ex-President Trump

Um, because we are moving towards a goal and we're not there yet. Like how do you struggle with basic concepts like this?

Normal people see a destination and start moving towards it. When they realize they aren't there yet, they keep going. Do you really need someone to help you understand this?

Get help. Seriously. I'm starting to feel bad about even engaging with this.

Nope.

People below 133% are not eligible to buy insurance at highly subsidized rates. People above 133% above the poverty line are.

The ACA was meant to be picked up by every state for Medicaid expansion and this was supposed to be a huge incentive. It turns out that Medicaid is much cheaper than the fees Health Insurance companies charge for insurance. So the ACA did not want to have to pay a lot more. I think it never occurred to Obama that states wouldn't accept the incredible federal government offer to cover 90% of Medicaid expenses for those between 100% and 133% above the poverty line (because the Federal Government pays for 50% of Medicaid expenses below the poverty line). But then politics happened. Turns out Republicans don't give a crap about everybody being insured. Unless of course they are like you and live in a delusional world where they are pretending that everyone is or can be.

Not sure why you are critical of 538.com. They have literally been amazing at averaging polls.

I've compared their football point spreads vs online betting sites and they are between 52% and 55% better in terms of actual winners. Still not enough for me to wager because the online sites charge a higher vig than 5% but I am still looking at some small samples like where they are >5 pts different.

As far as swing voters goes, in 2016 there were a higher % of undecided voters than in any other election I have followed. Clinton was winning by 5% to 6% in a lot of states but wasn't over 50% of the polled voters or even above 48% in most (if I remember correctly).

On election day Trump notched up 5% higher than almost any poll (other than Trafalgar's) and Clinton did not. Because Clinton was below 50% she got beaten in some swing states by less than 1%. I think her vote total was like 78,000 votes short in those states. Which is much higher than Trump's 44,000 loss in 2020. But still undecided voters were a major factor.

The other problem was that people hated her sort of like they hated Jimmy Carter. So a lot of people didn't show up to vote for her. Typically on a historical basis (at least in my lifetime) likely voters would vote for Republicans more than Democrats and polling is often about registered voters only. My guess is that a lot of people who were polled and said they would vote for Hillary never voted.

Please drop this silly argument. Turnout rate among African American voters was 57.7% in 2016, as compared to 62.1% in 2012. If you counted every African American voter who voted in 2012 but stayed home in 2016 as a vote for Trump in 2016, HRC still would have won the African American vote in 2016 by an overwhelming majority.

fellow rick

i bet sports for a living, 538 is a laughing stock in the industry and i was not exaggerating that you would lose piles betting their system

there's good reason why espn shut it down and it no longer exists at a time when betting and betting related services and products such as their own are having tremendous growth

they fail when the industry is just beginning to explode, that's how bad they were

it was an absolute joke with terrible forecasts

early on they did a great job marketing themselves, were true pioneers as the first mainstream analytical firm and they did well in some early elections, even correctly predicting some underogs, since then they've just sucked

It all contributed to her loss, but we're speculating on the event that had the most significance at the 11th hour. The FBI reopening a probe into her emails 11 days before election played right into Trump's, "I'm not a corrupt politician - choose me" campaign, imo.

If you're saying their on no academic studies that disagree with the notion that swing voters don't exist then we are indeed built very differently.

The joke site points out that reducing swing voters is helped greatly by defining them more tightly.

You seem to completely miss how tight many key races are and will end up arguing the nonsensical position that we might as well abandon everything but a fleet of minicabs

Where we will agree is that the more polarised the electorate, the more its like supporting a team and the fewer swing voters their are. That level of polarization is a massive problem but itself subject to change

no chez, i'm saying i gave an actual academic which disproves the trope of the swing voter

you shared some stuff written by failed forecasters which also heavily agreed with what i said

not surprised at all you fail to understand the difference here as confirmation bias is your mo

Your study does not do that. Dont make you're mo to be to wildly misunderstand studies

chez, you should try reading it buddy

I did

If you think it says that nobody ever switches from one party to another (let alone including to and from no vote) then I don't know what to say.

It does say that swings are commonly greatly overstated which does confirm my bias so I'm happy with that.

I'd also be happy that ot confirms my bias that high polarisation means smaller swings if wasnt so bleeding obvious.

Ive voted in 12 presidential elections. By party, 6 and 6 and voted for a different party than the previous election 4 times. Would that count as being a swing voter?

Nearly everyone I know in including me have voted different parties (and or abstained). And I've been swinging as to who I will vote for next time. I think I've landed but there's a long way to go and I could still change.

At what point before the election did you know who you were voting for? IE what is the latest point in the process where you still had no idea which candidate you were voting for. I’m talking national elections only. A democrat in Texas has more in common with a Republican from Texas than a fellow Democrat from Massachusetts.

Also, I’m not saying they don’t exist, just that there’s very few. It’s overblown and turnout is the real X factor

This is the weirdest form of “yes you were right and I was wrong and I’m sorry for lying” I’ve ever seen

It’s truly astounding just how bad you are at posting on just so many levels

Some well in advance (like when voting for an incumbent I voted for earlier). Some much closer, after the debates or VP announcements. Of course, in the earlier years the parties werent on such total extreme ends of the spectrum. So there was a weighing of factors, like I might like one party's position on defense spending and foreign policy or the other party's position on civil rights or taxes, so had to make a call at the end.

But now things are so polarized that I have trouble seeing how someone can really be on the fence as much as earlier times.

You understand there's a different between something being overstated and not being real? Maybe you dont. seriously? If you still dont get that then your linked study disgrees with you so I refer you to that.

Headlines are generally overstated. Analsysis generally reduces the stated effect but that's so different to it not being real. This is also much greater for the short term rather than the long term which it might help you to seriously consider

See you do get it. it does exist. How 'very few' do you think it is?And do you get that's it's a function of polarisation? What's the relationship between swing and the turnout X-factor?

Itt i learned people decide way in advance but james comey caused Hillary to lose 11 days before the election

Chez I never said they don’t exist. You’re leveling yourself end trying to argue against me but in fact just restating my entire thesis. You look really dumb right now and its even more embarrassing than when you and sklansky send each other sweet nothings in the thread

It is possible for an independent to decide way in advance and then have something occur that will change that vote, you know, like an FBI probe 🤣

You've actually supported mine. Swing voting is real and polarisation is a disaster. So I still claim the deplorable thing is a very bad mistake. Doesn't advance it much but your study confirms this bias.

Dont be so jealous - we can whisper sweet nothings if you like.

As usual, people are talking about swing voting in a muddy way. Browser, chez, and others are defining a swing voter as someone who is capable of voting for Democrat or a Republican and has done so in the past. Let's call this Category A.

Rickroll's study seems to be defining a swing voter as an undecided voter, or a voter who is capable of being swayed by campaign events, in a specific election. Let's call this Category B.

The number of people in Category A is larger than the number of people in Category B, although I personally know people in both categories. The number of people in Category B shrinks as election day approaches (obviously). People in Category B very often are not deciding between voting for for the Democrat or the Republican, but rather are deciding between voting for only one of the two major party candidates -- let's day Biden -- or sitting out/voting third party.

I include both but I did early on try to get rickroll to recognise how much was down to the definition of 'swing'. Even so the study doesnt support no or even 'very few' swing voters. It makes a solid but unsuprising point about much of the reported 'swing' being an artifact. And even given all that, it doesn't mean large swings cannot happen.

Anyone who changes their support (include to/from no vote) is part of the swing by my usage. Cos that's what matters.

Ok thank you for making me search the matter in greater details.

It appears I was wrong in my claims on the topic but you are as well.

Looks like 100 to 138% of poverty level individuals/families are fine (unlike what you claimed) in states that didn't expand Medicaid, while the gap I thought didn't exist and you pointed out exists in 10 states, for people approx from 75 to 100% of poverty level, who arent recent immigrants. I didn't know this coverage gap existed and I appreciate you helping me learn it exists.

Unclear why democrats didn't fix it with their recent 2 years with trifecta