27
submitted 3 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Humanius@lemmy.world 58 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Please please please don't vote the orange man into office.. good God.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 27 points 3 months ago

Unlikely to improve. The Biden team is making it clear that they intend to move to the right to get the voters they think they need this election cycle.

Its also pretty clear to any one with eyes that he's not going to find the voters he needs there, but it is what it is.

For context, no incumbent has ever won a second term with an approval of less than 51%.

[-] Fondots@lemmy.world 29 points 3 months ago

no incumbent has ever won a second term with an approval of less than 51%.

Sigh Relevant XKCD

load more comments (24 replies)
[-] OneStepAhead@lemmynsfw.com 18 points 3 months ago

No convicted felon has been elected. I don’t think anyone has ever had a second term with someone between either…

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago

has ever had a second term with someone between either…

Once. Grover Cleveland. His party basically blew the 4th year election, and his second term was a pretty strong showing.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 13 points 3 months ago

And no challenger has ever won with an approval rating as bad as Trump's. One way or another a historically unpopular candidate is going to get their second term.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

Yeah, I mean, its super interesting in an academic way.

And, you know.. panic inducing in almost every other way.

If Cornell West hadn't clustered the fuck out of his candidacy, we could have been seeing a Green party & Independent coalition representing a viable third party threat this year. The Green party is the only third party that had the infrastructure in place to get onto the ballot in all 50 states. But West screwed the pooch. I think he with Stein as running mate might have actually been able to make it happen, purely based on how hated the two extant candidates are.

[-] Weirdmusic@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Don't forget that Drump has NEVER WON the popular vote. Not in 2016 and certainly not in 2020

[-] MartianRecon@lemmus.org 20 points 3 months ago

So the biggest issue on polling is that it's a broken system. It relies on all people to answer when asked, and what we're seeing is people flat out aren't doing it. Think about it. When's the last time you answered an unknown number, and if that number wasn't something you were expecting (like your car repair person telling you your vehicle was ready) did you stay on the line?

This same kind of thing is popping up when we look at polling for the primaries and then see the actual voter data. They haven't been lining up for a while.

Think back to 2022. The media, for months, was saying there was going to be a red wave election. Polling was supporting this as well. And... they had a measly 5 seat majority.

I think people are putting way too much faith in polling the past few cycles, because something fundamentally changed in how people interact with them.

[-] half_built_pyramids@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago

Right? Just a few days ago reported that Biden was winning battleground states because of felon.

[-] MartianRecon@lemmus.org 9 points 3 months ago

Precisely.

If you look at the underlying metrics for this election, it shouldn't be anywhere near to being close. Multiple state republican parties are literally bankrupt, the primary demographic of the GOP is dying due to old age, and they are running a convicted felon.

You also have stuff like trump paying for biased polls. Are we really going to think that other people; didn't know about this and are now doing it as well?

It just doesn't make any sense, and of course our corporate owned media flat out refuses to be the 4th wall and be objective in their reporting. It's infuriating.

[-] FaceDeer@fedia.io 10 points 3 months ago

The media doesn't get clicks when the race isn't close. So they do everything they can to portray it as close.

[-] MartianRecon@lemmus.org 5 points 3 months ago

Without a doubt. It's very frustrating isn't it?

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 4 points 3 months ago

Approval is not the same as "won't vote for", and even if it was, if enough of the other guy's base won't vote for him an unpopular person can still win. There's nothing incompatible about an unpopular candidate leading in polls. Whoever wins this election will have a net-negative approval rating.

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

I also question whether or not we'll ever see significant, sustained net approval of a President in the internet/social media age. Information is so decentralized and echo chambered now that there will simply never be a shortage of media describing why President ______ is bad and everyone is poor and in mortal danger.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

Obama was pretty firmly in the internet age, and left office in his second term with an approval rating of 55%.

[-] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

I mean you can still have a low ass approval rating and best an opponent who has an even lower approval rating. Two things can be true at once. People people can dislike Biden, and dislike the other guy more.

[-] pezmaker@programming.dev 10 points 3 months ago

Yeah, I was texted the other day to fill out a survey and didn't even reply with the "stop to opt out". Just, leave me alone. I'm not excited for Biden but I'm going to do what I need to do. That won't show in any polls.

[-] MartianRecon@lemmus.org 7 points 3 months ago

Yeah like, most people have shit to do. I'm excited to vote for Biden again actually (he did get a lot of good stuff done with an extremely tight congress), and sure there are things he 100% did that I'm not on board with, but that's everything. You're never going to get 100% of what you want, but he's the closest I'll get so lets do it!

It's just very frustrating how they're framing the race this cycle. They completely ignore trumps many disqualifiers while talking about polling that, by all rights, he's paying for bad results again.

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

IMHO, I think the bigger issue is that people don’t understand statistics. They see a poll that says Trump has a 25% of winning, then when Trump wins, they think the poll is wrong. That’s not how statistics works.

That means if you held the same close election four times, Trump would win one.

People mock the polls, but I wonder how many of those people actually took a basic GE statistics 101 glass.

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 4 points 3 months ago

For random events, that's true. But we are able to poll people before the event to see how it will turn out. With a big enough sample size, you're able to get pretty close to actual results. After all, the election itself is just one big poll, not a die roll.

[-] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

I say this as someone who went to school for this stuff and does a lot of surveying and statistics daily.

This doesn’t work when you’re comparing things that are going to be neck and neck. In order forecast with very high confidence, with something that is neck and neck, you need a huuuuge sample size and absolutely perfect surveying conditions.

The reason polls have been a toss up lately isn’t because the polling is bad. The problem is that the big races were also ways going to be nail biters, and we’re looking at the odds that a race will be 1% one way or another.

The good polls have been pretty damn close to the final vote percentages numbers. The problem is that the variance needed to swing a win right or left is absolutely minuscule. We’re often talking about percentages that are less than 2%, or less than 1%.

[-] MartianRecon@lemmus.org 3 points 3 months ago

I'm not mocking polls here. I'm saying that if you have a sizeable population of people that refuse to participate in them, even if you get to a statistically significant number of people, the poll will be off. trump was also found to have been paying for polls that were slanted towards him to be put out there.

So, if a candidate is using bad polls to flood the zone with bad results, and then on top of that you have a statistically significant number of people who refuse to participate in said polling, your data is corrupted, is it not? This is exactly how people can use statistics to lie to people.

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

Calls, rarely. Texts and Facebook polls, every chance I get (though I don't use Facebook that much any more).

[-] Ashyr@sh.itjust.works 19 points 3 months ago

Well I wonder what could be the Gaza that.

[-] Drunemeton@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago

Business Insider is utter crap. Please ignore those idiots.

[-] randon31415@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago

This right here -> "Joe Biden: Nothing would fundamentally change if he's (re)elected".

Yes, things would get worse with Trump, but you got to verbalize your plan to MAKE THINGS BETTER.

[-] 3volver@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

If Biden wins the popular vote and the convicted felon orange man ends up winning we're so fucked. This entire system is shaking.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2024
27 points (60.8% liked)

News

22895 readers
7315 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS