat this is it.
Killary Rotten Clinton had a >90% chance of winning prior to the 2016 election.
The fact it is even close is disgusting. How anyone (even my father) can support a treasonous convicted felon baffles me.
Feels like I’m looking at bacteria under a microscope.
I can’t tell if the fading is where the bars are growing to or where they were.
I feel like the title should be “polling errors over time”
I’m curious why Democrats think Harris has a strong chance of winning the election – feel free to explain your position I am open to another perspective.
Here’s the way I see it: Let’s be honest, election results most often come down to identity politics and popularity. Given the past four years have not been particularly strong economically, I think policies will be overshadowed.
Note: Last time Trump went up against a woman… he won. When Trump went against another man… he lost.
Why might this be? Simple. A male democrat will pull over more male swing voters than a female democrat. It’s also important to acknowledge that both opposing candidates to Trump have been white. In order for Democrats to win the election they need to sway male and female white voters. Biden was able to sway enough of these voters and Clinton was not. Probably because Clinton did not win over as many white male voters as Biden.
I’m terms of notoriety and pedigree 2016 Hilary Clinton soars over Kamala Harris and because of this, I don’t think there is any reason to believe Kamala Harris will outperform Hilary Clinton in an election. Clinton was a very well known politician going into the 2016 election. She was 3rd in command (and really probably #2) for the 8 year Obama administration, one of the most successful Democrat administrations in history, definitely the most successful in recent history.
Kamala Harris on the other hand is the #2 to an only 4 year, weak Democrat administration. She was relatively unknown prior to her nomination as Biden’s running mate and her struggles in the 2020 Democrat primary illustrates this.
Trump received 12 million additional votes in 2020 than he did in 2016. This means Trump became more popular after the 2016 election. Since he’s no longer a sitting president he may not perform as well as in 2020. Still, he’s more well-known now than he was in 2016.
Voters want a president who is a strong, smart, and compassionate leader, not someone who depends on lies, conspiracy theories, and abject self-pity as their message. Therefore, Harris is the only qualified choice for president. Period.
Ordinary reminder that polls don’t vote – people do! You need to make sure you show up and vote, regardless of affiliation – otherwise you’re letting someone else make one of the most important decisions of your life.
Don’t forget Hillary. The odds based on polls were better for her to win.
![[OC] How Electoral Votes distribution evolved in the past month according to statewide polls](https://www.europesays.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/0pk9j9qoyqsd1.gif)
44 comments
Source: [RealClearPolls.com](http://RealClearPolls.com) – Tools: MATLAB
I’m sure this is interesting data, but the GIF with fading transitions moving that quickly is rather useless.
It should be noted that this is the RCP projection, and the 538 projection and Nate Silver’s independent projection have both stayed around 50/50
Showing time in animated form is lazy and unclear. That’s just a bad graph.
A simple two time state, before and after, would suffice to get the point across.
Awful graph, awful gif, awful post
We can’t trust the polls cause Trump has a lot of people who will vote for him that are too afraid to admit it, just like when he went against Hillary
Beautiful my ass, it’s impossible to tell when it starts and when it finishes and look at the difference in distributions at the same time
it is insane how close it is it is beyond comprehension that you would think Trump should be president. I wouldn’t trust him running a Burger King.
this means Less-Than-Nothing
I remember CNN using polls and saying Clinton was going to win a landslide…
I kinda get what this chart is saying but I’m not sure about two parts: the purple line and what is the median in this case – or why is the median needed?
This is neat, but the data you’re using probably inflates Harris’s odds a little. During this period I think both 538 and Silver have had her around 60%. Should nothing change, regression will increase her chances as we get closer to Election Day, though.
“Statewide polls” – Which state? This seems like important information to just leave out.
I remember when polls showed a 99% victory for Hillary
This is gonna be the longest five weeks ever.
text almost unreadable and impossible to put into context
That doesn’t really fit with RCP’s website, which, right at this moment, gives Trump 281 EVs. So… uh, how did you find your way to the reverse in Harris’ favour as a median? What was your methodology, and how does it differ from RCP’s to arrive at opposite “conclusions”?
Hillary was ahead at this point too.
The only poll that matters is on election day.
Let’s revisit this around Nov 12th or so?
Not beautiful and predictions mean nothing
Donald Trump has historically out performed the polls. So what I’m curious about is do these predictions have those same old projections techniques used? Or did they correct their data collection techniques to be more accurate?
It would be beautiful if the red had zero chance. How do people support a rapist that tried to overthrow the America.
I either don’t understand how national polling works, or I don’t understand why pollsters don’t weigh state polls by EC votes when reporting national polls. Per the New York Times, the gap between VP Harris and Pres. Trump is, on average, 3% in Harris’ favor. But I don’t get what that means in terms of answering the question “if the election were to happen today who would you vote for”.
This is a *faaaaar* better representation of the trends.
I understand everyone’s gripes that the data is too fast, but I like it this way. I don’t necessarily want to see individual numbers, I want to see what the trend qualitatively is.
I don’t get to vote in this election.
Does this account for ratf*cking?
Do it with an aggregate of polls.
Cause currently every battleground state is trending 1-2% Trump. Which is a very different result than this gif
I’m sure the comments will be very civil and open-minded
If you compare the first and last frame you will see that there is the slightest of shifts towards Harris, easily within the margin of error. Maybe you want to plot the average over time in a static chart instead to highlight trends.
These polls do not mean anything trump lost in 2016 and yet was still crowned president by the “electoral college”.
Still too close. Get out an vote.
Okay, but does this factor in all the voter suppression, jerrymandering, state level corruption, USPS corruption and the silent majority?
Some made up data from some nobody somewhere getting paid to make up data
You think imma tell a reporting company who imma vote for before I vote? No, I think I’ll keep it to myself.
Anyone trusting polls right now is insane.
If any video shouldn’t repeat this is it.
Killary Rotten Clinton had a >90% chance of winning prior to the 2016 election.
The fact it is even close is disgusting. How anyone (even my father) can support a treasonous convicted felon baffles me.
Feels like I’m looking at bacteria under a microscope.
I can’t tell if the fading is where the bars are growing to or where they were.
I feel like the title should be “polling errors over time”
I’m curious why Democrats think Harris has a strong chance of winning the election – feel free to explain your position I am open to another perspective.
Here’s the way I see it:
Let’s be honest, election results most often come down to identity politics and popularity. Given the past four years have not been particularly strong economically, I think policies will be overshadowed.
Note: Last time Trump went up against a woman… he won.
When Trump went against another man… he lost.
Why might this be? Simple. A male democrat will pull over more male swing voters than a female democrat.
It’s also important to acknowledge that both opposing candidates to Trump have been white. In order for Democrats to win the election they need to sway male and female white voters. Biden was able to sway enough of these voters and Clinton was not. Probably because Clinton did not win over as many white male voters as Biden.
I’m terms of notoriety and pedigree 2016 Hilary Clinton soars over Kamala Harris and because of this, I don’t think there is any reason to believe Kamala Harris will outperform Hilary Clinton in an election. Clinton was a very well known politician going into the 2016 election. She was 3rd in command (and really probably #2) for the 8 year Obama administration, one of the most successful Democrat administrations in history, definitely the most successful in recent history.
Kamala Harris on the other hand is the #2 to an only 4 year, weak Democrat administration. She was relatively unknown prior to her nomination as Biden’s running mate and her struggles in the 2020 Democrat primary illustrates this.
Trump received 12 million additional votes in 2020 than he did in 2016. This means Trump became more popular after the 2016 election. Since he’s no longer a sitting president he may not perform as well as in 2020. Still, he’s more well-known now than he was in 2016.
Voters want a president who is a strong, smart, and compassionate leader, not someone who depends on lies, conspiracy theories, and abject self-pity as their message. Therefore, Harris is the only qualified choice for president. Period.
Ordinary reminder that polls don’t vote – people do! You need to make sure you show up and vote, regardless of affiliation – otherwise you’re letting someone else make one of the most important decisions of your life.
Don’t forget Hillary. The odds based on polls were better for her to win.
Vote.
https://vote.gov
spent way too long wondering what the fuck electric vehicles had anything to do with the election.