280

Biden campaign announces it will target flipping Trump’s Florida (thehill.com)

submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

63 comments fedilink hide all child comments

President Biden’s reelection campaign announced Monday that it will aim to flip Florida, targeting the home of former President Trump.

Campaign manager Julie Chavez Rodriguez said in a memo that investing in Florida is part of the Biden campaign’s pathway to 270 electoral votes. Trump won the Sunshine State in 2020 with more than 51 percent, compared to Biden’s 48 percent.

“Make no mistake: Florida is not an easy state to win, but it is a winnable one for President Biden, especially given Trump’s weak, cash-strapped campaign, and serious vulnerabilities within his coalition,” she said.

…

The Biden campaign has also set its sights on flipping North Carolina in November. Trump won North Carolina by a tight margin in 2020, and Biden visited the state as part of his tour of every battleground state last month.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -10 points 7 months ago

They have so much fucking money on hand they can blow it in Florida to troll Trump and Desantis. I think roughly 10-20% of the Republican party is,

It already cost Biden over a billion dollars in 2020 to win the electoral by a very small margin...

Pew research did a poll and found that 12% of respondents were capable of operating a Nuclear Sub (the reality is less than 1%)

Weirdly topical, but I'm assuming they meant Naval Nuclear Engineers...

The ASVAB is typical standardized test where the best score is 99%. Weighted for when the test is taken.

So if only 1% could be a nuke, that would be assuming 100% of people take the test and the Navy only takes 99.

Now, I got a 99, and got into the program. But there was people in the high 70s as well. People could retake the test as many times as they want. And there is/was even a supplemental test people could take if their main ASVAB wasn't quite high enough.

So yeah, 12% of poll responders being able to do the toughest job of a nuclear sub doesn't sound right...

It's really much higher than that.

[-] RGB3x3@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

You didn't click the link did you?

The poll was about who is "licensed" not just "smart enough."

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -3 points 7 months ago

You didn’t click the link did you?

The on hyperlinked in the previous sentence that just says "polls are broken"?

No, I don't click on most links that don't say where they're going and sounc conspiracial. I'm on a phone and can't "hover" to see.

I just did tho:

For example, in a February 2022 survey experiment, we asked opt-in respondents if they were licensed to operate a class SSGN (nuclear) submarine. In the opt-in survey, 12% of adults under 30 claimed this qualification, significantly higher than the share among older respondents. In reality, the share of Americans with this type of submarine license rounds to 0%.

So, OP read one thing, and then said another.

But that's about something factual, not an opinion like "who are you going to vote for".

And it is specifically about online opt in polls...

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/05/online-opt-in-polls-can-produce-misleading-results-especially-for-young-people-and-hispanic-adults/

Which is probably why OP decided to hide the link. You don't even need to read the title to realize why it's not relevant. The link says it plain as day.

But man, I've been overestimating people recently.

If you truly don't understand why "online opt in polls" are the worst kind of polling I can take the time to explain it. But it's basically like saying trump is selling shitty shoes so you've decided to go barefoot the rest of your life.

load more comments (1 replies)

this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2024

280 points (97.3% liked)

politics

19104 readers

3570 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News