Florida is nearing toss-up status as poll shows Trump’s lead nearly vanished
www.independent.co.uk
Race and age of Florida respondents seemed to correlate with which candidate they supported
  • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
    111·
    2 months ago

    I think she’s got a fair chance of winning FLA, but if she does, it means she’s already won most of the swing states, so there’s not much point in investing the massive amount of cash it would take to win. But, like Iowa and Alaska, the fact that it’s this close is a very encouraging sign.

    • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
      11·
      2 months ago

      Winning FL would flip the entire table over. She’s not remotely close to winning FL right now. The polls in the article disagree wildly from all of the other polls we have on the matter. Biden was 4 points ahead in FL in 2020. Trump won by 4 points in FL. Harris is behind in most polls by 3.

      She’s improved her postilion in FL. She’s not remotely close to winning it. When the polls come in at +6-7 for Harris in FL, that is when she is now “break even”.

      • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
        11·
        2 months ago

        Biden was 4 points ahead in FL in 2020

        ? In this very comment section you were mentioning polling average earlier that showed it as ~2.5%

        Assuming the error is the same direction as 2020 is not a given. Pollsters have made changes to their model that intentionally put more weight on areas likely to have trump supporters. Amid other changes

        Not saying she will necessarily win florida, but assuming the worst case all the time is not always accurate either

        • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
          21·
          2 months ago

          You can go check the exact sources. I think Kamala is down in FL -2, -3? Depends on your source and poll aggregator. Biden was up ~+3 ~+4. Final result was -4? So call it a 6-7 point structural bias. Doesn’t diminish my point.

          Not saying she will necessarily win florida, but assuming the worst case all the time is not always accurate either

          Yeah thats just self delusion. You clearly have a specific confirmation bias your working to attend to. You shouldn’t delude yourself and others because reality is difficult and shitty. We only hurt yourself when we live in fantasy.

          • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
            31·
            2 months ago

            Look if you thought the polling bias in the previous election always determined the next one, you would’ve thought Hillary was in for a big landslide because dems were systematically underestimated in 2012 including in florida. Obviously it did not go the same way. It’s not limited to 2012 either

            Pollster make adjustments every cycle. In this case, many have made some quite large ones. How much that effects the results isn’t fully knowable until only after the election happens

            • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
              23·
              2 months ago

              Dude you just very obviously do not know what the fuck you are talking about and want things to look better than they are. You should stop.

              I get it. It sucks that the Harris campaign has flat lined and appears to be backsliding. But creating an alternative reality for your head to live in is not a healthy way to go through life. Or maybe it is, fuck I dont know that you aren’t better off living in a state of self delusion.

              • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
                22·
                2 months ago

                An alternative reality is saying that polling error is uncertain? I didn’t declare anything about it’s direction or even that it couldn’t be the same as it was earlier

                This is something plenty of election modeling people say all the time

                Over the long term, there is no meaningful partisan statistical bias in polling. All the polls in our data set combine for a weighted average statistical bias of 0.3 points toward Democrats. Individual election cycles can have more significant biases — and, importantly, it usually runs in the same direction for every office — but there is no pattern from year to year

                https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/weve-updated-our-pollster-ratings-ahead-of-the-2020-general-election/

                The reason there’s no long-running polling bias is because pollsters try to correct for their mistakes. That means there’s always the risk of undercorrecting (which apparently happened this time) or overcorrecting (see the 2017 U.K. general election, where pollsters did all sorts of dodgy things in an effort to not underestimate Conservatives … and wound up underestimating the Labour Party instead)

                https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-werent-great-but-thats-pretty-normal/

                • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
                  22·
                  2 months ago

                  I’m just not interested in anything you have to say any longer with regards to statistics. Its obvious you don’t have a handle on this things and blog spamming 538 doesn’t change anything about you. However, I might be interested in that cocoon of warm self delusion you’ve created for yourself. Might be the last time we get to have the “happy chemicals” for a very long time.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      1·
      2 months ago

      That’s not how that works. It’s entirely possible she wins Florida and loses Michigan for example.

      • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
        2·
        2 months ago

        Not my first rodeo. The probability of her winning the blue wall is greater than winning Florida. She does that and she wins the Presidency. Her efforts must remain there. If they roll, there is a chance Florida will flip too.

      • RupeThereItIs@lemmy.world
        1·
        2 months ago

        It’s highly improbable though. If she flips Florida, a state she’s down in despite the headline, she most likely won Michigan by a wide margin.

        It’s possible, but like pigs learning to fly possible.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          1·
          2 months ago

          Florida and Michigan are not connected at anything but the national level. They have completely different local and regional constituencies. You cannot compare states on opposite sides of the US like that.

          • RupeThereItIs@lemmy.world
            11·
            2 months ago

            Bullshit.

            Hell they are in the same time zone, it’s just a straight shot down i75. What’s this opposite side of the country crap?

            They are different, but a swing that big to the left in Florida is almost impossible without a national swing of serious size, thus Michigan which leans left already would be in the bag.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              21·
              2 months ago

              And California is a straight shot down the 40 from North Carolina. Surely you’re not suggesting they have the same culture and constituencies?

              National swing is one way to do it. And it needs to be big because you’re activating a few people in every state. If you concentrate on a state you might hardly move the national needle but you could seriously swing the state.

              Now add in other stake holders like the abortion rights movement and the fuck DeSantis movement and you’ve got ways the vote can change with the national candidate doing absolutely nothing. Of note both of those are going to do nothing in Michigan, while Michigan’s uncommitted movement isn’t going to bother Florida at all.

              So no, not bullshit. I don’t know who told you the only possible way to change minds was at the national level but they were very wrong and now you’re very wrong.