• 0 Posts
  • 18 Comments
Joined 4 months ago
cake
Cake day: February 23rd, 2024

help-circle
  • It kinda makes them look even more short sighted tbh. Like yeah, you can look at “there’s a few polls where he takes from Biden” and call it a day, but it’s kinda missing the fact he’s lost a lot of relevance already with no signs of stopping.

    It’s kind of a catch 22: he’s stealing votes from the low-info pool, but at the same time if he’s not defined at all he’ll make no impact by election day. Elevating him can fix that, but that risks those low info voters realizing what they’re getting into and then start biting into Trump’s numbers as expected.



  • The polls are wrong as long as they keep clashing with electoral reality. Nate Copper’s article is heavy on poll data but flimsy on electoral anecdotes: a county election in 2020 and New York Elections with inconvenient data lopped off (The recent elections to replace George Santos).

    The shift the polls are claiming are so seismic that it begs the question why this unprecedented shift is non-existent in basically every post-dobbs election. And let’s not forget the fact that these polls present other, nonsensical trends to like the elderly shifting hard to Democrats too: a shift that can’t easily be waved off by the usual “The shift is only in voters that only vote in presidential elections” excuse.


  • Atyno@dmv.socialtopolitics @lemmy.worldTrump’s GOP is already dying
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    A lot of folks here are rightfully pessimistic about this being the actual end, considering the past history of articles like this.

    I’d like to present the possibility that the GOP is crumbling BECAUSE of why those years weren’t the end for the GOP like articles predicted: Trump is inflicting the same institutional damage to the RNC Obama inflicted on the DNC. The same kind of damage that gave an opening for Republicans to revitalize themselves.

    The only problem is whether if there will be enough rot by this year’s election: the biggest evidence of the DNC’s shrivelling under Obama’s shadow was the 2016 election where Hillary basically saved them from death in exchange for fealty. It’s not entirely clear if the 2010 losses were from early damage or just the upswell of reactionary outrage to Obama’s presidency.





  • There was actually some news recently that these polls might actually be wrong here: apparently there’s a large amount of people lying that they’re Hispanic/young in online polls. This was discovered both because: 1. The “20% of youth are Holocaust deniers!” Poll that made the waves wasn’t reproducible and 2. There’s some BIG inconsistencies being found in many polls too, like some polls somehow managing to have a cohort of Hispanics that are 20% nuclear submarine engineers.

    Basically, we might have a vicious cycle making polls wildly inaccurate here: youth (and Hispanics?) are harder to poll -> pollsters value the data more vs other demographics-> people lie to obtain the rewards being offered to get this data -> youth/Hispanics become harder to poll.

    Polls usually can handle some “lizard man’s constant”, but everything falls apart if there’s significant lying.


  • Atyno@dmv.socialtopolitics @lemmy.worldSuper Tuesday Megapost!
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    I was reading exactly that actually: 81% of them refuse to vote for Trump if Haley isn’t the nominee. It’s surprisingly doable just from the primary numbers.

    Edit: Also, Republicans nominated a literal Holocaust denier for the governor candidate. That’s gonna make that race A LOT easier and maybe effect the entire ballot there.






  • But you did say 2008, you said it was a “similar” result. I’m not going to contest the anomalous nature, but the result itself is not similar at all!

    My point is that I don’t agree, the numbers are only consistent for 2016/2020 (because turns out most people won’t waste time with an uncommitted vote when there’s a viable opposition candidate: Bernie). 2012 is a deviation and in the same way this primary did. The only thing different is the absolute number of votes altogether (in a state that has had insignificant population growth mind).


  • Atyno@dmv.socialtopolitics @lemmy.worldMegapost! Michigan Primary, 2/27!
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    You can’t honestly tell me 39% is closer to 13% than 10%. 3% is not significant, it’s an error margin on a poll.

    The significant part is the absolute numbers, but that comes with caveat that the Biden vote was 3x Obama’s in 2012 (and is 80% of the vote, which is a little less because of unviable candidates so unfortunately there’s a little muddying).

    Honestly, the whole thing is kinda proving to me the pro-palestine movement still isn’t really big in the US despite the optics. Or, at the very least, there’s still a large pro-Israel contingent that dwarfs them. And probably why Biden’s been ignoring them.


  • Atyno@dmv.socialtopolitics @lemmy.worldMegapost! Michigan Primary, 2/27!
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    The percentage is more important, and it’s basically the same size as 2012 which is the appropriate comparison (2016 and 2020 had other, viable candidates to vote for).

    Numbers are higher… But that’s the issue isn’t it? Seems to me an even larger portion of voters came out to “anti-protest” the protest voters too.