Trump Gets Convention Bounce, Drawing Polls To Dead Heat

Post Reply New Topic

Yeah, I'm not so big on editorial changes to topic titles myself-- that's a pretty hefty moderators hand for sure. Inaccurate, complete lie, what not-- accuracy shouldn't be the concern of the moderators, especially in the PPR forum. The powers that be are the powers that be, and I can't change that, but I will say that's a pretty big power play from what I've seen here in the past.

I was going to post this actually since I thought it was funny but decided against it for the next time Nate Silver the oracle makes some bogus prediction based on zero facts, as I've said a bunch of times Nate Silver doesn't do anything special besides make an aggregate of polls and compare them versus previous elections and I think we're all capable of doing the same if we spent the time doing it. It means nothing if those polls are not accurate and this election isn't like previous ones, there is no magic to it!

Are you being deliberately dishonest or do you really not understand?

The now cast is not "the chance of winning the election", it is "the chance of winning the election IF the election were held today". This is made perfectly clear in the article.

An intelligent person would not read:

"We don’t usually spend a lot of time writing about the now-cast because — uhh, breaking news — the election is scheduled for Nov. 8. The now-cast is super aggressive, and can overreact to small swings in the polls. But it’s useful if we want to get a snapshot of what the election looks like right now. It suggests that in an election held today, Trump would be a narrow favorite, with a 57 percent chance of winning the Electoral College."

and

"On the opposite side of the spectrum from the now-cast is our polls-plus forecast, which builds in a convention bounce adjustment. Because Trump’s convention bounce is broadly in line with its expectations, the polls-plus forecast hasn’t moved very much: It gives Trump a 42 percent chance of winning the Electoral College, up only slightly from last week."

and think that the statement "Trump has a 57 percent chance of winning the election" is accurate, and that Nate Silver said "Trump has a 57 percent chance of winning the Electoral College".

Like I said, it's all determined on if this election is like prior ones and it clearly has not be that way so far. I have a hard time believing this will morph into a conventional election, I think we've been in uncharted water for quite some time. I feel like making some predictions myself this November right before the election, maybe you guys would like to join in? Lets see how accurate or inaccurate we all are. Can we beat the oracle Nate Silver? I mean, I've been doing it for the last year so I'm not too intimidated.

interesting tidbit from CNN

@Walrus.

I agree with your complaints on the framing of the article, but I can't support a moderator's hand changing the content of the post (of which the title is part of). That should be up to the people participating in the debate to debunk and deconstruct, if you want to take off the moderator's cap and join in, I'm cool with that too-- the more the merrier. What I have a problem with is editorial changes to the content of someone else's post that don't violate the terms of service of the site itself. It's a precedent you're setting here that could undermine the free exchange of ideas in this section of the site-- and that I find dangerous, even though I agree with your complaints.

If he hasn't misquoted the source, then why does a moderator need to alter anything?

If the person he quoted is wrong the onus is on the source and we are free to discuss, debate and debunk it. While it isn't, it just seems like sour grapes from moderation in a thread that doesn't support their candidate.

I'm not stating it is, but that's how it looks.

EDIT: Expanding on the above person's post, I don't see how changing somebody's words is any better than misquoting somebody. Do as I say not as I do?