Yep. Polls are getting less reliable anyway, because so many of them rely on landlines, and some segments of the population are less likely to respond to surveys than others.
Which is telling, because the land line polls tend to over inflate Conservative voices, and it still has Trump losing in a landslide.
Overinflating conservatism in the US is par for the course. See: the three-fifths compromise and the electoral college.
The electoral college isn't bad per se, it's just been allowed to become bad in a way that hints at a deeper issue.
Notably that the House has not been expanded in 100 years, even as the population has expanded, and two states have been added.
We need to un-cap the house and get it to the point where it's actually representative again. Doing so would take a single act of congress.
Because the electoral college includes the sum of all Senators and Representatives in a given state, rural states with low populations presidential votes carry much more weight than urban states with large populations. You're right about the House not expanding, that's also shifting things around - but a huge reason the electoral college exists at all was to assure the southern states that the institution of slavery would be protected in order to get them to ratify the Constitution. It shifted power to shitheads on purpose.
The electoral college is bad.
It is unneeded in the modern era.
The electoral college didn't shift power to slave states. That was the 3/5ths compromise.
No, the electoral college was created because the fastest way to travel in the 1780s was via foot. There weren't even good roads between the new states. So it could take months to get from Georgia to Washington, DC.
We don't have that problem anymore, but changing things like that would require a constitutional amendment. Something that is fairly hard to do in today's political climate.
And it still wouldn't fix the problem with the House not being representative. But one act of congress to repeal the permanent apportionment act of 1929 would fix both issues.
Massively expanding the size of the House would make it representative, and it would make the electoral college better represent the populations of each state.
It sure did shift power to the slave states. The Senate gives equal power to each state, regardless of population. That's why, as states were allowed to join the union, they were done for quite some time in pairs - one slave, one free - in order to maintain a balance in the Senate.
You're mixing two different things and not quite understanding history.
The House and the Senate are very different things, and together they add up to the electoral college.
The electoral college was created for one reason and one reason alone. To allow people to actually vote in a national election when the fastest way to get from one end of the country to the other was via footpath.
The Senate was actually a check on the power of the slave states, as was the 3/5ths compromise.
Although, the northern states were also slave states at the time the constitution was signed. People often forget that fact.
The problems with slavery were painfully obvious, even then, but rich white guys wanted to own people. This lead to even more problems as the North slowly banned slavery. But that's a different section in the history book.
I'm sorry, but you have this completely backwards.
Yes, I am aware of how the electoral college works, and what the House and Senate are. I have been voting since 1988. Specifically because the electoral college votes from a particular state include those granted by having two senators, low population states' popular vote carries more weight in electing a president (and vice president). I may have worded that badly before, I hope that was clearer.
The three-fifths compromise made it so that, for purposes of counting population, to decide how many representatives in the House a state had, every five slaves were to count as three persons. This gave the southern states a huge boost of power in the House - because slaves got counted to find out how many representatives they had, even though those slaves were in every other way property, with few rights, certainly not the right to vote in the elections for the reps their number served to create seats for.
Again, the fact that each state had two senators, and that those states were kept evenly split between slave and free states (or states which wanted to expand slavery and states which wanted to curtail or outlaw slavery) demonstrates how the balance of power in the senate was kept that way in order to avoid a conflict over the issue of slavery. Since states had different populations, and since much of the concentration of free people was concentrated in the northeast, the Senate (then as now) gives disproportionate power to (I mentioned this before) lower population and more rural states. Then, those states were largely southern slave states. Today, those states are largely rural conservative states.
Yes, of course, there were slaves in northern states, too, but far fewer, and many northern states were curtailing or outlawing slavery while the south was doing everything in its power not only to protect it in the south, but to expand it for all states.
Slavery was a divisive issue in the US from the very beginning, and the issue got kicked down the road many, many times before Lincoln was elected and the south seceded. Everything that happened at the federal level.
Again, you forget that every state was a slave state in 1780. There were agitators who wanted to end slavery, even in southern states, but none had actually achieved it when the constitution was signed.
The split of House and Senate was actually based on geography, as in which states had no defined western boarders.
The Founders called them small states and large states. The house was meant to appease large states, Which included New York and Pennsylvania.
The small states, got the Senate. Several of the small states had higher populations when the constitution was signed, but they knew it would shift out of their favor given enough time.
The line that the House was meant to appease Slave states is true only because New York and Pennsylvania were slave states at the time.
The 3/5ths compromise was thrown in to address this, but it isn't the red herring you think it was.
The electoral college was then added again, because it took months to get from one end of the country to the other, and there was a distinct chance that the winner of an election would be dead by the time the Georgia electors got to Washington in order to officially cast the vote. That's it. That's the full reason it exists.
The presidential election was in the fall, and the certification was in the spring. All because there were no roads up and down the East Coast. No rail lines, no anything.
You could take a ship, but there was a distinct risk of dying at sea.
The Electoral College did give the slave states more power, by way of the three-fifths compromise: the number of Electors depends on the number of Representatives, which depends on the census of inhabitants, not vote-eligible citizens, including, at the time, 3/5 of the slave population. So a state like Virginia, with more slaves than free people, got a boost compared to a state with only free residents.
It's bad per se and also ludicrous. It gives way too much power to states with small populations, which tend to be rural and very right wing. But it is also ludicrous, we should all vote for the person selected to rule the nation, and every vote should have equal weight. Those same states - the right has a hugely unbalanced say in the senate for the same reason, small rural states have massively disproportionate representation. Reforming presidential elections can be done by amendment or by efforts like the popular vote compact, by agreement between enough states. The stupid constitution forbids amending the way the senate is apportioned, so there might have to be a court fight over changing that rule.
Again… The outsized power of smaller states is 100% an artifact of the permanent apportionment act of 1929. It decreed that the size of the House would be set at 435 members. And then we added two states and tripled the population.
And the House is still 435 members. Some congressional districts have more than a million people. How the hell can a Representative actually be said to represent 1 million people?
To fix this would take a single act of congress. Just a simple repeal of one law, and the adoption of a new apportionment standard. That's it. Then the popular vote would mostly line up with the electoral college, because the votes would have to line up. Because it would actually be representative of the actual population.
Just massively increase the size of the house to match the actual population.
I agree the house needs expansion, however I also think that would only moderately address the electoral college skew toward rural states. Also it is in my opinion irrelevant as it does not address the core problem: the president should be elected by a direct national vote, each person getting one vote of equal weight to every other vote.
I'm saying that if you expand the house, the skew that you are complaining about goes away.
Here's a Time article on the subject that uses the current algorithm to find the most representative number of Representatives while still being a fairly low number. The answer comes out to 930.
That's the on the lower end of fixing the House. There are proposals that go much higher.
And all it takes to get to any of them is a simple act of congress. No need for a constitutional amendment, no need to get the states on board, just one law passed.
Fixing the House would also massively curtail gerrymandering. Particularly the packing and stacking tactics.
And again, all it takes to do this is a single law passed by congress.
Ditching the electoral college completely? That's either get the states to agree to the National Interstate Compact, or a constitutional amendment.
Both would be very hard to actually accomplish.
The skew in the house would be reduced, it might even go away, but with 2 exceptions the states do not allocate electoral college electors proportionally , it’s winner takes all, and doesn’t even require a majority. The small population rural states would continue to have inordinate representation in the presidential vote.
Yeah, that's the second issue. Now, that might be able to changed with an act of congress.
Congress can change the rules around elections, but the federal government tends to be pretty hands-off with elections at the state level, and we'd have to fix the supreme court to get anything like that to stick.
It might take a constitutional amendment, which again, is almost impossible in today's political climate.
So the easiest thing to work towards is un-capping the House, because that would instantly make the government better represent the people, and being honest here, would deny conservatives the House and probably presidency for the foreseeable future. All because conservatives are not actually as popular as the slanted voting system makes them seem to be.
Allow me to evangelize the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which aims to bypass the Electoral College and elect the president by popular vote.
Which still doesn't fix the problem with the House not being representative.
The polls showed him losing solidly to Clinton right up until he won though.... The numbers are looking worse this time, but still.
It's a little more complex than that. The national polls had him losing solidly to Clinton on the popular vote, which actually happened. The real polling errors occurred at the state level, in a few key states.
This actually kind of sucks because then if/when the votes don't look close to how they expect according to polls they automatically assume something fishy happened.
And yes, I realize many will think that regardless.
Polls have evolved since then you know.
I'm not saying they are perfect, but they understand, generally, that landlines aren't key anymore. It's literally their job.
Interviews were conducted in English, and included 319 live landline telephone interviews, 480 live cell phone interviews, and 111 online surveys via a cell phone text
But you are right on polls not really meaning that much. Especially over a year away.
Also, you have to take into account the weirdos who answer unknown numbers on their cell phones
That's a valid point. Not many people do. Pollsters have a tough road ahead of them, because actually doing a scientifically valid poll is getting harder.
Also, national polls mean nothing. We don't have a national election.
Trump lost in 2016 by 2.1%, he became President by winning in WI, MI and PA. 2 states Clinton failed to campaign in and a 3rd she alienated.
The total number of votes that elected Trump were just 22,748 in WI, 10,704 in MI and 44,292 in PA.
77,744 people made Trump a President. The rest of us knew better.
Trump became president because the Russian state interfered in our elections. Full stop.
Also true, but it wouldn't have happened if Clinton had actually campaigned in states she took for granted and didn't say stupid shit about coal.
Nothing Clinton said about coal was "stupid shit."
She just told people the truth, and people prefer to be lied to over hearing uncomfortable truths.
Same happened to Al Gore: he told people the truth, and people went absolutely bonkers over that.
By contrast, Trump told people exactly what they wanted to hear, even though it was clear to anyone that he was lying to them or promising them things that he could never, ever fulfill - and people loved it.
Telling blue collar workers your goal is to end their industry is, indeed, stupid shit.
We complain bitterly on the Left about Republican voters voting against their own self interest... well, when you have a Democratic candidate telling them the intent is to put them out of work? What do you expect them to do?
I agree except for that last point
77,744 people made Trump a President. The rest of us knew better.
Sorry but that's not how math works. 63 million people made trump president, and only 66 million of us knew better. That huge number of trump voters is the horrible reality of American politics weve had to come to terms with. Luckily some of the trump supporters learned from their mistake, but there's still millions of them out there, not <100k
Millions out there, countered by millions of Democratic voters, and over votes on both sides in states like Texas and California.
It was the 77K in those three states that threw it to Trump, and note, in 2020, Biden did not repeat Clinton's mistake.
Yeah I get that, but what I'm saying is it's not like the rest of the US knew better than that 77k figure. 77k is just the difference in votes, it doesn't represent the only 77k people that did wrong
This is true. 77k vastly undercounts the number of idiots that voted for that guy.
I don't think YOU understand statistics, lmao
I mean, pollsters actually do account for how elections work in their models. There are all sorts of actual reasons polls have failed to be reliable lately, but if you think it's because they just count total responses across the country, that isn't the case.
Not really, case in point is this very poll:
"In the national survey of 910 voters, 47% of voters said they would definitely or probably support Biden, while just 40% said they would back Trump."
Which is meaningless, because unless 47% of voters flip the correct states, it won't matter how much Biden wins.
Remember, Clinton won the popular vote. Gore won the popular vote AND Florida. It didn't matter.
So, I think you're probably right, in this case. But you're just quoting the reporting on the poll, which is very misleading. It makes it sound like there is no statistical model involved at all. From the methodology on the linked full poll results: "The full sample is weighted for region, age, education, gender and race based on US Census information". Like I said, I think you're right - I doubt if they mean weighting for "region" to imply they did an electoral college analysis - but until you look at the actual poll and it's methodology, you can't just assume that an article reporting on the poll is giving an accurate impression. There are polls that do account for state breakdown, and the reporting in an article on such a poll would probably be just the same as here.
It seems the focus of this poll was to get some initial idea what kind of impact a third-party run with Manchin and some Republican running mate would have, and looking at weighted national numbers is probably "good enough" for that purpose, at this time. Definitely not a basis to conclude Biden has it in the bag, and the poll itself doesn't seem to be trying to claim that.
Sorry I'm going on, but yeah, big picture, you are correct, at least in this case.
Oh, there's no doubt a statistical model to represent the entire country. The problem with popularity contest polling like this is the election isn't a popularity contest.
Now, a similar survey running down each contested state and calling out the electoral college votes, that would be useful.
Anything that leads with "a national poll..." can be safely disregarded.
Serious question, which state she alienated and how?
Pennsylvania. She gave a speech in neighboring Ohio where she said:
“We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”
That echoed through coal country, and while nobody expected her to win states like West Virginia, it absolutely killed her in PA.
It was a self inflicted injury, which was so, so avoidable.
She COULD have rolled it into a victory like this:
"I'm going to tell you something right now that not a lot of people know... my great grandfather was a coal miner in Durham, England. Moved to Scranton with his six kids dreaming of a better life for all of them. I'd like to see a better life for your fathers, brothers, and sons that doesn't involve risking their lives underground for a few scraps of coal that they'll never share in the profits on."
Instead? "Imma put a bunch of you out of work. U mad bro? LOL."
Hilary Clinton is the definition of hubris.
Absolutely! If polls were deciding the outcome, Hilary would win in 2016.
Only twice in three elections. This means Trump had a one third chance to win that election. Which, sadly, he did.
If the weather forecast says 30% chance of rain and it rains do you question the validity of the forecast or do you think "I guess I ended up getting some of that rain"?
After 2016, anyone who believes in polls is a fool.
Believing is one thing. Anyone who changes their behavior because of polls, I wanna meet this fucking idiot and find out what's going on in that dumb brain
The 2016 polls were not inaccurate though. They said Trump had a small chance at victory, and he pulled it off. They never said it was impossible, they just said smart money was on Hillary.
Ya, if I remember right FiveThirtyEight had Trump at around 30% chance in 2016, so slightly unlikely but not exactly a crazy longshot.
They were one of the few that gave him that large of a margin, iirc. The rest were in the 90's for Hillary.
The national polling was also pretty accurate, it was the state polling that missed. Trump squeezed out wins in 4 states by a combined total of 50,000 votes. Nationally though the numbers were within their prediction.
Vote now on your phones!
Literally nobody wants conservative garbage in office. The party of liars and frauds always defanging enforcement of laws and regulations and everyone knows because we have been talking about it since that Liar War George WMD Bush and housing crash that he did.
Every chance we had at reigning in the psychopathic elites was thwarted by the Conservatives ONLY.
The white dudes sold half of my generation to a liar war and the other half to crippling debt. So we voted in a black man and they revolted by selling out to foreign enemies to steal an election because they got caught stealing 2000 with the Brooks Brothers Riot.
The party of garbage is being taken out and the midterms show it. Polls are garbage and we don’t answer them because we want them to look like assholes like we did during the mid terms AND 2024.
What’s their plan? Ruin our lines of communication from now until 2024 by buying and destroying media in a way that looks like incompetence.
They might go and get crazy and attack the country again OR start pretending they’re Democrats - they already do.
Look at Ron ShitSandwich. Total incompetent shit bag. And he’s only 44. Plenty of time to get worse.
Fucking PREACH!
And then you woke up
The only reason conservatives win anything is because of lines on a fucking map. No one likes that shit
Oof. Almost every institution of politics in America allows them to rule the country as a minority party.
Think about how there are two senators for every state. So tens of millions of people in California get the same political representation as the like one million in Nebraska.
The Supreme Court was designed so that the institution was buffered from political winds. A bunch of conservatives can interpret the Constitution however they want with no political repercussions as a consequence.
States have a lot of leeway in deciding how to conduct elections. That's why they can have single ballot box at a single location in a district with millions of voters. And they do that and say the elections are fair.
Conservatives have advantages all over the place.
Both parties are gerrymandering as much as they can get away with. If you meant the electoral college that's part of being a federation of states, sorry. Changing the rules to benefit your team is not exactly fair either, right?
If the number of electors was distributed in a way that didn't give disproportional representation to states with very small populations, that would be great. Also, the notion that the US is truly a federation of independent states hasn't been accurate for at least 200 years.
It's a bit disproportional for a few states but then again, you can say the votes of people in Wyoming are worth more relatively speaking but it's still just 3 electors in the end. No one will pay much attention to them either way, unlike the more populous states which can swing elections.
unlike the more populous states which can swing elections.
You say that like it's a bad thing for people to be in charge rather than arbitrary lines drawn on maps.
I'm saying they don't matter with their 3 votes, I don't think the people there feel very important in deciding the presidential election.
It is not just Wyoming, but many states. States like Wyoming and North Dakota get 2-3 times the votes per population as states like California, Florida or Illinois. For states such as New Mexico and Arkansas, the ratio is more like 1.5 times the more populous states. It just doesn't make sense according to how the system is supposed to work.
Some people's vote being worth more is not exactly fair. Having equal representation isn't changing the rules to be in favor of one side, unless you count democracy as a "side".
One party wants to directly fuck with your life removing things people have found a need for, the other is slow. Pick your poison I guess.
No, that's a straight up lie. Multiple blue states have independent commissions that draw the maps, meanwhile red states refuse to allow even that.
I'm sick of fascists trying to gaslight people into believing that everyone is the same as they are. You're a blatant liar.
You're delusional
Typical repug, zero counter argument because you know you're a liar. Thanks for proving it.
We can all see you upvote your own posts
FYI: When you post, there's a single upvote automatically comes up.
And then you woke up.
Almond joys got deez nuts, Mounds don’t
Both candy bars are underrated though :3
Both candy bars are underrated though
I’ll die on this hill with you.
Fuck the teams. What's my team? I'm an independent. I've never once been registered in a party in my decades of voting. Knock off the team bullshit. It's how idiots think
It would be nice if 40-45% of the country didn't try to force the other 60% to live by their rules.
Lol you're only an independent because it inflates your ego. You actually think you're smarter than everyone else. You even say as much. It has fuck all to do with your political views or any desire to make the country a better place.
I'm an independent because I will vote for whoever makes sense. I never vote party line and I never vote for only one party consistently. If I'm calling people stupid it's because they think aligning with a party no matter what makes sense. It doesn't. It's rigid and ignorant. So yeah, I'm smarter than people like that
Just lately, republicans have become so toxic and stupid, I wouldn't dare vote that way. It's objectively terrible
We need and deserve ranked-choice voting.
And for that to happen we need the current gatekeepers to allow the change. There's no incentive for them to ever do what voters want or need
Would be nice if the majority doesn't force the minority to live by their rules either.
So instead you allow a crazy ass minority most people don't agree with to do the same thing. How convenient for you.
remember that the trump campaign spent money convincing people to stay home in 2016. their two messages were "clinton's got this in the bag, your vote doesn't matter" and "trump and clinton are basically the same anyway". vote early and vote often, nothing is sure until after the post-election terrorism has died down.
Literally no polls matter outside of election season, people lie to them, often for protest or primary reasons. Plenty of fascists want desantis because he's a much bigger monster.
I’m just assuming Trump will win at this point, psychologically prepare myself for the absolute worst outcome currently plausible
I mistrust polls. Is this a legitimate poll or is this propaganda aimed at Biden voters? The message is that you don't have to bother voting because your choice is leading the poll. Vote anyway.
If a poll in favour of their candidate is gunna stop people from voting I doubt they were gunna vote in the first place lol
These polls are fun and all, but I don't trust them, especially a over a year out. Things can change drastically.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's the right pushing these poll reports to galvanize their own voters and make their opponents think they can relax.
When it comes to power, I don't think it's ever safe to relax.
I remember 2016. All polls are bullshit. Assume the worst and vote in anticipation of the worst case scenario.
I had my absentee ballot sitting on the dining room table for about a month in 2016. I kept on procrastinating getting it in the mail and finally remembered the day before the election. I live in a swing state 😞
I'm not sure if it was counted and take my share of responsibility for what happened next. I'm definitely not the only one who didn't take it seriously because of all the polls. Never again.
Exactly. Fuck the polls, get out there and vote.
this poll queried 900 voters. 900 people who are the type of people to respond to political polls
for reference, almost 155 million people voted in 2020
so this poll was conducted with less than 0.0006% of the voting population of 2020, and the group that responded is a particular (and biased) group. edit: for additional reference, biden received 7 million more votes than trump did in 2020, which is roughly 7,800 times more voters than were polled for this article.
ignore this completely
go fucking vote
in fact tell the next 10 people you talk to to vote as well
What sample size do ypu think would be appropriate?
so i cant answer your question directly, but i do know that one single poll of 900 people aint it
But under what factual basis are you discarding a 900 person sample size?
I dont remember polls insisting Clinton would win, I remember dumb people saying thats what polls said, and your source makes me not feel shifted in that opinion.
A 3% margin on a poll in no way is declaring total victory to anybody.
Many of the polls you just shared have a 1% difference in support rate.
So you think a 1% better polling rate is " declared total victory for Clinton" but feel confident in discarding a 900 person sample?
If there was 10k people in the polls ypu are referencing, you are using 900 people as proof of absolute victory lol.
i dont know what point of mine youre arguing against
i dont trust political polls in general, and as far as political polls go this one is on the lower end. all i did was make comparisons to other (larger) polls that did not manage to capture the true distribution of voter intent
Did you seriously make claims about poll data without checking your source?
i dont know what you're talking about.
I just want to chime in and say I don't disagree with you. Your tone wasn't dismissive or condescending at all and the disparaging comments replying to you are pretty rude.
I've only been around Lemmy a short time so my sample size is quite small too, but I've seen a lot of rude condescending pricks around here so far. There's all these threads talk about a great lemmy is and how much better than Reddit it is but I'm just seeing a bunch of assholes so far tbh. That doesn't have anything to do with this post or thread, just venting.
Try reading the link you shared and reading your comment bright guy.
Why are you so aggressive and condescending? Bring it in will you, you're making lemmy a toxic shithole like Reddit and this community is like five seconds old.
The irony.
His bad faith "i don't know what I said" shtick is just as shitty as your play the victim bullshit.
y'all don't even make voting day a day off, literally everything America does it to stop people voting, not a democracy at all
You guys don't hold votes on Sundays?
Not where I live. It depends on the area - but Republicans everywhere are trying to make it harder to vote.
In my area, they give out stickers at polling places, so maybe they think that makes up for it not being considered a holiday...?
That's not true. Several states, including the West Coast states of Washington, Oregon and California all allow voting by mail. In Oregon, where I live, I get two weeks to fill out my ballot from the comfort of my own home while researching on the internet and watching YouTube videos telling me who to vote for.
Then I have too many beers at night and end up filling out Donald Trump every single time. God damn it. I wrote him in as my county water commissioner, and he never showed up! What a douchebag.
I'm in Florida and even we have several weeks of early voting where you can find time to cast your vote. It's still weekdays but it's a lot better than a single day.
This is why Republicans know they have to steal the election any way they can. Polling places with reduced hours, stricter requirements for mail ballots, voter ID laws, not letting people provide water to voters waiting in line, invalidating voter registrations, etc. They want to make voting as difficult as possible.
Umm, 2016 showed us how reliable polls can be
People look at the big picture in polls(X candidate is leading in polls) and then say they're wrong when Y candidate wins, but it's way more nuanced than that.
The 2016 polls were not that far off. Hillary won the popular vote, as the polls predicted. The key states she lost, she lost by small margins within, or not too far from, the margin of error.
If you look at FiveThirtyEight's final prediction for 2016, Trump had a 28.6% chance of winning. That's between a 1 in 3 and 1 in 4 chance! But the media narrative was that Trump had 0 chance, and what happened happened.
2016 was the year a whole bunch of people were convinced that "protest voting" was an actual thing and that "both sides are the same so don't bother voting". Hopefully a few of those people have learned their lesson.
If there's ANYTHING us Americans are good at, it's not learning lessons.
Case in point: we Americans!
Eat poop, Trump.
EDIT: I want to clarify that I do not condone cannibalism.
Joe Manchin? Who looks at the gridlock in D.C. and says: "Yes, I want more of that." Ask me when someone who didn't vote against Roe v Wade decides to declare.
Joe Manchin is such an anachronism at this point. If this were 10-20 years ago, he'd just be a middle of the road Republican. Since it's 2023, he's too far left for the nazis modern Republican Party, and on the wrong side of just about every main stream Democrat issue. The only thing you can assume if Manchin runs is that he has some big donors that really want to see Trump win that will set Manchin up with a cushy job as a lobbyist.
He's not saying "I want more gridlock", he's saying "I want more of whatever personally benefits me, and I have to cause gridlock to get it, that's just fine".
VOTE VOTE VOTE
While I'm happy to hear it, any political article calling something brutal or savage or claiming one destroys another is clearly a piece of clickbait garbage.
QubaXR SLAMS the OP
😂
Indeed. I'm glad to see a headline pouring cold water on the "no really THIS time a spoiler candidate matters!" Frenzy, but this far out from elections, I'm not sure it's worth participating in the horse race coverage by clicking it.
I love that the article casually includes at the end Senator Kennedy (R) La saying that Biden is getting the justice department to go after Trump to make Trump more popular and win the primary because Biden believes Trump is the only one he could beat. Just wow.
Senator Kennedy is off his rocker
He announced he was running, because DOJ informed him he was being investigated. Not the other way around.
The part of these polls that none of these publications talk about is that 40% of voters still support this shitbag, a liar, grifter, and traitor to this country.
The GOP saw the nonreaction to an open attempt of sedition and they have not forgotten it.
They should have an old guy scrap like in family guy with Herbert and the Nazi
We are basically gonna have this with Musk and zuck
Is this the same poll that predicted a Hillary win?
Almost every poll at the time showed that everyone could beat Trump except for Hillary. The DNC is as responsible for the Trump presidency as the RNC.
Don't see this repeated often enough. Good to see
How is this myth still not dead lol
Most probabilities gave Trump like a 25% chance to win. 1/4 is a very real chance.
That's low, but still 25% still high.
Remember that most people thought Trump had no chance in 2016 also. So even if he only has a 25% chance of winning, act as though he's got a 50% chance and you're the deciding vote.
I legit thought the "powers that be" would realize how dangerous trump is and wouldn't allow it. That's the day I fully realized there truly is no Illuminati, no conspiracy, no dark shadow group in control, nobody in charge.
Do you think Trump will stay in if poll after poll continues to show him losing?
I get that he NEEDS to win if he wants to avoid prison, but can his fragile ego take losing again? He couldn't handle losing the popular vote in 2016 and he WON that election. 2020 showed how internalized he takes being a two time loser.
Trump has no choice but to stay in. It's his only hope to avoid jail.
Yes he'll stay in and yes he'll call it rigged and yes he'll do everything he can to subvert the results if he loses. Watch for trump supporters at the state and county levels, they will 100% try to refuse certification if the results do show him losing.
Makes me wonder which Republican has the best chance then. My bet is someone who is not at the lead of the fundraising pack as of yet. Nikki Haley? Chris Christie?
I mean with any luck, they have painted themselves into a corner of hypocrisy and wedge issues so heavily they can't win the presidency for another 12 years. But as we all know, Americans can't just let OK, they get restless and just vote for change for changes sake eventually.
You make the mistake in thinking right wingers give a shit about hypocrisy and consistency - they don't. Those are tools they use against their enemies, nothing more.
Right, but you generally need to collect some amount of independents and young people to win an election. Fingers are crossed that if turn outs are high, every election that gets harder and harder to manage.
I'm hoping literally any Republican wins the primary and then trump runs third party. He could pull a Nader for the next three elections easily, stealing a few crucial % of votes. The party deserves it for creating that monster.
That's a terrible tracking tool, except for all of the others.
What's a better tool?
Swoosh?
I can't find this when I Google it, it only pops up Nike stuff. Do you have a link?
538
Doesn't 538 have an editorial slant? I was talking about a site that just reports poll results from all the polls and takes an average. I couldn't find that aggregate analysis and daily poll reporting on 538.
RCP has a tendency to post even the most crackpot polling firms which gives the entire site a rightward lean.
The polls clearly show that nobody in the US wants the theocracy the GOP is selling. Its not going to end if Biden wins or not. Go out and vote, btw.
Statistics can be used to prove anything. 3 out of 4 people know that.
Okay Homer
You missed a chance to say he is losing winning "bigly". It is not too late... :-D
Trump's first term was enough to scare off everyone apart from the diehard chucklefucks and there aren't enough of those clowns to get him a second one without some serious electoral fuckery. I just hope Biden doesn't have any health issues because a match up against Kamala Harris might be a different story..
You'd expect there not to be serious electoral fuckery? Look who we're dealing with!
I don’t believe for a second that they won’t at least try.
But can we have neither?
Why?
Because they are both terrible. I mean, don't get me wrong, if we have to choose between them, Biden is so much less harmful than Trump it's not even a choice, of course we need to vote for Biden in the general election if those are the only viable candidates. But Biden has actively opposed any climate measure sufficient to prevent the worst impacts of the crisis. Factually, Biden is actively trying to destroy civilization. He is a strong supporter of the antidemocratic and inhumane system of capitalism. He literally took away the basic human rights to organize and withhold labor from the rail workers.
Also, while this poll may give you the impression we need Biden to prevent Trump's return, it isn't true. Both the last presidental election, and this poll, are more referendums on Trump than anything. Manchin isn't an interesting spoiler to throw in - none of the dozens of voters who think Manchin is better than both Trump and Biden would care to risk letting Trump win by actually supporting Manchin. If the Democrats put forward a progressive candidate, they would do even better against Trump.
“Biden deserves a lot of the credit for achieving this goal for us,” Russo said. “He and his team continued to work behind the scenes to get all of rail labor a fair agreement for paid sick leave.”
Do you think Russo (the IBEW's railroad director) was being dishonest with this quote? Do you think he was playing politics and that Biden was no help at all?
I cannot speak to Russo's intents or beliefs. What does that have to do with what I said? Please note that the IBEW had already agreed to the terms that were imposed. They are not one of the unions that had their basic human rights taken away. Even if they were, Russo's personal opinions would neither justify, nor excuse, Biden's choice to trample those rights.
How is Biden terrible.
He's actually been probably the most effective president since Jimmy Carter. He's got more shit done than Reagan, Bush senior, Bush Jr, Clinton and Obama and Trump combined times two.
And it's not even close.
I mean, you're right, yeah. In fact, I'd say Biden is significantly better than Carter. Carter is a very good man, but was not a good president.
But that only shows just how low the bar is. We haven't had many decent presidents in this country. Biden is probably the best president in my lifetime, and he's still terrible. My entire previous comment clearly states why.
Humm… where have I heard this before?
I'm not worried about Trump potentially winning the Republican nomination next year. He's finished. There are nowhere near enough believers in the alt-right's QAnon deep state bullshit to prop his campaign up, and anybody moderate would have turned their backs on him after Jan 6th, Mar-A-Lago and all the federal charges now coming to light.
We should be more worried about DeSantis vs Biden.
Idk where this is all coming from, because trumps numbers have only gone up compared to the rest of the Republicans and DeSantis has seen a nosedive in his numbers.
Most Republican primaries are winner-take-all. If enough clowns stay in the clown car, they will all split the anti-Trump vote and Trump can win states with 30-35% .
Trump has enough believers in the QAnon deep state bullshit to kill DeSantis' campaign. Trump knows that as long as he is running for office, all of the investigations into him will have to be more cautious to avoid looking like they're persecuting the opposition. He will run 3rd party if he loses the nomination, and he will take enough voters with him to kill DeSantis' chances in the white house
And I'm not too worried about it for those reasons.
When even Fox News are acknowledging the monster they created...
what exactly do people who spam VOTE on every article about polls think they're contributing
Because polls like these can make people complacent. If they think they're choice is guaranteed to win, they won't bother voting.
What exactly do people who complain about people who spam VOTE think they're contributing?
Agreed with the others. Nothing is guaranteed and the only thing that matters for election results is votes. Another Trump presidency would be indescribably bad for humanity. We have to take these polls for a grain of salt and VOTE. There's absolutely nothing wrong with reminding others of this.
I call BS
Biden has no chance, his rapidly progressing dementia will make him unelectable. Frankly, I cannot believe dems will let him run again.
As much as people like you claim it, there's no actual evidence that Biden has dementia. And Trump is only three years younger than him if it's just about age.
Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.
Trump just doesn't seem like he has dimentia because his memory and intelligence has always been horrible, though his speech patterns and word selection are what we'd use to convince anyone we cared about they should at minimum be in some kind of special care
There's no "proof" but you can see from his public speeches that he's losing it. Trump at least shows mental clarity although he's quite old as well.
Mental clarity! Lol.
You've never heard the guy speak before?
You can see in his eyes that he knows where he is, what he's being asked, and is thinking up a bullshit answer. No signs of dementia whatsoever.
Neither of them have dementia.
Parroting catch phrases from fox bobbleheads just makes you sound stupid.
We will see.
A speech impediment is not a sign of dementia.
Yeah, I hate to break this to ya, but if you've "seen" Biden's public speeches from twenty years ago, you'd see he still had a speech impediment - one he's had his entire life and spent a lot of work to control. As someone else who has trouble speaking in public, props to him for rising above it.
And the sad part? People are literally mocking his speech impediment to make it seem like he has dementia when they know the truth - that's like making fun of someone for being stuck in a wheelchair. But once again, it shows the class of the people we're dealing with.
But let me guess, mocking an orange clown for the makeup they choose to smear on daily would be considered "crossing the line" to you, right?
It's not a speech impediment, it's him clearly forgetting the most basic things. Often he can't even read from the teleprompter properly, gets lost in public venues, keeps tripping over. I feel sorry for him, it's elder abuse what he's going through.
And I've got news for you, Biden is smearing the same orange paint on himself as Trump is, it's what they do to look less gray and old.
"The orange man is back" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4VHLKmstPI
Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.
Believe it or not, you can't diagnose dementia from public speeches.
Umbra
Biden has no chance, his rapidly progressing dementia will make him unelectable. Frankly, I cannot believe dems will let him run again.
Can't tell if sarcasm or troll... That's how insane Republicans are now lol.
Seems like a troll to me. Not getting a sarcastic vibe from this comment.
He's all over this thread saying the same shit. He's an idiot.
Dude is all over the comments here spamming nonsense because they think the right wing morons they listen to are telling the truth with all their culture war rage bait they spew.
Poe's Law.
He won't remember his own name by the time the debates come up.
What actually happens is he can speak clearly and confidently on issues for half an hour or an hour straight in front of cameras, and he makes one or two stumbles, and Fox etc never show the normal part, but jerk off about the errors endlessly. Listening to Biden talk shows no evidence he has dementia. The claims like "he doesn't even know what room he's in!!" are just stupid, and it's fairly insane considering the former republican president is one of the stupidest, most insanely rambling people ever to hold public office.
You’re feeding a right wing troll. You’re welcome.
Vote every time. Polls mean nothing. Vote.
Yep. Polls are getting less reliable anyway, because so many of them rely on landlines, and some segments of the population are less likely to respond to surveys than others.
Which is telling, because the land line polls tend to over inflate Conservative voices, and it still has Trump losing in a landslide.
Overinflating conservatism in the US is par for the course. See: the three-fifths compromise and the electoral college.
The electoral college isn't bad per se, it's just been allowed to become bad in a way that hints at a deeper issue.
Notably that the House has not been expanded in 100 years, even as the population has expanded, and two states have been added.
We need to un-cap the house and get it to the point where it's actually representative again. Doing so would take a single act of congress.
Because the electoral college includes the sum of all Senators and Representatives in a given state, rural states with low populations presidential votes carry much more weight than urban states with large populations. You're right about the House not expanding, that's also shifting things around - but a huge reason the electoral college exists at all was to assure the southern states that the institution of slavery would be protected in order to get them to ratify the Constitution. It shifted power to shitheads on purpose.
The electoral college is bad.
It is unneeded in the modern era.
The electoral college didn't shift power to slave states. That was the 3/5ths compromise.
No, the electoral college was created because the fastest way to travel in the 1780s was via foot. There weren't even good roads between the new states. So it could take months to get from Georgia to Washington, DC.
We don't have that problem anymore, but changing things like that would require a constitutional amendment. Something that is fairly hard to do in today's political climate.
And it still wouldn't fix the problem with the House not being representative. But one act of congress to repeal the permanent apportionment act of 1929 would fix both issues.
Massively expanding the size of the House would make it representative, and it would make the electoral college better represent the populations of each state.
It sure did shift power to the slave states. The Senate gives equal power to each state, regardless of population. That's why, as states were allowed to join the union, they were done for quite some time in pairs - one slave, one free - in order to maintain a balance in the Senate.
You're mixing two different things and not quite understanding history.
The House and the Senate are very different things, and together they add up to the electoral college.
The electoral college was created for one reason and one reason alone. To allow people to actually vote in a national election when the fastest way to get from one end of the country to the other was via footpath.
The Senate was actually a check on the power of the slave states, as was the 3/5ths compromise.
Although, the northern states were also slave states at the time the constitution was signed. People often forget that fact.
The problems with slavery were painfully obvious, even then, but rich white guys wanted to own people. This lead to even more problems as the North slowly banned slavery. But that's a different section in the history book.
I'm sorry, but you have this completely backwards.
Yes, I am aware of how the electoral college works, and what the House and Senate are. I have been voting since 1988. Specifically because the electoral college votes from a particular state include those granted by having two senators, low population states' popular vote carries more weight in electing a president (and vice president). I may have worded that badly before, I hope that was clearer.
The three-fifths compromise made it so that, for purposes of counting population, to decide how many representatives in the House a state had, every five slaves were to count as three persons. This gave the southern states a huge boost of power in the House - because slaves got counted to find out how many representatives they had, even though those slaves were in every other way property, with few rights, certainly not the right to vote in the elections for the reps their number served to create seats for.
Again, the fact that each state had two senators, and that those states were kept evenly split between slave and free states (or states which wanted to expand slavery and states which wanted to curtail or outlaw slavery) demonstrates how the balance of power in the senate was kept that way in order to avoid a conflict over the issue of slavery. Since states had different populations, and since much of the concentration of free people was concentrated in the northeast, the Senate (then as now) gives disproportionate power to (I mentioned this before) lower population and more rural states. Then, those states were largely southern slave states. Today, those states are largely rural conservative states.
Yes, of course, there were slaves in northern states, too, but far fewer, and many northern states were curtailing or outlawing slavery while the south was doing everything in its power not only to protect it in the south, but to expand it for all states.
Slavery was a divisive issue in the US from the very beginning, and the issue got kicked down the road many, many times before Lincoln was elected and the south seceded. Everything that happened at the federal level.
Again, you forget that every state was a slave state in 1780. There were agitators who wanted to end slavery, even in southern states, but none had actually achieved it when the constitution was signed.
The split of House and Senate was actually based on geography, as in which states had no defined western boarders.
The Founders called them small states and large states. The house was meant to appease large states, Which included New York and Pennsylvania.
The small states, got the Senate. Several of the small states had higher populations when the constitution was signed, but they knew it would shift out of their favor given enough time.
The line that the House was meant to appease Slave states is true only because New York and Pennsylvania were slave states at the time.
The 3/5ths compromise was thrown in to address this, but it isn't the red herring you think it was.
The electoral college was then added again, because it took months to get from one end of the country to the other, and there was a distinct chance that the winner of an election would be dead by the time the Georgia electors got to Washington in order to officially cast the vote. That's it. That's the full reason it exists.
The presidential election was in the fall, and the certification was in the spring. All because there were no roads up and down the East Coast. No rail lines, no anything.
You could take a ship, but there was a distinct risk of dying at sea.
The Electoral College did give the slave states more power, by way of the three-fifths compromise: the number of Electors depends on the number of Representatives, which depends on the census of inhabitants, not vote-eligible citizens, including, at the time, 3/5 of the slave population. So a state like Virginia, with more slaves than free people, got a boost compared to a state with only free residents.
It's bad per se and also ludicrous. It gives way too much power to states with small populations, which tend to be rural and very right wing. But it is also ludicrous, we should all vote for the person selected to rule the nation, and every vote should have equal weight. Those same states - the right has a hugely unbalanced say in the senate for the same reason, small rural states have massively disproportionate representation. Reforming presidential elections can be done by amendment or by efforts like the popular vote compact, by agreement between enough states. The stupid constitution forbids amending the way the senate is apportioned, so there might have to be a court fight over changing that rule.
Again… The outsized power of smaller states is 100% an artifact of the permanent apportionment act of 1929. It decreed that the size of the House would be set at 435 members. And then we added two states and tripled the population.
And the House is still 435 members. Some congressional districts have more than a million people. How the hell can a Representative actually be said to represent 1 million people?
To fix this would take a single act of congress. Just a simple repeal of one law, and the adoption of a new apportionment standard. That's it. Then the popular vote would mostly line up with the electoral college, because the votes would have to line up. Because it would actually be representative of the actual population.
Just massively increase the size of the house to match the actual population.
I agree the house needs expansion, however I also think that would only moderately address the electoral college skew toward rural states. Also it is in my opinion irrelevant as it does not address the core problem: the president should be elected by a direct national vote, each person getting one vote of equal weight to every other vote.
I'm saying that if you expand the house, the skew that you are complaining about goes away.
Here's a Time article on the subject that uses the current algorithm to find the most representative number of Representatives while still being a fairly low number. The answer comes out to 930.
That's the on the lower end of fixing the House. There are proposals that go much higher.
And all it takes to get to any of them is a simple act of congress. No need for a constitutional amendment, no need to get the states on board, just one law passed.
Fixing the House would also massively curtail gerrymandering. Particularly the packing and stacking tactics.
And again, all it takes to do this is a single law passed by congress.
Ditching the electoral college completely? That's either get the states to agree to the National Interstate Compact, or a constitutional amendment.
Both would be very hard to actually accomplish.
The skew in the house would be reduced, it might even go away, but with 2 exceptions the states do not allocate electoral college electors proportionally , it’s winner takes all, and doesn’t even require a majority. The small population rural states would continue to have inordinate representation in the presidential vote.
Yeah, that's the second issue. Now, that might be able to changed with an act of congress.
Congress can change the rules around elections, but the federal government tends to be pretty hands-off with elections at the state level, and we'd have to fix the supreme court to get anything like that to stick.
It might take a constitutional amendment, which again, is almost impossible in today's political climate.
So the easiest thing to work towards is un-capping the House, because that would instantly make the government better represent the people, and being honest here, would deny conservatives the House and probably presidency for the foreseeable future. All because conservatives are not actually as popular as the slanted voting system makes them seem to be.
Allow me to evangelize the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which aims to bypass the Electoral College and elect the president by popular vote.
Which still doesn't fix the problem with the House not being representative.
The polls showed him losing solidly to Clinton right up until he won though.... The numbers are looking worse this time, but still.
It's a little more complex than that. The national polls had him losing solidly to Clinton on the popular vote, which actually happened. The real polling errors occurred at the state level, in a few key states.
This actually kind of sucks because then if/when the votes don't look close to how they expect according to polls they automatically assume something fishy happened.
And yes, I realize many will think that regardless.
Polls have evolved since then you know.
I'm not saying they are perfect, but they understand, generally, that landlines aren't key anymore. It's literally their job.
From the article:
But you are right on polls not really meaning that much. Especially over a year away.
Also, you have to take into account the weirdos who answer unknown numbers on their cell phones
That's a valid point. Not many people do. Pollsters have a tough road ahead of them, because actually doing a scientifically valid poll is getting harder.
Also, national polls mean nothing. We don't have a national election.
Trump lost in 2016 by 2.1%, he became President by winning in WI, MI and PA. 2 states Clinton failed to campaign in and a 3rd she alienated.
The total number of votes that elected Trump were just 22,748 in WI, 10,704 in MI and 44,292 in PA.
77,744 people made Trump a President. The rest of us knew better.
Trump became president because the Russian state interfered in our elections. Full stop.
Also true, but it wouldn't have happened if Clinton had actually campaigned in states she took for granted and didn't say stupid shit about coal.
Nothing Clinton said about coal was "stupid shit."
She just told people the truth, and people prefer to be lied to over hearing uncomfortable truths.
Same happened to Al Gore: he told people the truth, and people went absolutely bonkers over that.
By contrast, Trump told people exactly what they wanted to hear, even though it was clear to anyone that he was lying to them or promising them things that he could never, ever fulfill - and people loved it.
Telling blue collar workers your goal is to end their industry is, indeed, stupid shit.
We complain bitterly on the Left about Republican voters voting against their own self interest... well, when you have a Democratic candidate telling them the intent is to put them out of work? What do you expect them to do?
I agree except for that last point
Sorry but that's not how math works. 63 million people made trump president, and only 66 million of us knew better. That huge number of trump voters is the horrible reality of American politics weve had to come to terms with. Luckily some of the trump supporters learned from their mistake, but there's still millions of them out there, not <100k
Millions out there, countered by millions of Democratic voters, and over votes on both sides in states like Texas and California.
It was the 77K in those three states that threw it to Trump, and note, in 2020, Biden did not repeat Clinton's mistake.
Yeah I get that, but what I'm saying is it's not like the rest of the US knew better than that 77k figure. 77k is just the difference in votes, it doesn't represent the only 77k people that did wrong
This is true. 77k vastly undercounts the number of idiots that voted for that guy.
I don't think YOU understand statistics, lmao
I mean, pollsters actually do account for how elections work in their models. There are all sorts of actual reasons polls have failed to be reliable lately, but if you think it's because they just count total responses across the country, that isn't the case.
Not really, case in point is this very poll:
"In the national survey of 910 voters, 47% of voters said they would definitely or probably support Biden, while just 40% said they would back Trump."
Which is meaningless, because unless 47% of voters flip the correct states, it won't matter how much Biden wins.
Remember, Clinton won the popular vote. Gore won the popular vote AND Florida. It didn't matter.
So, I think you're probably right, in this case. But you're just quoting the reporting on the poll, which is very misleading. It makes it sound like there is no statistical model involved at all. From the methodology on the linked full poll results: "The full sample is weighted for region, age, education, gender and race based on US Census information". Like I said, I think you're right - I doubt if they mean weighting for "region" to imply they did an electoral college analysis - but until you look at the actual poll and it's methodology, you can't just assume that an article reporting on the poll is giving an accurate impression. There are polls that do account for state breakdown, and the reporting in an article on such a poll would probably be just the same as here.
It seems the focus of this poll was to get some initial idea what kind of impact a third-party run with Manchin and some Republican running mate would have, and looking at weighted national numbers is probably "good enough" for that purpose, at this time. Definitely not a basis to conclude Biden has it in the bag, and the poll itself doesn't seem to be trying to claim that.
Sorry I'm going on, but yeah, big picture, you are correct, at least in this case.
Oh, there's no doubt a statistical model to represent the entire country. The problem with popularity contest polling like this is the election isn't a popularity contest.
Now, a similar survey running down each contested state and calling out the electoral college votes, that would be useful.
Anything that leads with "a national poll..." can be safely disregarded.
Serious question, which state she alienated and how?
Pennsylvania. She gave a speech in neighboring Ohio where she said:
“We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”
That echoed through coal country, and while nobody expected her to win states like West Virginia, it absolutely killed her in PA.
https://www.npr.org/2016/05/03/476485650/fact-check-hillary-clinton-and-coal-jobs
https://pagop.org/2015/08/03/clinton-pledges-to-continue-the-war-on-coal/
It was a self inflicted injury, which was so, so avoidable.
She COULD have rolled it into a victory like this:
"I'm going to tell you something right now that not a lot of people know... my great grandfather was a coal miner in Durham, England. Moved to Scranton with his six kids dreaming of a better life for all of them. I'd like to see a better life for your fathers, brothers, and sons that doesn't involve risking their lives underground for a few scraps of coal that they'll never share in the profits on."
True story: https://www.palatinate.org.uk/hillary-clinton%E2%80%99s-great-grandfather-was-a-durham-miner-says-local-historian/
Instead? "Imma put a bunch of you out of work. U mad bro? LOL."
Hilary Clinton is the definition of hubris.
Absolutely! If polls were deciding the outcome, Hilary would win in 2016.
Only twice in three elections. This means Trump had a one third chance to win that election. Which, sadly, he did.
If the weather forecast says 30% chance of rain and it rains do you question the validity of the forecast or do you think "I guess I ended up getting some of that rain"?
After 2016, anyone who believes in polls is a fool.
Believing is one thing. Anyone who changes their behavior because of polls, I wanna meet this fucking idiot and find out what's going on in that dumb brain
The 2016 polls were not inaccurate though. They said Trump had a small chance at victory, and he pulled it off. They never said it was impossible, they just said smart money was on Hillary.
Ya, if I remember right FiveThirtyEight had Trump at around 30% chance in 2016, so slightly unlikely but not exactly a crazy longshot.
They were one of the few that gave him that large of a margin, iirc. The rest were in the 90's for Hillary.
The national polling was also pretty accurate, it was the state polling that missed. Trump squeezed out wins in 4 states by a combined total of 50,000 votes. Nationally though the numbers were within their prediction.
Literally nobody wants conservative garbage in office. The party of liars and frauds always defanging enforcement of laws and regulations and everyone knows because we have been talking about it since that Liar War George WMD Bush and housing crash that he did.
Every chance we had at reigning in the psychopathic elites was thwarted by the Conservatives ONLY.
The white dudes sold half of my generation to a liar war and the other half to crippling debt. So we voted in a black man and they revolted by selling out to foreign enemies to steal an election because they got caught stealing 2000 with the Brooks Brothers Riot.
The party of garbage is being taken out and the midterms show it. Polls are garbage and we don’t answer them because we want them to look like assholes like we did during the mid terms AND 2024.
What’s their plan? Ruin our lines of communication from now until 2024 by buying and destroying media in a way that looks like incompetence.
They might go and get crazy and attack the country again OR start pretending they’re Democrats - they already do.
Look at Ron ShitSandwich. Total incompetent shit bag. And he’s only 44. Plenty of time to get worse.
Fucking PREACH!
And then you woke up
The only reason conservatives win anything is because of lines on a fucking map. No one likes that shit
Oof. Almost every institution of politics in America allows them to rule the country as a minority party.
Think about how there are two senators for every state. So tens of millions of people in California get the same political representation as the like one million in Nebraska.
The Supreme Court was designed so that the institution was buffered from political winds. A bunch of conservatives can interpret the Constitution however they want with no political repercussions as a consequence.
States have a lot of leeway in deciding how to conduct elections. That's why they can have single ballot box at a single location in a district with millions of voters. And they do that and say the elections are fair.
Conservatives have advantages all over the place.
Both parties are gerrymandering as much as they can get away with. If you meant the electoral college that's part of being a federation of states, sorry. Changing the rules to benefit your team is not exactly fair either, right?
If the number of electors was distributed in a way that didn't give disproportional representation to states with very small populations, that would be great. Also, the notion that the US is truly a federation of independent states hasn't been accurate for at least 200 years.
It's a bit disproportional for a few states but then again, you can say the votes of people in Wyoming are worth more relatively speaking but it's still just 3 electors in the end. No one will pay much attention to them either way, unlike the more populous states which can swing elections.
You say that like it's a bad thing for people to be in charge rather than arbitrary lines drawn on maps.
I'm saying they don't matter with their 3 votes, I don't think the people there feel very important in deciding the presidential election.
It is not just Wyoming, but many states. States like Wyoming and North Dakota get 2-3 times the votes per population as states like California, Florida or Illinois. For states such as New Mexico and Arkansas, the ratio is more like 1.5 times the more populous states. It just doesn't make sense according to how the system is supposed to work.
Some people's vote being worth more is not exactly fair. Having equal representation isn't changing the rules to be in favor of one side, unless you count democracy as a "side".
One party wants to directly fuck with your life removing things people have found a need for, the other is slow. Pick your poison I guess.
No, that's a straight up lie. Multiple blue states have independent commissions that draw the maps, meanwhile red states refuse to allow even that.
I'm sick of fascists trying to gaslight people into believing that everyone is the same as they are. You're a blatant liar.
You're delusional
Typical repug, zero counter argument because you know you're a liar. Thanks for proving it.
We can all see you upvote your own posts
FYI: When you post, there's a single upvote automatically comes up.
And then you woke up.
Almond joys got deez nuts, Mounds don’t
Both candy bars are underrated though :3
I’ll die on this hill with you.
Fuck the teams. What's my team? I'm an independent. I've never once been registered in a party in my decades of voting. Knock off the team bullshit. It's how idiots think
It would be nice if 40-45% of the country didn't try to force the other 60% to live by their rules.
Lol you're only an independent because it inflates your ego. You actually think you're smarter than everyone else. You even say as much. It has fuck all to do with your political views or any desire to make the country a better place.
I'm an independent because I will vote for whoever makes sense. I never vote party line and I never vote for only one party consistently. If I'm calling people stupid it's because they think aligning with a party no matter what makes sense. It doesn't. It's rigid and ignorant. So yeah, I'm smarter than people like that
Just lately, republicans have become so toxic and stupid, I wouldn't dare vote that way. It's objectively terrible
We need and deserve ranked-choice voting.
And for that to happen we need the current gatekeepers to allow the change. There's no incentive for them to ever do what voters want or need
Would be nice if the majority doesn't force the minority to live by their rules either.
So instead you allow a crazy ass minority most people don't agree with to do the same thing. How convenient for you.
remember that the trump campaign spent money convincing people to stay home in 2016. their two messages were "clinton's got this in the bag, your vote doesn't matter" and "trump and clinton are basically the same anyway". vote early and vote often, nothing is sure until after the post-election terrorism has died down.
Literally no polls matter outside of election season, people lie to them, often for protest or primary reasons. Plenty of fascists want desantis because he's a much bigger monster.
I’m just assuming Trump will win at this point, psychologically prepare myself for the absolute worst outcome currently plausible
I mistrust polls. Is this a legitimate poll or is this propaganda aimed at Biden voters? The message is that you don't have to bother voting because your choice is leading the poll. Vote anyway.
If a poll in favour of their candidate is gunna stop people from voting I doubt they were gunna vote in the first place lol
These polls are fun and all, but I don't trust them, especially a over a year out. Things can change drastically.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's the right pushing these poll reports to galvanize their own voters and make their opponents think they can relax.
When it comes to power, I don't think it's ever safe to relax.
I remember 2016. All polls are bullshit. Assume the worst and vote in anticipation of the worst case scenario.
I had my absentee ballot sitting on the dining room table for about a month in 2016. I kept on procrastinating getting it in the mail and finally remembered the day before the election. I live in a swing state 😞
I'm not sure if it was counted and take my share of responsibility for what happened next. I'm definitely not the only one who didn't take it seriously because of all the polls. Never again.
Exactly. Fuck the polls, get out there and vote.
this poll queried 900 voters. 900 people who are the type of people to respond to political polls
for reference, almost 155 million people voted in 2020
so this poll was conducted with less than 0.0006% of the voting population of 2020, and the group that responded is a particular (and biased) group. edit: for additional reference, biden received 7 million more votes than trump did in 2020, which is roughly 7,800 times more voters than were polled for this article.
ignore this completely
go fucking vote
in fact tell the next 10 people you talk to to vote as well
What sample size do ypu think would be appropriate?
in the 2016 election, tens of thousands of people were reached for some polls, and these polls all declared total victory for Clinton
so i cant answer your question directly, but i do know that one single poll of 900 people aint it
But under what factual basis are you discarding a 900 person sample size?
I dont remember polls insisting Clinton would win, I remember dumb people saying thats what polls said, and your source makes me not feel shifted in that opinion.
A 3% margin on a poll in no way is declaring total victory to anybody.
Many of the polls you just shared have a 1% difference in support rate.
So you think a 1% better polling rate is " declared total victory for Clinton" but feel confident in discarding a 900 person sample?
If there was 10k people in the polls ypu are referencing, you are using 900 people as proof of absolute victory lol.
i dont know what point of mine youre arguing against
i dont trust political polls in general, and as far as political polls go this one is on the lower end. all i did was make comparisons to other (larger) polls that did not manage to capture the true distribution of voter intent
Did you seriously make claims about poll data without checking your source?
i dont know what you're talking about.
I just want to chime in and say I don't disagree with you. Your tone wasn't dismissive or condescending at all and the disparaging comments replying to you are pretty rude.
I've only been around Lemmy a short time so my sample size is quite small too, but I've seen a lot of rude condescending pricks around here so far. There's all these threads talk about a great lemmy is and how much better than Reddit it is but I'm just seeing a bunch of assholes so far tbh. That doesn't have anything to do with this post or thread, just venting.
Try reading the link you shared and reading your comment bright guy.
Why are you so aggressive and condescending? Bring it in will you, you're making lemmy a toxic shithole like Reddit and this community is like five seconds old.
The irony.
His bad faith "i don't know what I said" shtick is just as shitty as your play the victim bullshit.
Get fucked loser
Polls exist for pundits and political analysts.
I'm still gonna be at the booth voting.
Work and stupid polls like this won't keep me way.
y'all don't even make voting day a day off, literally everything America does it to stop people voting, not a democracy at all
You guys don't hold votes on Sundays?
Not where I live. It depends on the area - but Republicans everywhere are trying to make it harder to vote.
In my area, they give out stickers at polling places, so maybe they think that makes up for it not being considered a holiday...?
That's not true. Several states, including the West Coast states of Washington, Oregon and California all allow voting by mail. In Oregon, where I live, I get two weeks to fill out my ballot from the comfort of my own home while researching on the internet and watching YouTube videos telling me who to vote for.
Then I have too many beers at night and end up filling out Donald Trump every single time. God damn it. I wrote him in as my county water commissioner, and he never showed up! What a douchebag.
I'm in Florida and even we have several weeks of early voting where you can find time to cast your vote. It's still weekdays but it's a lot better than a single day.
This is why Republicans know they have to steal the election any way they can. Polling places with reduced hours, stricter requirements for mail ballots, voter ID laws, not letting people provide water to voters waiting in line, invalidating voter registrations, etc. They want to make voting as difficult as possible.
Umm, 2016 showed us how reliable polls can be
People look at the big picture in polls(X candidate is leading in polls) and then say they're wrong when Y candidate wins, but it's way more nuanced than that.
The 2016 polls were not that far off. Hillary won the popular vote, as the polls predicted. The key states she lost, she lost by small margins within, or not too far from, the margin of error.
If you look at FiveThirtyEight's final prediction for 2016, Trump had a 28.6% chance of winning. That's between a 1 in 3 and 1 in 4 chance! But the media narrative was that Trump had 0 chance, and what happened happened.
2016 was the year a whole bunch of people were convinced that "protest voting" was an actual thing and that "both sides are the same so don't bother voting". Hopefully a few of those people have learned their lesson.
If there's ANYTHING us Americans are good at, it's not learning lessons.
Case in point: we Americans!
Eat poop, Trump.
EDIT: I want to clarify that I do not condone cannibalism.
Joe Manchin? Who looks at the gridlock in D.C. and says: "Yes, I want more of that." Ask me when someone who didn't vote against Roe v Wade decides to declare.
Joe Manchin is such an anachronism at this point. If this were 10-20 years ago, he'd just be a middle of the road Republican. Since it's 2023, he's too far left for the
nazismodern Republican Party, and on the wrong side of just about every main stream Democrat issue. The only thing you can assume if Manchin runs is that he has some big donors that really want to see Trump win that will set Manchin up with a cushy job as a lobbyist.He's not saying "I want more gridlock", he's saying "I want more of whatever personally benefits me, and I have to cause gridlock to get it, that's just fine".
VOTE VOTE VOTE
While I'm happy to hear it, any political article calling something brutal or savage or claiming one destroys another is clearly a piece of clickbait garbage.
QubaXR SLAMS the OP
😂
Indeed. I'm glad to see a headline pouring cold water on the "no really THIS time a spoiler candidate matters!" Frenzy, but this far out from elections, I'm not sure it's worth participating in the horse race coverage by clicking it.
I love that the article casually includes at the end Senator Kennedy (R) La saying that Biden is getting the justice department to go after Trump to make Trump more popular and win the primary because Biden believes Trump is the only one he could beat. Just wow.
Senator Kennedy is off his rocker
He announced he was running, because DOJ informed him he was being investigated. Not the other way around.
The part of these polls that none of these publications talk about is that 40% of voters still support this shitbag, a liar, grifter, and traitor to this country.
The GOP saw the nonreaction to an open attempt of sedition and they have not forgotten it.
They should have an old guy scrap like in family guy with Herbert and the Nazi
We are basically gonna have this with Musk and zuck
Is this the same poll that predicted a Hillary win?
Almost every poll at the time showed that everyone could beat Trump except for Hillary. The DNC is as responsible for the Trump presidency as the RNC.
Don't see this repeated often enough. Good to see
How is this myth still not dead lol
Most probabilities gave Trump like a 25% chance to win. 1/4 is a very real chance.
That's low, but still 25% still high.
Remember that most people thought Trump had no chance in 2016 also. So even if he only has a 25% chance of winning, act as though he's got a 50% chance and you're the deciding vote.
I legit thought the "powers that be" would realize how dangerous trump is and wouldn't allow it. That's the day I fully realized there truly is no Illuminati, no conspiracy, no dark shadow group in control, nobody in charge.
Do you think Trump will stay in if poll after poll continues to show him losing?
I get that he NEEDS to win if he wants to avoid prison, but can his fragile ego take losing again? He couldn't handle losing the popular vote in 2016 and he WON that election. 2020 showed how internalized he takes being a two time loser.
Trump has no choice but to stay in. It's his only hope to avoid jail.
Yes he'll stay in and yes he'll call it rigged and yes he'll do everything he can to subvert the results if he loses. Watch for trump supporters at the state and county levels, they will 100% try to refuse certification if the results do show him losing.
Makes me wonder which Republican has the best chance then. My bet is someone who is not at the lead of the fundraising pack as of yet. Nikki Haley? Chris Christie?
I mean with any luck, they have painted themselves into a corner of hypocrisy and wedge issues so heavily they can't win the presidency for another 12 years. But as we all know, Americans can't just let OK, they get restless and just vote for change for changes sake eventually.
You make the mistake in thinking right wingers give a shit about hypocrisy and consistency - they don't. Those are tools they use against their enemies, nothing more.
Right, but you generally need to collect some amount of independents and young people to win an election. Fingers are crossed that if turn outs are high, every election that gets harder and harder to manage.
I'm hoping literally any Republican wins the primary and then trump runs third party. He could pull a Nader for the next three elections easily, stealing a few crucial % of votes. The party deserves it for creating that monster.
Totally agree!
this is a bullshit article. poll suggest a lot of things and this poll is awful. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/
A reminder that these polls assume people who support Biden are actually going to get out and vote for him.
Everyone should make sure they are registered to vote and then actually vote.
For reference, one of the best ways to track US polls is here: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
That's a terrible tracking tool, except for all of the others.
What's a better tool?
Swoosh?
I can't find this when I Google it, it only pops up Nike stuff. Do you have a link?
538
Doesn't 538 have an editorial slant? I was talking about a site that just reports poll results from all the polls and takes an average. I couldn't find that aggregate analysis and daily poll reporting on 538.
RCP has a tendency to post even the most crackpot polling firms which gives the entire site a rightward lean.
The polls clearly show that nobody in the US wants the theocracy the GOP is selling. Its not going to end if Biden wins or not. Go out and vote, btw.
Statistics can be used to prove anything. 3 out of 4 people know that.
Okay Homer
You missed a chance to say he is
losingwinning "bigly". It is not too late... :-DTrump's first term was enough to scare off everyone apart from the diehard chucklefucks and there aren't enough of those clowns to get him a second one without some serious electoral fuckery. I just hope Biden doesn't have any health issues because a match up against Kamala Harris might be a different story..
You'd expect there not to be serious electoral fuckery? Look who we're dealing with!
I don’t believe for a second that they won’t at least try.
But can we have neither?
Why?
Because they are both terrible. I mean, don't get me wrong, if we have to choose between them, Biden is so much less harmful than Trump it's not even a choice, of course we need to vote for Biden in the general election if those are the only viable candidates. But Biden has actively opposed any climate measure sufficient to prevent the worst impacts of the crisis. Factually, Biden is actively trying to destroy civilization. He is a strong supporter of the antidemocratic and inhumane system of capitalism. He literally took away the basic human rights to organize and withhold labor from the rail workers.
Also, while this poll may give you the impression we need Biden to prevent Trump's return, it isn't true. Both the last presidental election, and this poll, are more referendums on Trump than anything. Manchin isn't an interesting spoiler to throw in - none of the dozens of voters who think Manchin is better than both Trump and Biden would care to risk letting Trump win by actually supporting Manchin. If the Democrats put forward a progressive candidate, they would do even better against Trump.
What do you think of the IBEW praising Biden in the wake of their June 2023 victories surrounding sick leave?
Do you think Russo (the IBEW's railroad director) was being dishonest with this quote? Do you think he was playing politics and that Biden was no help at all?
I cannot speak to Russo's intents or beliefs. What does that have to do with what I said? Please note that the IBEW had already agreed to the terms that were imposed. They are not one of the unions that had their basic human rights taken away. Even if they were, Russo's personal opinions would neither justify, nor excuse, Biden's choice to trample those rights.
How is Biden terrible.
He's actually been probably the most effective president since Jimmy Carter. He's got more shit done than Reagan, Bush senior, Bush Jr, Clinton and Obama and Trump combined times two.
And it's not even close.
I mean, you're right, yeah. In fact, I'd say Biden is significantly better than Carter. Carter is a very good man, but was not a good president.
But that only shows just how low the bar is. We haven't had many decent presidents in this country. Biden is probably the best president in my lifetime, and he's still terrible. My entire previous comment clearly states why.
Humm… where have I heard this before?
I'm not worried about Trump potentially winning the Republican nomination next year. He's finished. There are nowhere near enough believers in the alt-right's QAnon deep state bullshit to prop his campaign up, and anybody moderate would have turned their backs on him after Jan 6th, Mar-A-Lago and all the federal charges now coming to light.
We should be more worried about DeSantis vs Biden.
Idk where this is all coming from, because trumps numbers have only gone up compared to the rest of the Republicans and DeSantis has seen a nosedive in his numbers.
Most Republican primaries are winner-take-all. If enough clowns stay in the clown car, they will all split the anti-Trump vote and Trump can win states with 30-35% .
Trump has enough believers in the QAnon deep state bullshit to kill DeSantis' campaign. Trump knows that as long as he is running for office, all of the investigations into him will have to be more cautious to avoid looking like they're persecuting the opposition. He will run 3rd party if he loses the nomination, and he will take enough voters with him to kill DeSantis' chances in the white house
And I'm not too worried about it for those reasons.
When even Fox News are acknowledging the monster they created...
what exactly do people who spam VOTE on every article about polls think they're contributing
Because polls like these can make people complacent. If they think they're choice is guaranteed to win, they won't bother voting.
What exactly do people who complain about people who spam VOTE think they're contributing?
Agreed with the others. Nothing is guaranteed and the only thing that matters for election results is votes. Another Trump presidency would be indescribably bad for humanity. We have to take these polls for a grain of salt and VOTE. There's absolutely nothing wrong with reminding others of this.
I call BS
Biden has no chance, his rapidly progressing dementia will make him unelectable. Frankly, I cannot believe dems will let him run again.
As much as people like you claim it, there's no actual evidence that Biden has dementia. And Trump is only three years younger than him if it's just about age.
Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.
Trump just doesn't seem like he has dimentia because his memory and intelligence has always been horrible, though his speech patterns and word selection are what we'd use to convince anyone we cared about they should at minimum be in some kind of special care
There's no "proof" but you can see from his public speeches that he's losing it. Trump at least shows mental clarity although he's quite old as well.
Mental clarity! Lol. You've never heard the guy speak before?
You can see in his eyes that he knows where he is, what he's being asked, and is thinking up a bullshit answer. No signs of dementia whatsoever.
Neither of them have dementia.
Parroting catch phrases from fox bobbleheads just makes you sound stupid.
We will see.
A speech impediment is not a sign of dementia.
Yeah, I hate to break this to ya, but if you've "seen" Biden's public speeches from twenty years ago, you'd see he still had a speech impediment - one he's had his entire life and spent a lot of work to control. As someone else who has trouble speaking in public, props to him for rising above it.
And the sad part? People are literally mocking his speech impediment to make it seem like he has dementia when they know the truth - that's like making fun of someone for being stuck in a wheelchair. But once again, it shows the class of the people we're dealing with.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/05/politics/joe-biden-stutter/index.html
But let me guess, mocking an orange clown for the makeup they choose to smear on daily would be considered "crossing the line" to you, right?
It's not a speech impediment, it's him clearly forgetting the most basic things. Often he can't even read from the teleprompter properly, gets lost in public venues, keeps tripping over. I feel sorry for him, it's elder abuse what he's going through.
And I've got news for you, Biden is smearing the same orange paint on himself as Trump is, it's what they do to look less gray and old.
"The orange man is back"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4VHLKmstPI
Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.
Believe it or not, you can't diagnose dementia from public speeches.
Can't tell if sarcasm or troll... That's how insane Republicans are now lol.
Seems like a troll to me. Not getting a sarcastic vibe from this comment.
He's all over this thread saying the same shit. He's an idiot.
Dude is all over the comments here spamming nonsense because they think the right wing morons they listen to are telling the truth with all their culture war rage bait they spew.
Poe's Law.
He won't remember his own name by the time the debates come up.
What actually happens is he can speak clearly and confidently on issues for half an hour or an hour straight in front of cameras, and he makes one or two stumbles, and Fox etc never show the normal part, but jerk off about the errors endlessly. Listening to Biden talk shows no evidence he has dementia. The claims like "he doesn't even know what room he's in!!" are just stupid, and it's fairly insane considering the former republican president is one of the stupidest, most insanely rambling people ever to hold public office.
You’re feeding a right wing troll. You’re welcome.