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.
- 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.
- 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 whole freakout over one bad debate (that had lousy ratings) in effing June is more embarrassing than productive. Maybe everyone should calm the fuck down and wait for enough high quality poll data to see if it even caused a shift in the race. For all we know, it changed zero minds or people were turned off by Trump’s angrier, dumber rambling old man answers.
One bad debate is one thing but this was maybe the worst debate performance in history. And Biden’s polling was already quite bad prior to this. These polls show essentially no advantage in sticking with Biden, which is highly unusual for an incumbent. It’s likely to only be worse after the new information gets factored in.
That said, you’re right that we likely need all of the information from new polling to decide on the correct path. But if democrats are smart they are at a minimum setting up an alternative candidate at this point.
Agreed. I’m not saying Biden should or shouldn’t drop out. I’m saying we’ll know more in a few days and everyone should calm down and also consider the downside risks. Even beyond basic horse race polling, we don’t know how voters would react to a replacement candidate instead of “generic Democrat.” Maybe someone like Whitmer solidifies Michigan but is unpopular with Georgia or Arizona voters for some reason. I have no idea at this point.
Unfortunately, a candidate dropping out like this is almost unheard of, so the downsides are pretty uncertain. Personally I think people are a little too worried about this but there certainly is some risk that what seems like a good candidate under casual examination ends up having some fatal flaw or hidden scandal.
This wasn't as bad as Carter, but it definitely was bad.
I haven’t seen that one but from what I’ve read, polling showed a similar level of disparity in performance—with about two thirds of viewers giving the edge to Trump and Reagan respectively. Also, the Reagan campaign had access to Carter’s debate prep notes so it was a bit of a unique circumstance.
I mean, that's all pro-Israel moderates...
Yeah, I'm suspicious that at least Warren isn't on that list given her performance in the last primary was higher than several of the folks there. Bernie could be more polarizing (and is also quite old, if that's the problem) but obviously I'd be interested in his statistics as well.
Yeah, be cautious of anyone that sources polls with screenshots and not links.
I looked into Data for Progress, and it seems like they sold out last election.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/12/us/politics/data-for-progress-democrats.html
Party establishment started favoring them because they were good at coming up with polls that led to donations. So they've moved away from pushing for progress, and now push polls that defend the establishment.
A few years ago the founder was forced out of the company because it came to light he was betting on elections and using the company to try and effect the races so he'd win his bets...
And trying to recruit his employees for a straw donor scheme...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_McElwee#Data_for_Progress
So them putting out a shady poll like this, is actually an improvement for the company over what they were doing in 2022...
My initial post was saying to wait for high quality polling data and stop having panic attacks over one debate. The downside risk to Biden dropping out is real and everyone is acting like it’ll be a simple situation where everyone unites around their preferred candidate.
I didn’t vote for Biden in any primary but I’m not convinced a convention where they nominate (for instance) Harris, Newsom, or Whitmer would be anything but chaos that angered at least some constituencies and led to more Republicans winning up and down the ballot. Everyone is assuming things at this point and I’m saying “Wait to see if this even moves the polls.”
What does that have to do with Data for Progress?
Even before they sold out, the whole point was cheap and fast, not high quality...
I meant that’s all we have at the moment so be patient and give it a week. I know Data for Progress is a bit of a mess. The last CEO got run off for essentially insider trading on prediction markets.
I have bad news about who a convention of Biden loyalists will nominate regardless of what horrors Israel does. Or a committee of wise party elders (which doesn't exist), for that matter. The time to challenge Biden was before he won every primary with like 80% of the vote.
There's just not a realistic way that I can see where the convention nominates a progressive option. Even just replacing Biden with someone younger and the exact same policies would be nearly impossible.
Tell that to New Hampshire.
Quick edit:
Oh, you're the one that posted the poll...
While I have you, why are you using Data for Progress after the 2022 election?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_McElwee#Data_for_Progress
I responded to another post but I don’t think we have high quality post-debate data yet. Most pollsters are affiliated with one party. That’s who pays them for internal polls and where they make their money. The few independent, non-profit poll organizations haven’t released anything I’ve seen. (And there’s like 6 news organizations left that can afford to conduct polls.)
Either way, though, you’re better off with a poll average than any one poll. We’re a few days away from knowing how likely voters responded to the debate.
Polls dont matter I thought. Or am I only supposed to say that when it shows Biden losing the general?