How about forecasting being important to help us make our own informed decisions where to send our support? Knowing that pushing in Iowa where there's a shot to flip a Senate seat is more important than sending money to Kentucky for the pipe dream of beating McConnell, as I had to talk my mom out of? Forecasting and data helped me get her to send money to NC state candidates instead of Adam Schiff. The idea that a populace with less information will be more motivated seems truly baffling to me.
Because Greenfield already raised $28mm and the marginal dollar may have been better given to Mike Espy if your goal is to flip the Senate? Point being, you're an amateur playing a professional's game, and just like the stock market, the place where your actions give you the most personal short-term utility may not be the place where your actions have the most impact.
Data still needs to be available to non-candidates, i.e. public polling and forecasts, unless you think I should just do whatever someone who was allowed to see polls says on their word? The notion that an election forecast is "voter suppression" and that I shouldn't get to see polls is still nonsense.
The wording is hyperbolic, yes. But in both cases there is an illusion of having all of the information necessary to make an informed decision.
Do you think that private commissioned polls that aren't available to public models, the ones that campaigns use to make actual resource allocation decisions, also need to be made public?
I find it somewhat believable given how easily susceptible we are to the bystander effect. Forecasting can come across as the participation of many in tackling a said issue. People may look at forecasts and think "wow, my candidate is doing well. Seems like I don't even need to lift my finger." Simplistic now until you realize how many people believe polls indicate a causal relationship between support and actually voting.
I guess my point is that forecasts may encourage the bystander effect on a larger scale.
The knowing last night didn't work. Even knowing today is problematic. Yes, the race may be called, but it's possible that is but a false summit. It's a muddle.
How about forecasting being important to help us make our own informed decisions where to send our support? Knowing that pushing in Iowa where there's a shot to flip a Senate seat is more important than sending money to Kentucky for the pipe dream of beating McConnell, as I had to talk my mom out of? Forecasting and data helped me get her to send money to NC state candidates instead of Adam Schiff. The idea that a populace with less information will be more motivated seems truly baffling to me.
Because Greenfield already raised $28mm and the marginal dollar may have been better given to Mike Espy if your goal is to flip the Senate? Point being, you're an amateur playing a professional's game, and just like the stock market, the place where your actions give you the most personal short-term utility may not be the place where your actions have the most impact.
Data still needs to be available to non-candidates, i.e. public polling and forecasts, unless you think I should just do whatever someone who was allowed to see polls says on their word? The notion that an election forecast is "voter suppression" and that I shouldn't get to see polls is still nonsense.
The wording is hyperbolic, yes. But in both cases there is an illusion of having all of the information necessary to make an informed decision.
Do you think that private commissioned polls that aren't available to public models, the ones that campaigns use to make actual resource allocation decisions, also need to be made public?
I find it somewhat believable given how easily susceptible we are to the bystander effect. Forecasting can come across as the participation of many in tackling a said issue. People may look at forecasts and think "wow, my candidate is doing well. Seems like I don't even need to lift my finger." Simplistic now until you realize how many people believe polls indicate a causal relationship between support and actually voting.
I guess my point is that forecasts may encourage the bystander effect on a larger scale.
The knowing last night didn't work. Even knowing today is problematic. Yes, the race may be called, but it's possible that is but a false summit. It's a muddle.