Carl Allen
@realcarlallen.bsky.social
Analyst, Scientist, Misinformation Fighter, Debate Winner, Author
📖 Book: *The Polls Weren't Wrong* out now 👉 https://www.routledge.com/The-Polls-Werent-Wrong/Allen/p/book/9781032483023
📖 Book: *The Polls Weren't Wrong* out now 👉 https://www.routledge.com/The-Polls-Werent-Wrong/Allen/p/book/9781032483023
From my chat with @coreysnathan.bsky.social on the Talkin' Politics & Religion Podcast. Relevant for my friends at @aapor.bsky.social @ropercenter.bsky.social @pewresearch.org and others
Full version: www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw21...
Or the audio version:
bit.ly/Spotify_Carl...
apple.co/4pksW50
Full version: www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw21...
Or the audio version:
bit.ly/Spotify_Carl...
apple.co/4pksW50
November 21, 2025 at 9:50 PM
From my chat with @coreysnathan.bsky.social on the Talkin' Politics & Religion Podcast. Relevant for my friends at @aapor.bsky.social @ropercenter.bsky.social @pewresearch.org and others
Full version: www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw21...
Or the audio version:
bit.ly/Spotify_Carl...
apple.co/4pksW50
Full version: www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw21...
Or the audio version:
bit.ly/Spotify_Carl...
apple.co/4pksW50
Since Republicans love to brag about how much land area votes red, let me present something they hate:
Those blue areas generate A WHOLE LOT more money than the red areas
You may cope and seethe in the comments
👇
Those blue areas generate A WHOLE LOT more money than the red areas
You may cope and seethe in the comments
👇
November 21, 2025 at 9:19 PM
Since Republicans love to brag about how much land area votes red, let me present something they hate:
Those blue areas generate A WHOLE LOT more money than the red areas
You may cope and seethe in the comments
👇
Those blue areas generate A WHOLE LOT more money than the red areas
You may cope and seethe in the comments
👇
I understand you're desperate to change the subject.
Too bad.
I put people like you in their place and make sure you know how intellectually inferior you are.
You conceded the debate
Source cited.
The terms of you being allowed to speak were stated, and violated.
Silence forever.
Too bad.
I put people like you in their place and make sure you know how intellectually inferior you are.
You conceded the debate
Source cited.
The terms of you being allowed to speak were stated, and violated.
Silence forever.
November 17, 2025 at 7:25 PM
I understand you're desperate to change the subject.
Too bad.
I put people like you in their place and make sure you know how intellectually inferior you are.
You conceded the debate
Source cited.
The terms of you being allowed to speak were stated, and violated.
Silence forever.
Too bad.
I put people like you in their place and make sure you know how intellectually inferior you are.
You conceded the debate
Source cited.
The terms of you being allowed to speak were stated, and violated.
Silence forever.
"by your own admission sex is binary"
Liar
I gave "male-female" as an example of a binary
If you could prove it, I'd accept it
But you won't -because you can't
Neither can @drcolinwright.bsky.social - because your position is emotional, not rational. Intellectual inferiors
Thanks for conceding
Liar
I gave "male-female" as an example of a binary
If you could prove it, I'd accept it
But you won't -because you can't
Neither can @drcolinwright.bsky.social - because your position is emotional, not rational. Intellectual inferiors
Thanks for conceding
November 17, 2025 at 7:23 PM
"by your own admission sex is binary"
Liar
I gave "male-female" as an example of a binary
If you could prove it, I'd accept it
But you won't -because you can't
Neither can @drcolinwright.bsky.social - because your position is emotional, not rational. Intellectual inferiors
Thanks for conceding
Liar
I gave "male-female" as an example of a binary
If you could prove it, I'd accept it
But you won't -because you can't
Neither can @drcolinwright.bsky.social - because your position is emotional, not rational. Intellectual inferiors
Thanks for conceding
"my position is that sex is binary because there are two sexes"
And you admitted that not all people can be classified as one of the two sexes
And you conceded the debate
Source cited
And you admitted that not all people can be classified as one of the two sexes
And you conceded the debate
Source cited
November 17, 2025 at 7:20 PM
"my position is that sex is binary because there are two sexes"
And you admitted that not all people can be classified as one of the two sexes
And you conceded the debate
Source cited
And you admitted that not all people can be classified as one of the two sexes
And you conceded the debate
Source cited
Thank you for conceding so easily
Source cited
Source cited
November 17, 2025 at 7:19 PM
Thank you for conceding so easily
Source cited
Source cited
You have conceded
Source cited
Glad I could teach you your place here
Source cited
Glad I could teach you your place here
November 17, 2025 at 7:19 PM
You have conceded
Source cited
Glad I could teach you your place here
Source cited
Glad I could teach you your place here
You have conceded
Source cited
Glad I could teach you your place here
Source cited
Glad I could teach you your place here
November 17, 2025 at 7:18 PM
You have conceded
Source cited
Glad I could teach you your place here
Source cited
Glad I could teach you your place here
You have conceded
Source cited
Glad I could teach you your place
here
Source cited
Glad I could teach you your place
here
November 17, 2025 at 7:18 PM
You have conceded
Source cited
Glad I could teach you your place
here
Source cited
Glad I could teach you your place
here
You have conceded
Source cited
Glad I could teach you your place here
Source cited
Glad I could teach you your place here
November 17, 2025 at 7:18 PM
You have conceded
Source cited
Glad I could teach you your place here
Source cited
Glad I could teach you your place here
Democrats should loudly, vocally support the $2000 stimulus. Propose it.
November 17, 2025 at 5:27 PM
Democrats should loudly, vocally support the $2000 stimulus. Propose it.
I asked a simple question, directly relevant to the debate.
I understand you're desperate to change the subject. Too bad.
You stay in the corner I put you in
Anything other than a direct answer is a concession that you cannot defend your position.
Is "0, 1, 2" a binary?
Yes or no?
I understand you're desperate to change the subject. Too bad.
You stay in the corner I put you in
Anything other than a direct answer is a concession that you cannot defend your position.
Is "0, 1, 2" a binary?
Yes or no?
November 17, 2025 at 5:18 PM
I asked a simple question, directly relevant to the debate.
I understand you're desperate to change the subject. Too bad.
You stay in the corner I put you in
Anything other than a direct answer is a concession that you cannot defend your position.
Is "0, 1, 2" a binary?
Yes or no?
I understand you're desperate to change the subject. Too bad.
You stay in the corner I put you in
Anything other than a direct answer is a concession that you cannot defend your position.
Is "0, 1, 2" a binary?
Yes or no?
If you can't afford to pay your employees a living wage, you do not have a successful business
November 17, 2025 at 5:16 PM
If you can't afford to pay your employees a living wage, you do not have a successful business
Let me draw it in crayon since you're too dumb to understand what "binary" means
Now either tell me what's wrong with the logic of what I posted or admit you're wrong
Answer directly. Anything other than a direct response will be taken as a concession
I love putting people like you in their place
Now either tell me what's wrong with the logic of what I posted or admit you're wrong
Answer directly. Anything other than a direct response will be taken as a concession
I love putting people like you in their place
November 16, 2025 at 5:03 AM
Let me draw it in crayon since you're too dumb to understand what "binary" means
Now either tell me what's wrong with the logic of what I posted or admit you're wrong
Answer directly. Anything other than a direct response will be taken as a concession
I love putting people like you in their place
Now either tell me what's wrong with the logic of what I posted or admit you're wrong
Answer directly. Anything other than a direct response will be taken as a concession
I love putting people like you in their place
Unfriendly reminder that I obliterated @drcolinwright.bsky.social so badly that he abandoned an entire platform
Binary: 1, 2
Not binary: 0, 1, 2
You admitted humans cannot be classified into a sex binary.
Remember who taught you your place in this debate.
Binary: 1, 2
Not binary: 0, 1, 2
You admitted humans cannot be classified into a sex binary.
Remember who taught you your place in this debate.
November 12, 2025 at 3:49 PM
Unfriendly reminder that I obliterated @drcolinwright.bsky.social so badly that he abandoned an entire platform
Binary: 1, 2
Not binary: 0, 1, 2
You admitted humans cannot be classified into a sex binary.
Remember who taught you your place in this debate.
Binary: 1, 2
Not binary: 0, 1, 2
You admitted humans cannot be classified into a sex binary.
Remember who taught you your place in this debate.
Unfriendly reminder that I obliterated @drcolinwright.bsky.social so badly that he abandoned an entire platform
Binary: 1, 2
Not binary: 0, 1, 2
You admitted humans cannot be classified into a sex binary.
Remember who taught you your place in this debate.
Binary: 1, 2
Not binary: 0, 1, 2
You admitted humans cannot be classified into a sex binary.
Remember who taught you your place in this debate.
November 12, 2025 at 3:48 PM
Unfriendly reminder that I obliterated @drcolinwright.bsky.social so badly that he abandoned an entire platform
Binary: 1, 2
Not binary: 0, 1, 2
You admitted humans cannot be classified into a sex binary.
Remember who taught you your place in this debate.
Binary: 1, 2
Not binary: 0, 1, 2
You admitted humans cannot be classified into a sex binary.
Remember who taught you your place in this debate.
You know he's in a desperate spot because it's a full year until midterms, so when this doesn't happen, making more desperate promises closer to midterms will make him (somehow) look even weaker.
Remember when he said he would cut electricity prices in half by January?
How we looking?
Remember when he said he would cut electricity prices in half by January?
How we looking?
November 10, 2025 at 7:15 PM
You know he's in a desperate spot because it's a full year until midterms, so when this doesn't happen, making more desperate promises closer to midterms will make him (somehow) look even weaker.
Remember when he said he would cut electricity prices in half by January?
How we looking?
Remember when he said he would cut electricity prices in half by January?
How we looking?
Consensus of analysts around the world:
Polls were wrong about NYC Mayoral Election.
Is that right?
Or do you all detect another possible explanation?
Polls were wrong about NYC Mayoral Election.
Is that right?
Or do you all detect another possible explanation?
November 6, 2025 at 6:23 PM
Consensus of analysts around the world:
Polls were wrong about NYC Mayoral Election.
Is that right?
Or do you all detect another possible explanation?
Polls were wrong about NYC Mayoral Election.
Is that right?
Or do you all detect another possible explanation?
Nate Silver: prediction markets are smart
Carl Allen: Mamdani has a 25% chance of winning by a margin of 20-30 and also a 25% chance of winning by a margin of 24+
👌
Carl Allen: Mamdani has a 25% chance of winning by a margin of 20-30 and also a 25% chance of winning by a margin of 24+
👌
November 4, 2025 at 10:06 PM
Nate Silver: prediction markets are smart
Carl Allen: Mamdani has a 25% chance of winning by a margin of 20-30 and also a 25% chance of winning by a margin of 24+
👌
Carl Allen: Mamdani has a 25% chance of winning by a margin of 20-30 and also a 25% chance of winning by a margin of 24+
👌
An actual, published article that people read to try and understand things, in two sentences:
Wrongly informs people that the "most accurate" poll can be determined by a sample size of one election
Says Silver's "56%" probability for Trump was accurate...(???)
This is just garbage.
Wrongly informs people that the "most accurate" poll can be determined by a sample size of one election
Says Silver's "56%" probability for Trump was accurate...(???)
This is just garbage.
November 4, 2025 at 2:27 PM
An actual, published article that people read to try and understand things, in two sentences:
Wrongly informs people that the "most accurate" poll can be determined by a sample size of one election
Says Silver's "56%" probability for Trump was accurate...(???)
This is just garbage.
Wrongly informs people that the "most accurate" poll can be determined by a sample size of one election
Says Silver's "56%" probability for Trump was accurate...(???)
This is just garbage.
Either the method embodies assumptions that hold only in particular contexts (low undecided shares, two-parties), or it is truly general. If it’s the former, the correct course is to specify the domain of applicability and the assumptions clearly, not to proclaim universal adequacy as they do.
October 31, 2025 at 2:02 PM
Either the method embodies assumptions that hold only in particular contexts (low undecided shares, two-parties), or it is truly general. If it’s the former, the correct course is to specify the domain of applicability and the assumptions clearly, not to proclaim universal adequacy as they do.
My debates with analysts in the field take the form of
"But it works fine for Australia and Africa!"
"It's close enough for United States!"
The proper response is... So?
"But it works fine for Australia and Africa!"
"It's close enough for United States!"
The proper response is... So?
October 31, 2025 at 2:00 PM
My debates with analysts in the field take the form of
"But it works fine for Australia and Africa!"
"It's close enough for United States!"
The proper response is... So?
"But it works fine for Australia and Africa!"
"It's close enough for United States!"
The proper response is... So?
This is almost perfectly analogous to what we're dealing with in poll data.
Two and three-dimensional poll data is simplified to this one dimensional line segment: Candidate A, Candidate B.
Undecideds? Project them.
Third party voters? Ignore them.
The "poll data" maps that look like this.
Two and three-dimensional poll data is simplified to this one dimensional line segment: Candidate A, Candidate B.
Undecideds? Project them.
Third party voters? Ignore them.
The "poll data" maps that look like this.
October 31, 2025 at 1:49 PM
This is almost perfectly analogous to what we're dealing with in poll data.
Two and three-dimensional poll data is simplified to this one dimensional line segment: Candidate A, Candidate B.
Undecideds? Project them.
Third party voters? Ignore them.
The "poll data" maps that look like this.
Two and three-dimensional poll data is simplified to this one dimensional line segment: Candidate A, Candidate B.
Undecideds? Project them.
Third party voters? Ignore them.
The "poll data" maps that look like this.
When you reduce dimensionality for the sake of simplification, you subject your data to predictable distortions.
There's nothing inherently wrong with using the Mercator projection, but if that projection leads analysts to conclude "Greenland is bigger than Australia because look at the map"
...
There's nothing inherently wrong with using the Mercator projection, but if that projection leads analysts to conclude "Greenland is bigger than Australia because look at the map"
...
October 31, 2025 at 1:46 PM
When you reduce dimensionality for the sake of simplification, you subject your data to predictable distortions.
There's nothing inherently wrong with using the Mercator projection, but if that projection leads analysts to conclude "Greenland is bigger than Australia because look at the map"
...
There's nothing inherently wrong with using the Mercator projection, but if that projection leads analysts to conclude "Greenland is bigger than Australia because look at the map"
...
If Borat can get this level of compromising footage, which he cut off before it went further, imagine what a skilled operative has on Trump.
He thought the reporter was 15.
No AI needed to make MAGA look bad.
He thought the reporter was 15.
No AI needed to make MAGA look bad.
October 21, 2025 at 1:04 PM
If Borat can get this level of compromising footage, which he cut off before it went further, imagine what a skilled operative has on Trump.
He thought the reporter was 15.
No AI needed to make MAGA look bad.
He thought the reporter was 15.
No AI needed to make MAGA look bad.