this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2024
562 points (94.5% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3122 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 107 points 8 months ago (3 children)
[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 40 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Didn't 538 recently ditch a right-wing poll that was skewing their polling data?

[–] Hominine@lemmy.world 62 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Rasmussen and it's been a long time coming.

[–] ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com 23 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Oh, they ditched Rasmussen? Makes sense. Leading up to 2020, I think they were showing Trump up by something like 5-8 points - my memory is fuzzy.

[–] 18_24_61_b_17_17_4@lemmy.world 27 points 8 months ago (2 children)
[–] MsPenguinette@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Biden's is fuzzy, Trump's is corrupted/glitched

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

Yes but Biden's comes with a slate of competent advisors. Trumps comes with a lukewarm hamberder and throwable ketchup

[–] JudahBenHur@lemm.ee 8 points 8 months ago
[–] frezik@midwest.social 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Nate Silver has long defended keeping them in. It's not that the absolute number is any good, but a change in the number can be good. If Rasmussen shows a 3 point shift between two polls, that's probably real and can be applied to the model.

[–] ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It's not a bad take - if it shows a consistent bias, it's still consistent data. It's translating the bias from a descriptive to a predictive model that's the hard part. Maybe they found that the swings in correlation were too wide.

[–] Eccitaze@yiffit.net 2 points 8 months ago

IIRC they ejected them because Rasmussen Reports put out a ridiculously flawed article that called the results of the Arizona gubernatorial election into question based on a study whose methodology was so flawed that it could be torn apart by a particularly sharp grade schooler--they took a poll, sponsored by a Republican group, four months after the election, then weighted it against exit polls (not the actual election results), and then used that to claim the Republican won by eight points instead of losing by 1. This prompted the guy in charge of 538 to send them a letter basically saying "are you gonna fix your methodology to reflect something close to reality, orrrrr...." and Rasmussen said "lol no"

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Yeah. Article is bragging about 3 national polls, where Biden is winning by 3% at most...

Because of the system, Dems need popular vote, to make up for the flyover states going conservative and be worth more due to electoral college

If Biden was polling 5% over trump nationally, we should be concerned.

And I have zero faith in the DNC and people running Joe's campaign to focus on the right states to win the electoral college.

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago (3 children)

And I have zero faith in the DNC and people running Joe's campaign to focus on the right states to win the electoral college.

Why? They've done it once already.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 13 points 8 months ago

And then there's 2016...

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I don't think Hillary, on her own, CHOSE to ignore Michigan and Wisconsin in 2016. Somebody told her campaign "Yeah, those are safe, you don't need to go there..." and that was one of the factors that tanked her campaign.

Joe cannot win without them. He needs to campaign HARD there.

Latest polling in Michigan shows it at a virtual tie, 43% to 43%.

Primary data shows more energy on the Republican side:

Donald Trump - 68.1% - 759,122 votes⁩
Nikki Haley - 26.6% - ⁦296,431 votes⁩
Uncommitted - 3% - ⁦33,561 votes

Joe Biden - 81.1% - ⁦623,642 votes⁩
Uncommitted - 13.2% - ⁦101,457 votes

Now, you can argue more people came out on the Republican side because they were motivated by having a choice, but just over a million Republican votes to just over 600K Democratic votes needs to be a giant fucking wake up call.

Same deal for Wisconsin, polls showing Trump +2, +3, +4:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/wisconsin/

Their primary is on 2/20. It will be interesting to see how the vote goes as Haley is officially out.

[–] TheRealKuni@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

I, a Michigander, voted against Trump in the primary and will be voting against him again in the general. And I know I wasn’t alone, which accounts for some of the total Republican ballots. Open primaries mean that can happen.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

And I have zero faith in the DNC and people running Joe's campaign to focus on the right states to win the electoral college.

That's why I put North Carolina in the watch list. There are folks out there who think it's winnable a) because they assume the Nikki Haley vote will flip to Biden, and b) because the Republicans just picked a batshit CRAZY candidate for Governor on Super Tuesday.

We really need to see new polling there.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/north-carolina/

As of 2/29 to 3/3 it's either Trump +12 or +14, but some folks are still saying Biden can win.

Doubt.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (3 children)

a) because they assume the Nikki Haley vote will flip to Biden

If Biden moves far enough right to grab a handful of Haley voters... Hed lose 10x the votes he gains.

The most we should try to get republicans to do is abstain, the payoff for courting Republican votes has never been worth it.

Biden is definitely trying to get Haley voters, it's just a god awful strategy

[–] grue@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

Yeah, but what you're missing is that big business Democratic donors love it when the Democrats move right, so that's what they do every single fucking time.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yup. Turning off Democrats is not going to win Republicans.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

I saw a Jordan Klepper clip yesterday where he talked to Haley voters...

Most said Trump was terrible, that 1/6 was a violent insurrection, but that they'd still have to "pick the lesser of two evils" and vote trump because they'd never vote Democrat.

It just doesn't make any sense.

Neither Haley voters or Biden's campaign team. None of what they're doing makes sense.

[–] alilbee@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I don't think he's been appealing to Haley voters on the policy front at all. His new budget proposal is anathema to the republican way of thought, even the less crazy sections. He is appealing to Haley voters on the decency front, which he absolutely should. Even if you are a conservative, Trump should drastically frighten you. Not because he's not a conservative, but because he is a destructive demagogue. Biden is appealing to voters with a distaste for that because he is not that, simple as.

Edit: Can someone help me understand how I said something controversial here? Does anyone have any examples of the Biden campaign making policy adjustments to gain Haley voters?

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The thing Dems absolutely refuse to understand is that policy. Does. Not. Matter. Optics matter, that's all. 99% of voters do not know anything about any policies. They know headlines. They know memes. Joe Biden could personally walk in front of IDF bullets to defend Palestinians and it would not matter if the media decided not to cover it.

Win the media, win the election. Truth does not matter. Results do not matter. Only the media matters.

Republicans get this. Democrats keep insisting they can run on substance.

[–] alilbee@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I don't think we're in disagreement? Biden has nothing to lose by playing up his decency factor, because it is Trump's primary weakness. Why would you ever not appeal to potential voters (regardless of political spectrum) by playing up a factor you planned to stress anyway? I only brought up policy in response to commentors saying Biden is kowtowing to the GOP to court Haley voters, which I just do not see happening right now. You would have seen a much more moderate budget proposal (which to be clear, is also optics, because presidential budget proposals are basically just wish lists that don't come true) if that were the case. He's courting the left, if anything.

The only policy proposal I see being affected by Haley voters is Ukraine funding, because Trump's isolationism is a common complaint from her crowd. Democrats were going to support that anyway, so I'm just not seeing it.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Not necessarily in disagreement. I'm just saying "the policy front" does not matter at all.

[–] alilbee@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

I'm with you. It does matter a bit, as it has impact on perception, but not much on its face without the appropriate publicizing later.

[–] FiniteBanjo 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Especially PA and Georgia, imo. If those two turn blue it decreases RNC victory odds by a metric fuckton.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

PA is a nail biter right now, Biden +1 to Trump +6. Could really go either way, and it will be tough for Biden if he doesn't take it. "Son of Scranton" and all that.

I still think Georgia was a fluke in 2020. You have to go back to '92 for a D win there, and that was only because a) Clinton was a Southerner and b) Perot bled off 13% of the vote.