politics
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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
This poll is a notable outlier... The article is basically just a blog post from the polling outfit itself...
Here's results on 65 different polls for Michigan:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/us/elections/polls-president-michigan.html
The vast majority of polls have Trump leading Michigan, but a lot of those are also within the margin of error and otherwise very close.
What is with Lemmy's insistence on pretending that the debate either didn't hurt Biden, or actually helped him?
It's like a lot of people here actually believe that by pretending nothing is wrong, that means nothing is wrong.
FYI that New York Times link is simply an easy aggregated URL that shows the results for, and then directly links to 65 different polls for Michigan.
Sister it’s kinda crazy to me. Lemmy will downvote news posts with credible polls showing Biden dropping, and upvote any questionable source that says otherwise. I’m also a Democrat but to me a credible news story should not be disparaged for saying something I dont want to hear. It doesn’t do any good to hide from the truth. “You must know the enemy in order to meet him on the battlefield”- Sun Tzu or idk maybe I just made that up.
I mean what is pro.morningconsult? I’ve never heard of that ever. And I’ve seen Rueters posts get downvoted! Rueters!
I wasn't kidding, it is actually the blog of that market research/polling firm.
It's dressed up a bit to make it seem like it's delivering news, but it's primarily just writing up their own market research and polling data in the form of articles, or more accurately, blog posts.
Yeah - and for that reason I downvoted the post
The results of a poll are news and usually as factual as you can get. Their poll might be an outlier or they might have a polling bias, but unless you think they're drawing conclusions unsupported by the poll or think their methodology is wrong, there's not much to criticize.
You need to tell Media Bias Fact Check that stuff; they have it way wrong then. They’re treating them like some kind of news source, and even analyze the accuracy in hindsight of their polling and everything.
Try to understand the difference between a pundit and an expert.
Morning Consult is a well known polling company. If you've followed polls and aren't familiar with them I'm amazed. They do some sort of online polling which makes them cheap and fast, but there's nothing suspicious about them and they haven't shown any bias I've recognized. It's not a questionable source, but is just one poll so it might not be accurate.
Oh, I think you know the reason why they are suddenly deeply concerned that they might not be reliable
Randomly bringing mod trigger words like "blog post" into it is also a notable activity
You're delusional.
You went out of your way to find one of the very few polls showing positive news for Biden in Michigan and then posted links to their company website where they write blog entries based on the results of their market research.
Additionally, you're badmouthing anyone who points out that Morning Consult's latest Michigan polls are outliers.
Maybe they actually have the best current methodology, but unless you want to write up a white paper on why that is, stop speaking ill of anyone who points out that their poll is an outlier, or that your link isn't to a news article, but to a market research company's blog.
Especially when those commenters come with sources, such as the link to aggregated page of 65 polls that I posted. Which by the way, includes Morning Consult's figures as well.
There's nothing that would appear in a news story about the poll that isn't in their own release. Their releases are actually usually more informative because they run through multiple results from the poll, not just whatever the headline point is.
No. I am objective. You are committed to a narrative so thoroughly that you're trying to make me look like the out of step one.
I'm extremely concerned about Biden's performance in the debate, and his chances in November.
I'm also extremely annoyed by the news's wall to wall coverage which suggests that Biden's performance in the debate was an emergency. That, to me, is a much bigger, much longer-lasting, much more sinister and dangerous thing for our democracy than is the fact that Biden is old as fuck and did horribly in the debate. If you are hand-wringingly concerned that Biden did a bad job, you should be apoplectic that the media is as bad as it is, and trying as hard as it is to hand the election to Trump. They're doing infinitely more damage to Biden's chances than Biden himself ever could. He could have literally puked on somebody and passed out like George Bush, and it wouldn't have been as big a deal as what the media does every day.
The news -- and, presumably, you, although I don't feel like looking back in your history to check -- freaked the absolute fuck out about how Biden was doomed because of the debate, and started writing all kinds of articles with it as a foregone conclusion that he's fucked and we need to find a replacement. The electorate barely cared. He was like 0-2 points behind going into the debate. He was like 2-4 points behind after the debate. Is that a big deal? I mean... yeah, it's relevant. It's definitely not good. But to me it is shockingly small.
The media pivoted absolutely effortlessly from "OH MY GAWD Biden is tanking in the polls and it's a FUCKIN CATASTROPHE" to "OH MY GAWD Biden is 2 points behind in the polls like he's always been and it's a FUCKIN CATASTROPHE", without even having enough shame to acknowledge that there was any discrepancy. And you know what? It fuckin worked. Most of the American people were too stupid to even notice the bait-and-switch. Including, apparently, quite a lot of people right here in this thread.
I won't say Biden's not in trouble, and with him, the whole country. But the exact people who are so running-in-circles-wailing-in-panic concerned about how he fucked it all up, are doing their level best to create the fuckup and accelerate it as much as possible. I talked in the other thread about how unhappy I am, also, with our chances in November given Biden's performance in the debate.
Before I continue, how do you feel about agreeing to abandon any effort to pretend I said something different than that last sentence I said above, and talk about the polls without pretending I'm trying to put my head in the sand about the danger we're in because of the debate and the Democrats' prospects and options in the election?
Anyone can sign up to Lemmy. Including image management consultants.
If you think Biden's corner doesn't have paid professional image management consultants I have a bridge to sell you.
Don't be discouraged! Stand your ground and rep your political position diligently and constantly.
I usually don't assume malice what can adequately be explained by copium
Getting paid shills to rep your interests for you is sleazy when not done transparently, but I would not say it's malice. It's manipulation. Manipulation in the world of politics is as common as air, and if manipulation is malice all of politics is malice.
Of course we don't want to be manipulated. Just like no boxer wants to be knocked out. But if a boxer gets knocked out, that's just how boxing works and it's not malicious. Politics is a contact sport like boxing. Politics is dirty. It will always be dirty.
I don't assume manipulation what can be explained by copium either
Assuming the most benign motivations is copium and hopium.
It's much more likely that they're ordinary people acting according to well known psychological patterns of tribalism. People can hold different beliefs or values without being paid actors.