Biden’s Gains Against Trump Vanish on Deep Economic Pessimism, Poll Shows (www.bloomberg.com)

submitted 6 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

41 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 43 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 20 points 6 months ago

Really getting flashbacks to 2016 when Hillary supporters refused to acknowledge reality, then got mad when reality stuck around and she lost.

If you hear about things that are hurting Biden, and you want to help him...

You should be pulling him to the left, not telling people their concerns aren't valid

[-] UsernameHere 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Hillary lost because of Russian election interference. She won the popular vote.

Russian bot farms spammed the internet with their talking points in strategic areas to influence the electoral vote.

That is why it is important to check the history of accounts who post to see if they are pushing specific talking points.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 5 points 6 months ago

Or asserting "everyone who disagrees with me is just calling me a Russian bot, definitely not putting up detailed reasoned arguments which I then pretend aren't happening"

Or repeatedly falling back on "OBVIOUSLY the economy is doing terrible, we all agree" instead of looking at historic union gains and low-wage earner gains even under punishing Covid inflation which yes they're not nearly enough but are actual progress in the right direction after God knows how long of nothing

Or posting clearly maliciously false criticism of Biden on things like marijuana or union support, and then falling back on "I'M ONLY TRYING TO HELP THE DEMOCRATS WITH MY WELL MEANING PUSHING OF HIM TO THE LEFT" and claiming they're being punished for their constructive criticism

Ask me if I'm salty about the overall nature of the discussion 🙂

[+] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world -7 points 6 months ago

Really getting flashbacks to 2016 when Hillary supporters refused to acknowledge reality, then got mad when reality stuck around and she lost.

Oh that's been persistent this entire race, and lemmy has been as guilty as any other platform. They'll also accuse you of being a Trump proponent because you are pointing out why Biden's policy positions are causing him to flounder in this election. But its your fault for not carrying water.

Hillary was a terrible candidate, maybe one of the worst that could have been run in 2016. Republicans had been developing opposition research on her for decades. They knew she would be the candidate. Having someone else swoop in and snake the primary would have headfaked the Republicans so hard their ankles would have broken. Her steps to the right during her campaign, her incredibly dismissive attitude towards BLM, her ongoing relationship with banks, she was a terrible fucking candidate. This is all on top of the fact that the DNC actually did put their thumb on the scales for Hillary.

Its just not any different with Biden. We saw all the same things and were seeing them all again now. But what lemmings need to start getting into their head, is that their apologetics for Biden as a candidate support these losing strategies. Being an apologist actually makes Biden a weaker, less likely to win candidate. What the apologists need to realize is that they aren't a monolith in terms of voting, and their arguments don't bring voters to Biden.

Stop excusing him and his shitty policies, and start demanding more before its too fucking late.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 17 points 6 months ago

One fascinating statement hidden in the article:

The Bloomberg News/Morning Consult poll of registered voters does not take into account how likely respondents are to vote in an election still more than six months away.

I thought yesterday about posting the story Joe Biden Has Stunning 9-Point Lead Over Donald Trump Among Actual Voters, but I decided that reporting on the polls as an indication of the quality of the candidate is just as misleading when it's pro Biden as anti Biden.

But, if we are going to treat the polls as things as newsworthy as the news likes to treat them, that little statement is a pretty fuckin significant oversight.

[+] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -10 points 6 months ago

From your article:

However, the poll also found that 46 percent of overall respondents would vote for Trump in the presidential election, while 44 percent would vote for Biden when only offered the choice of these two candidates.

You should read articles before posting them...

You should also believe in science, and whether you agree with the polls or not, statistical analysis is a valid science.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 6 points 6 months ago

Yep, I read it. What was the question that led to +9 for Biden versus the question that led to +2 for Trump, again? It's two different questions to analyze statistically, and knowing which is which is pretty valid, yes.

[+] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -10 points 6 months ago

It's...

It's right there in what I quoted...

However, the poll also found that 46 percent of overall respondents would vote for Trump in the presidential election, while 44 percent would vote for Biden when only offered the choice of these two candidates.

What are you confused about?

If the only two options are trump or Biden, more people will pick trump than Biden.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

What are you confused about?

Not confused. I'm asking you a question to see if you know the answer. Your first try ("when only offered the choice of these two candidates") wasn't the answer -- when other candidates are included, Biden wins by 2% among all poll respondents. Want to try again or should I tell you? What's the question that leads to +9% and how is it different from the one you quoted?

[+] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

What was the question that led to +9 for Biden versus the question that led to +2 for Trump, again?

I assumed you knew that since that's why you were linking it...

According to a Public Opinion Strategies poll for NBC News, the Democratic incumbent is ahead of his Republican challenger by 9 points among people who voted in the 2020 general election and 2022 mid-term elections.

So it excluded everyone younger than 22 and people who didn't vote in both 2020 and 2022...

Do you not understand how big of a demographic that is?

Non presidential years almost always see a dip in voters.

But your article doesn't link the to the poll, so I can't tell you if that was head to head or with other candidates.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 5 points 6 months ago

I assumed you knew that since that's why you were linking it...

Obviously I knew that yes; as I already explained, that's why I asked. Have you not seen this before, someone asking a question they know the answer to as part of a debate to see the other's person's response before taking the next step in the conversation?

IDK, maybe I should change the way I talk to people on Lemmy. You seemed to be genuinely for-real confused by it and I've seen that before more than once (where people assume that I'm asking questions because I must not know anything about the topic).

So it excluded everyone younger than 22 and people who didn't vote in both 2020 and 2022...

Do you not understand how big of a demographic that is?

I do, yes. But I think that including it (including one factor that introduces, maybe imperfectly, an impact into the poll to account for different people having different probabilities of voting, instead of treating them all as the same) is better than treating all people as equally likely to vote, when clearly they are not. You wouldn't agree with that?

There's a difference between discounting a whole demographic (we polled only whites and not blacks) and selecting particular people to poll based on criteria which make them statistically more likely to impact the election.

No?

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -3 points 6 months ago

based on criteria which make them statistically more likely to impact the election.

No?

If it was just 2020, yeah, I could see that arguement.

But a non presidential election is always going to have lower turnout.

So I don't see any worth in only counting people who voted in 2020 and 2022.

You know a big thing my graduate level statistical analyst prof told me the first day of class?

Anyone can find a weird sample to validate preconceived notions

Without seeing the poll (your article doesn't link it) it seems safe to assume Newsweek looked for the highest pro Biden result, and presented as something they intentionally checked for.

It's really really not uncommon.

And to be clear, this isn't a problem with the data or polling practices, just in how sometimes the media picks their result first then hunts for the data to rationalize it.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

it seems safe to assume Newsweek looked for the highest pro Biden result, and presented as something they intentionally checked for.

Yeah, I pretty much agree with this. That's the other reason I didn't post the Newsweek article as a story. I've absolutely seen this from "the other side," but that doesn't mean that the answer is dueling cherry-picked samples. I only brought it up as a way of making the argument that failing to limit to only likely voters is a very significant flaw in OP's poll.

To me, the factual analysis of which candidate people should be supporting based on how they're performing is the main thing to look at, with how the polls are looking as sort of a distant tactical afterthought because it's obviously relevant on some level to how the election is shaping up.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -2 points 6 months ago

But it's not a fault of the poll...

When you look at actual poll results, it's not just one percentage, all the data is broken down.

My point was the problem is Newsweek reviewing the results, finding what agrees with them the most, and presenting that as a valid result.

It doesn't mean that the poll is flawed, just that someone is intentionally misrepresenting the results.

You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater if you think anything anyone has said in this thread means polls arent real.

[+] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world -6 points 6 months ago

If we had an actual choice in this election I'm sure I'd care, but I've been told there is only one option I'm allowed to vote for or I'm evil and stupid.

So no matter how bad the economy gets, no matter how many children Israel kills, no matter what Biden does or doesn't do there is no way I'm not voting for him.

Because we live in a democracy.

[-] Beetschnapps@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

It’s almost like you have to compromise to get along with other people?

I mean It sounds like you might actually have to get along with others rather than force a purity test.

How scary…

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

It’s almost like you have to compromise to get along with other people?

It's almost like Democrats think "compromise" and "capitulate" are synonyms.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world -4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Yes, you're right. Expecting to have an actual choice is very selfish of me. I should just shut up and be happy because there's literally no chance for anyone to have to compromise with me, I'm always going to compromise with them.

Because we live in a place with freedom. And I'm just too weird for anyone to care to try to represent me.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 6 points 6 months ago

I think working for leftist candidates sounds great. Working for better outcomes outside the electoral system sounds great. I think what people are telling you, that you're deliberately misinterpreting as "I should just shut up and be happy" or that you can't do those things for some reason, is that in this particular election it'd be good to vote for the better outcome instead of the worse one.

But yes, working for better candidates in general sounds great, working for Ranked Choice Voting to solve the problem at a little more underlying level sounds great. Working to try to misrepresent the best outcome that's currently available to make him look worse than he is (thus helping to promote an even worse outcome) sounds bad. Surely that all makes sense?

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world -2 points 6 months ago

I have never participated in a presidential election that wasn't "VOTE BLUE OR ELSE!" And it's never going to be any different.

The bottom line is that I am just too weird to ever, ever be happy with my government. For the same reason all my favorite shows get cancelled: Politics is mass market and I'm not a viable customer base.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 5 points 6 months ago

I have never participated in a presidential election that wasn't "VOTE BLUE OR ELSE!" And it's never going to be any different.

There's your problem, I think. If all you do is vote for president every four years then it's gonna be deeply unsatisfying, and the level of actual impact you're gonna be able to have on the system (especially as a left wing person) is gonna be pretty much nonexistent.

I think working for the pres campaign of someone you really believe in (Bernie Sanders from back in the day, some local school board, maybe like a state congressional seat) might be more satisfying. And there are plenty of people who are working for positive change outside of just showing up periodically to vote for which corporate candidate, and sometimes they get big wins.

I think it's easier to make change on a local level than on a national level and definitely than on a presidential-election level. But yeah, I feel you on this. I'm just saying that change is possible. I mean... weed is legal now in a bunch of places. When I was growing up people still sometimes went to prison for a long long time for that shit. It never made any sense, and everyone knew the system was busted, but nothing ever changed for decades and decades, until one day, hey! It did.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I vote in every election. Even in the odd years when it's for prothonotary and constable and weird shit like that. So it's not like all I'm doing is voting for a president every four years. My parents have been involved in the local Democratic Party since the 80s so I know all about going door to door and bothering my neighbors.

I think it's easier to make change on a local level

I thought that, too, until I saw how much "change" my dad could make when he got elected to the town council. Same ugly car-brained developments going up with no plans for bike infrastructure beyond "here's some road paint, good luck."

When I asked him about it he shrugged and said "That's the best we can do. Trust me, the other designs were a lot worse."

And that summarizes my experience with government: This is literally the best we can do. We have to run like crazy to stay in place. We'll get one step ahead - like not getting busted for weed - and take two or more steps back - Roe overturned, Israel killing children, Trump still not in fucking jail.

It's futile and disheartening and I'm sick of it, and I don't get to opt out. I just have to wait until it falls apart and vote blue like a good little human.

My dad got into local politics because he thought he could help, but after two terms on the town council he's so sick of not getting a damn thing done he's resigning.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 1 points 6 months ago

If I rewound by 20 years and told you or your dad back then that if you got real involved in politics you could get weed legalized, what would you have told me?

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Sounds about right that it took 20 years. It takes the government a really long fucking time to do reasonable and sane things. And the more reasonable and sane, the longer it's going to take. Just look how we started a war against Iraq fucking five minutes after a bunch of Saudis crashed planes into things, but we still don't give hungry children food in school

Plus I'm in an illegal state, and broke federal law to bring my medicine here. So it's been 20 fucking years and it's still not done yet. Oh, and Roe is now overturned, Israel is still killing children, and there are shitty car-brained developments still going up.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 1 points 6 months ago

I guess what I'm saying is, what is the alternative?

If you're a Nicaraguan whose family got killed in the 80s by contras, or a Honduran whose kid got taken away in Arizona who still hasn't seen him and probably never will, I think it probably sounds pretty silly for someone who could have worked to make the system that's trying to destroy them behave more humanely to say "Yeah I could have, but it would have been a bunch of work and taken time, so I didn't. I just got discouraged and decided it was all the same."

I don't think it will happen in 20 years, or 200, if you're waiting for "the government" to do these reasonable and sane things. That's just the nature of the beast; they will not. But, they're amenable to working for change. If your dad was political then you and he are probably well familiar with it... yeah, the people on the evil side more or less never stop and they have some advantages. It sucks. But again, what's the alternative? Just wait for it to get worse until they start coming for you directly in an immediate and physical sense?

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

That's why I'm so frustrated: There isn't an alternative to this shitty, broken, infuriating system. We have to vote blue as fast and often as we possibly can just to keep from backsliding completely. Any gains we make are gonna either be wiped out with the next session of Congress, or they're going to make something else even worse in the event we miraculously make something better. If I honestly thought being active in politics did anything but give me heartburn, I'd do it.

But it's going to collapse eventually, as all things will, and that gives me a little bit of peace.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

That’s why I’m so frustrated: There isn’t an alternative to this shitty, broken, infuriating system.

He knows it. He loves it. He's gloating.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

mozz wouldn't do that to me. They're good people, despite our disagreements.

[-] Beetschnapps@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

You say this as your very words remove those choices. So where is the blame…

“Expectations” and “literal” chances should not preclude doing the right thing.

this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2024

8 points (55.7% liked)

politics

19097 readers

2959 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