Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
The press has learned that "engagement" is the only way for them to survive. The problem is that they are generating a false narrative to attract more viewers. Basically, it's become clickbait. They refuse to show all the information because then voters would see it and stop viewing them daily.
The press
Bruh. Do you even know who wrote this article?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sullivan_(journalist)
Like, she was the public editor of the NY Times during that election...
And this whole article is about how she still doesn't even know the basics of polling like margin of error.
If you were surprised Hillary lost in 2016, the only journalists you should be mad at is ones like this author who just kept telling everyone Clinton was a sure thing and Trump couldn't possibly win
Which is the same situation this election with Biden, except his numbers are even worse
Being surprised Clinton lost in 2016 is fine; she was the favourite to win. That's just different from it being a sure thing, which this author doesn't seem to understand.
...
The numbers had her winning a few states by like 2-3%, with 5% margins of error a month out from the election.
If someone was surprised she lost those states after going to California of all states for a victory lap while trump campaigned in those close ones...
Then we should not listen to their advice after telling us they still don't understand statistics.
This isn't just some random person, she is a famous journalist with a nationwide platform who seems to think ignorance and zero standards is the best path forward.
The fact that she supports democrats over republicans makes this more concerning, not less.
If the only two options are both like this, it won't be long till we have no options.
I learned the hard way to be skeptical about the predictive power of public opinion polls.
I remember election night 2016 all too well, as I hit delete on my partially pre-written Washington Post column and instead tried to look into the future of a Trump presidency. It was a future that wasn’t supposed to happen
Polls weren't wrong...
It's just way too many people who call themselves "political experts" only looked at popular vote polls because they're lazy and don't know what they're doing. If they did look at state polls, they had no idea what magin of error means, and people learn that in highschool math without ever taking a stats class.
The 2016 election results were literally in range of predictions for 2016.
Clinton was never a sure thing, but journalists like the one who wrote this article just kept screeching at anyone trying to explain that to them.
Just like this same journalist is still doing 8 years later when people say Biden isn't popular.
They haven't learned a fucking thing. And they never will.
Part of it is that people want to vote for the winner. So by repeating the narrative that there candidate will be the winner encourages others to want to vote for that person….
But the polls of Hillary versus actual outcome were absolutely within the margin of error
Nah.
They want blind loyalty to the party, zero criticisms allowed and 100% votes from every party member.
She's no different than Faux News talking heads telling her viewers to disregard all science and only believe her opinion.
Just because she can't understand polling doesn't mean polling is worthless. But I've seen far too many people on here claim the same thing lately.
It's dangerous to give these anti science nutjobs a platform, and statistics is a science no matter how much some people disagree with the results.
The methodology and sampling of polls needs to be scrutinized. The NYT poll from a while back showing Trump +3-4% was incredibly sus. It had a very large rural presence in the sample, and the poll itself suggested that women were split 50/50 on Trump. Given how races have gone post Dobbs, that feels highly unrealistic.
Polls are only as good as their methodology. Frankly, I think many aren't representative. We shouldn't be complacent about things, but I think we are flying blind.
They also call landline numbers - which is why it skews rural and dumbass. Anecdotally, every person I know where I live who has a landline fits many of the Trump/Boomer stereotypes. Their cellphone is their backup number and they don't give it out because they still believe they are paying for each minute even though they have unlimited voice and text.
I’m starting to feel like if that many people want him, then they fucking deserve him
Get your guns and your non-perishable food and tradable commodities that don't require special storage.
And be prepared to hunker down if shit really does hit the fan when he gets back in.
Everyone think back to the height of pandemic. The lockdowns, virtual all social functions stopping, talk of "curfews." Shortages of all kinds of normal items, stores were rationing toilet paper lol.
Imagine that but for years.
I tell people as often as I can, especially my trans and BIPOC friends: Now is the time, get a couple guns (a long one and a short one) and learn how to use them. Learn a little first aid, you just need to know how to stabilize someone. Start networking with like-minded people in your community. The police will not protect us, they've shown they'll happily shoot us in the face with rubber bullets and club senior citizens to the ground. If a caravan of MAGAts visits your neighborhood with bad intentions you'll find no support from those in power.
Work towards peace, prepare for the inevitable.
SocialistRA.org
Green line go up became a meme 20 years ago when Bush tried to take a victory lap on low inflation and stock increases.
Stop using indicators that don't matter to the average American. Those are measurements for economists to look at the top level picture, not for measuring the standard of living for the majority of Americans.
Oh good another economist swearing things are good because they’re using 2022 as a reference (@ that dumb thanksgiving anecdote). It baffles me that they’re baffled.
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/food-inflation-in-the-united-states/
'polls can't predict' ??? its their chief function.
Might be their purpose, but they’re done so shittily these days they can’t be relied on. When was the last time you were polled? Do you have a landline? Do you answer unknown numbers on your cell? Do you go to the mall?
Agreed! IIRC, Boomers are the largest population that still has landlines. Thats just one reason I don't really pay any attention to polls
The polls for Hillary were within the margin of error
This is the best summary I could come up with:
I remember election night 2016 all too well, as I hit delete on my partially pre-written Washington Post column and instead tried to look into the future of a Trump presidency.
Given that searing memory, I reacted to the recent much-trumpeted Wall Street Journal poll about the 2024 presidential race with, well, not exactly a shrug, but not a primal scream either.
That was the poll that said Donald Trump is leading Joe Biden in six of seven crucial battleground states, the very ones most likely to determine who gets elected in November.
The former president is ahead, according to the Journal’s poll, in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina; the two candidates are tied in Wisconsin.
Paul Krugman, the Nobel laureate economist, wrote recently: “The economic news in 2023 was almost miraculously good.” (Even the cost of a classic Thanksgiving dinner, he notes, was down 4.5% last year.)
And I do take seriously the analysis by Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo, who looked at the Journal poll and several others, comparing them with earlier ones, and concluding that Biden is making slow, uneven progress.
The original article contains 742 words, the summary contains 188 words. Saved 75%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!