this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2024
692 points (97.7% liked)

politics

18966 readers
6 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Donald Trump would be on track to win a historic landslide in November — if so many US voters didn’t find him personally repugnant.

Roughly 53 percent of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of the former president. And yet, when asked about Trump’s ability to handle key issues — or the impact of his policies — voters routinely give the Republican candidate higher marks than President Biden

In a YouGov survey released this month, Trump boasted an advantage over Biden on 10 of the 15 issues polled. On the three issues that voters routinely name as top priorities — the economy, immigration, and inflation — respondents said that Trump would do a better job by double-digit margins. 

Meanwhile, in a recent New York Times/Siena College poll, 40 percent of voters said that Trump’s policies had helped them personally, while just 18 percent said the same of Biden. If Americans could elect a normal human being with Trump’s reputation for being “tough” on immigration and good at economics, they would almost certainly do so.

Biden is fortunate that voters do not have that option. But to erase Trump’s small but stubborn lead in the polls, the president needs to erode his GOP rival’s advantage on the issues.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

"On track to win a historical landslide"? Not at all. Zero evidence for that.

The article doesn't claim that. It claims that a generic Republican would be on track to win a historical landslide. But not Trump because of his unfavorability.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I don't know which article you read, but:

"Donald Trump would be on track to win a historic landslide in November — if so many US voters didn’t find him personally repugnant."

That's exactly the case the article is making, and that case has no legs to stand on.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

What? Did you read it? It shows generic R polling vs. Biden winning big but Trump v. Biden polling low. That indicates that the majority of Americans would be open to a Republican Presidency, just not a Trump presidency. They make the case with polling data.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Wow, hyperbolic polling "data" that is consistently inaccurate and being constantly manipulated and interfered with hypothesizing a fictional republican representative with zero adverse character traits?

Weird that people aren't giving that more weight...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Wow, hyperbolic polling “data” that is consistently inaccurate

Citation needed.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Did you read that article? Their first example of a polling "miss":

The average poll in the week before election day had Mehmet Oz beating John Fetterman by nearly 1% in Pennsylvania when in reality Fetterman beat Oz by nearly 5%

Pollsters were actually calling that race a toss up (also 538's page ). There were several polls that predicted a slim Oz and several that predicted a slim Fetterman. Even the Republican leading pollster that was predicting a 1% the wrong way has a confidence interval of +/- 2.5 and had 4.9% other/undecided factor in the poll.

People are angry that they can't read polls. They're angry that a toss up is just that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Did you read it? It goes on to describe larger polling errors(14%) that resulted consistently in multiple elections going the opposite way of the polls.

Polls are consistently inaccurate.

You can read the whole article instead of the first sentence.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The Siena poll found that “independents, especially women, are swinging to the G.O.P. despite Democrats’ focus on abortion rights. …The biggest shift came from women who identified as independent voters. In September, they favored Democrats by 14 points. Now, independent women backed Republicans by 18 points–a striking swing given the polarization of the American electorate and how intensely Democrats have focused on that group and on the threat Republicans pose to abortion rights.”

This is the chunk you're complaining about? They didn't even refute the poll they just don't like that data. And that's after consistently complaining about polls that were marked as toss-ups.

Like please respond to the first one. Because the polls got Oz vs. Fetterman largely correct and it's the first example of a miss which should be the strongest one.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

No, it isn't, and i responded to your first reply four days ago when you originally replied.

If you are expecting every single pull to be inconsistent by the exact same amount, you're going to be disappointed.

Some polls are off by 1% some are off by 15% some are off by more.

They're not all from identical elections, and there's not always an identical number of people voting or people being polled.

Polls are consistently inaccurate,is the point here.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If a pill has a +- of 5-7 percent with 90% confidence. And you have ten polls, You would expect at least one to be off by more that 5-7%. What your describing is expected.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Right, polls are consistently inaccurate and should not be counted on as foundational predictors of political conclusions.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If I tell you that a rocket is going to land withing a 20ft circle 90% of the time and land 9 rockets in the circle and 1 out of it; was I accurate or inaccurate in your mind?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Consistently inaccurate.

At least 10 percent of the time the rocket will consistently land inaccurately.

Further, if we more accurately pair your analogy with political polls determining an accurate election result, the rocket will consistently land inaccurately the other 90% of the time as well.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So you're complaint is that people are telling you, "You have this percentage chance of this being reality" and then you're mad that they're unable to be more accurate? It's polling it's not fortune-telling.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Where are you getting that I'm mad?

I'm not complaining.

People are drawing illogical conclusions from false premises.

I'm reminding people that drawing conclusions from flawed premises leads to flawed conclusions.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

My apologies I misread your tone.