Donald Trump’s running mate JD Vance has dug in on his claim Haitians in an Ohio community are abducting and eating pets, even as the state’s GOP governor and other officials insist there is no evidence of such behavior.
But the salacious claim was easily debunked.
“The Vance campaign provided the Wall Street Journal with a police report to prove their claims about cat-eating Haitians in Springfield. The WSJ spoke to the woman who filed it, who said she later found her cat alive and well in her basement. She also apologized to her Haitian neighbors.” Justin Baragona posted to X with a link to a story in The Wall Street Journal.
🗳️ Register to vote: https://vote.gov/
There’s no one single model doing projections.
Five Thirty Eight’s, which is one prominent one, has favored Harris somewhat for a while.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/
Nate Silver – who started Five Thirty Eight and is now off doing his own thing and runs a fork of the model that Five Thirty Eight used to run – had them, last I looked, had Harris and Trump at about about even chances.
Both Silver’s model and Five Thirty Eight’s model agreed that the debate improved Harris’s chances.
Crazy that is already 60% instead of 64% since you posted this. No deeper comment there other than just noting how fluid this election is. We are one Harris mistake (and remember, mistake tolerance for Harris is significantly lower than Trump; Trump is basically one long series of mistakes that has little effect on his numbers; if Harris mispronounces Gaza once she loses 5%), one unexpected event, one butterfly-wing flap from those numbers going to even or worse.
40% of the time Trump wins. 40% of the time, an authoritarian leader assumes the presidency of the most powerful country in the world.
I stand by my statement that no Harris supporter should feel confident or comfortable. That’s… frighteningly high.
Just a clarification, Silver doesn’t run a fork of the old 538 model. He took the model with him. 538 developed their own after he left.
Important to note that Nate Silver works for Peter Theil, who has donated heavily to Trump pacs, and is responsible for giving us JD Vance.
You should go through crunchbase. Anyone in tech has worked at a place with evil investors. They just care whether you hit your numbers after finding product market fit. I’m a conspiracy theorist. This is not it.
Do you have a source on Silver working for Thiel?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymarket
Interesting.
Tl;Dr: Nate Silver is an “advisor” to Polymarket, a gambling platform based on real world events. Peter Thiel is an investor for Polymarket.
It seems like a stretch to say that “Nate Silver works for Thiel,” but it’s pretty sad to see Nate Silver working for a likely illegal crypto scam.
Nate Silver is a paid advisor to a company that Peter Thiel runs, it’s not a stretch at all, wake up.
I do that for a lot of Thiel types. Believe me, I don’t work for them, and I’m vocal about my opposite values from them
The Wikipedia link above mentions nothing about that. Do you have a different source?
Nah, just pointing out a possible conflict of interest.
So “Peter Thiel runs Polymarket” is a fact that you made up?
Five-thirty-eight is a joke. Who did Five-thirty-eight project to win in 2016? Yeah.
Who did professor Allan Lichtman predict to win in 2016? The winner! He uses a strange science technique that have retrospectively lined up with presidential winners since 1860. He has an impressive tract record of ten successful predictions - note he predicted Gore in 2000 but there is very persuasive evidence that Gore actually did win had the vote counts been honestly counted. Hence the Brooks Brothers riot that threw the election to the Supreme Court.
Republicans are now positioning for that to happen again in 2024.
This post is further evidence that everyone should be required to take a statistics course. It’s like saying “statistical probability says there is a 66.6% chance of me rolling this six-sided die and getting a 1, 2, 3, or 4, but I rolled a 5, so that model is WRONG!!”
I hope you can see how dumb that sounds.
Additionally, Lichtman referred to the popular vote in his book, essay on the topic (neither of which I assume you’ve read), and in all previous predictions. So he was actually wrong about his 2016 prediction given Trump lost the popular vote, much though Lichtman has tried to revise history since then.
This is the ignorant “I don’t understand statistics” take. If Nate Silver had given Clinton a 100% chance to win, then maybe you’d have some sort of point. But, in fact, the 538 projection gave Trump a much higher chance than most of the major election models, to the point that I remember Nate having to defend himself against angry people on Twitter over and over. He wrote an article ahead of the election pointing out that if an outcome has a 30% chance of happening, not only is it possible, but in fact you expect it to happen 3 in 10 times. I was very nervous on Election Day 2016 specifically because I had been closely following 538 projections.