• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2310 months ago

    Oh, they ditched Rasmussen? Makes sense. Leading up to 2020, I think they were showing Trump up by something like 5-8 points - my memory is fuzzy.

      • @MsPenguinette
        link
        1010 months ago

        Biden’s is fuzzy, Trump’s is corrupted/glitched

        • Optional
          link
          710 months ago

          Yes but Biden’s comes with a slate of competent advisors. Trumps comes with a lukewarm hamberder and throwable ketchup

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      310 months ago

      Nate Silver has long defended keeping them in. It’s not that the absolute number is any good, but a change in the number can be good. If Rasmussen shows a 3 point shift between two polls, that’s probably real and can be applied to the model.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        310 months ago

        It’s not a bad take - if it shows a consistent bias, it’s still consistent data. It’s translating the bias from a descriptive to a predictive model that’s the hard part. Maybe they found that the swings in correlation were too wide.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          210 months ago

          IIRC they ejected them because Rasmussen Reports put out a ridiculously flawed article that called the results of the Arizona gubernatorial election into question based on a study whose methodology was so flawed that it could be torn apart by a particularly sharp grade schooler–they took a poll, sponsored by a Republican group, four months after the election, then weighted it against exit polls (not the actual election results), and then used that to claim the Republican won by eight points instead of losing by 1. This prompted the guy in charge of 538 to send them a letter basically saying “are you gonna fix your methodology to reflect something close to reality, orrrrr…” and Rasmussen said “lol no”