this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2026
70 points (90.7% liked)

politics

31708 readers
2623 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

"People, understandably, are having trouble believing in the polls," Nate Silver acknowledged to New York Times columnist Ezra Klein.

The post Nate Silver Suggests ‘Momentous’ Midterms Might Mark ‘the End of the Trump Era’ first appeared on Mediaite.

top 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] xxce2AAb@feddit.dk 8 points 6 days ago

Fuck hope. Get angry and vote.

[–] neclimdul@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago

oh are we listening to him again? i aint buying any of that copium again.

[–] Professorozone@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

I'd like to point out that in an interview where Nate Silver came out looking like an arrogant ass, he predicted Trump would lose the last election.

[–] leadore@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

“People, understandably, are having trouble believing in the polls,” Nate Silver acknowledged

Especially Nate Silver's interpretation of them.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

If so, I hope the media constantly and always mentions this, if not in the title, above the fold, in all articles related to donnie for the rest of his term.

[–] mrmaplebar@fedia.io 61 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Man there is nothing we love more than counting our chickens before they hatch, huh?

[–] LastYearsIrritant@sopuli.xyz 23 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Strong polls encourage people to vote. Weak polls discourage participation and donations.

https://time.com/article/2026/10/23/what-fake-wedgewood-polls-scandal-reveals-about-election-polling/

Just this year - Michigan primary - one campaign says their donations plummeted when fake polls claimed they were far behind.

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

And yet I keep seeing people on Lemmy say that polls being good discourages people from voting

[–] LastYearsIrritant@sopuli.xyz 13 points 1 week ago

The science doesn't back that up.

Ask for numbers

[–] mister_flibble@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Every positive poll, half the comments are people saying it's a psyop. Every negative poll, half the comments are people saying it's a psyop. I genuinely have no fucking clue what results people would consider above board at this point.

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

Presumably, neck in neck

[–] Mirshe@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

My local ads have reverted to the shaming tactic - "your vote is private, but anyone can look up whether you voted or not". From my dad who's been working the early voting location for my county, it sure sounds like they've had one hell of a turnout.

[–] ButtermilkBiscuit@feddit.nl 17 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Ah yes famously reliable Nate Silver lol

[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 28 points 1 week ago (1 children)

He gave Trump 2016 more odds than anyone else, the model probability was 1/3 chance, up to polling issues.

All Nate Silver’s models did was run a hierarchical Bayesian regression model with polls weighted by demographics and their forecast accuracy on previous elections.

[–] butwhyishischinabook@anarchist.nexus 29 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Yeah this is just a horrible take. 538 was the only one I remember actively cautioning that a Trump win was possible and a 20% chance means you win one in five times you run the election. People who say they were notoriously wrong, frankly, weren't paying attention.

EDIT to correct typo.

[–] LibertyLizard@quokk.au 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

People have a hard time separating people's expertise from their general opinions. Nate Silver the talking head is kind of an idiot. But Nate Silver the election modeling expert is worth taking seriously.

Definitely agree.

[–] Janx@piefed.social 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Don't listen to polls, don't let people keep you from voting to improve things, don't put it off...

VOTE!!!

[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

Nah, it'll be alright. Plenty of people are voting and I have things to do. Besides, both parties suck anyhow so nothing's gonna change.

Literally what a coworker said to me today.

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago

What well be funny is when it is a blue wave and nothing changes. They stilll let him do whatever he wants. Is that the tipping point?

[–] athairmor@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Shut up and Nate and fuck Ezra Klein.

[–] boaratio@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

Ezra Klein is fucking insufferable.

[–] Kronusdark@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

I voted, you should go vote too.