this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2024
41 points (72.5% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7213 readers
421 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So I thought to myself, why is ozma / NYT / the Hill all of a sudden super interested in swing states, when before it was almost all talking about what the national polls show
And so I looked up what the NYT poll said about national numbers. The answer will shock you!
(Polls are crap, in general; I’m more just pointing out the hypocrisy of freaking the fuck out about Biden’s numbers tanking because of the debate, then when they don’t, pivoting seamlessly to freaking the fuck out because he’s 3 percentage points behind and he’ll never catch up and he’s being a moron to stay in, to now seamlessly freaking the fuck out about a new, however perfectly valid, way of looking at the polling, when he pulls ahead by 2-3 points nationally.)
Don't trust the lying mainstream media!
You know our election is done state by state, right? Less hopium and copium, and more attention to the facts please. If Biden loses just one swing state, his odds of winning the electoral college drop to single digits. No matter how many millions of people turn out in California or New York, this election is going to come down to 10,000 votes across 6 swing states. And those 10,000 folks are telling us loud and clear, "BIDEN IS TOO OLD".
Will you listen?
Polls have increased in accuracy every election since 2016, even then it was more democrats and the media ignoring more state specific polls that showed trouble. Pretending this isn't a huge problem is head in the sand denial.
Mozz, if you're still fighting to keep Biden in the race, you're helping Trump at this point.
I stick up for Biden on a lot of things because I think he did a great job domestically, and because his opponent is clearly so horrifying that he’ll make it impossible even to maintain Biden’s improvements, let alone go beyond him to the places that the country actually needs to go. But I’m actually fine with replacing him - just, according to some kind of coherent plan for what the Democrats should do instead, and a convincing case that it’ll be an improvement. In that case, then sure, let’s rock and roll.
I do react negatively to just a shrieking tide of misleadingly negative news about him - like, say, reacting to the news that he’s now up by 3 points in a national poll by pivoting to some other thing to talk about, using a framing that creates a narrative that he’s steadily losing support week by week and it’s insane that he’s even considering staying in the race, because it’s a lost cause. That I would fight against, yeah - not because I necessarily think it’s proven that him staying in is the right answer, but because that narrative is a bunch of transparent horseshit unsupported by the facts.
Hope this helps clear up the confusion.
You, as well as I do, know national polls are not a good indicator. Swing states, electoral college are what wins it.
I bet I will not need to look further than one week back in your postings to find some histronics about how Biden is behind by however many single-digit points in a national poll and that's a big deal
Edit: Found it! It was an inference from a single percentage point of difference between him and Trump in a national poll.
Pretty cool that we found out now that he's no longer damaged by the debate, since his national poll numbers are the metric -- right?
If you watched the debate and can still imagine a scenario where Biden wins Michigan (and the rest of the electoral college), I have some investments I'd like to show you....
Keep pushing for Biden Mozz. You're fighting the good fight buddy. He's doing great against a convicted felon and the worst POTUS we've ever had. Right? Biden is running away with the landslide. /s
That’s the spirit!
And if Biden is confirmed as the nominee you're going to support him 100% right? Are the people who don't vote for Biden (assuming he's on the ballot) also helping Trump?
Hey Mega, I'm entering this debate late, so I'm not sure why any vote on any side would be expected to support someone 100%. I can't think of anyone I've ever supported 100%. Is that a requirement somewhere?
Any yes, for a bunch of people -- but not all -- not voting (D) for President (and just about every other race) is a help to Trump. The most obvious and dire case is people in swing states. It matters less for solid blue and red states, but it would be helpful to show a strong and active rejection of Trump given that he and his people have already announced they will be contesting the results. If you are not a U.S. citizen, or otherwise ineligible to vote in the U.S., then congratulations, it doesn't matter if you don't vote for Biden.
Withing a FPTP system like ours, I think when one candidate is a fascist and the other is not, yes you should vote for the non fascist candidate 100% of the time. This is the situation we will find ourselves in November regardless of who the Democratic nominee is.
I was pointing out that Ozma is once again being disingenuous with their concern that the other poster was somehow helping Trump by supporting Joe Biden's candidacy. Ozma has no qualms with Trump, a fascist, winning the election. They simply want Joe Biden to lose. I think it's important to point out those motivations.
And you're correct about certain states having more weight, but that doesn't mean we need to create a permission structure for others to stay home. The priority has to be keeping Trump out of office, not Joe Biden.
I can't predict how a split in the timeline would resolve on paths where Biden is and is not replaced as the Democratic candidate, but I do worry that Trump will win if things don't change. If I KNEW that Biden or Kamala Harris (or someone else) could beat Trump, I would back whichever I knew had a chance. In my family, one is sure the only chance Democrats have is to stick with Joe and another that they must Ditch Joe for a new voice with a new message to attract new voters.
I don't know. I can't argue about it because I don't have any data for either case. I care, but my concerns have no where to go, so instead my current conflict is over how amazing the pro-Union speech was ... at the RNC.
You mean the one doing a genocide?
If the other option is even more genocide, yes. Is that really a question?
Okay, but now you're voting for the lesser of two fascists. It was never "one candidate is a fascist and the other is not".
If every reluctant Biden voter joins us to demand Biden step aside or joined us in declaring "no ceasefire, no votes", he'd have no choice but to do it. Yet, because of every enabler like you, Biden believes he doesn't need to drop out and doesn't need to force Israel to end its genocide. He believes he can do anything he wants and not lose a single vote.
Many of us like to ask ourselves, “What would I do if I was alive during slavery? Or the Jim Crow South? Or apartheid? What would I do if my country was committing genocide?”
The answer is, you’re doing it. Right now.
Honestly, I think we're all tired of responding to this same absurd argument. The gamble that you propose is risking fascism AND doesn't have a high likelihood of success. Joe Biden stepping aside doesn't magically make Bibi stop the war. Bibi needs this shit to keep going to stay in power/out of prison. You're doing nothing to change that dynamic, if anything you're helping Bibi. And Joe Biden losing because they don't agree to a ceasefire does not stop the war, it escalates it.
I'm done responding to this, have a nice evening.
Without the endless flow of weapons from the US the genocide can't sustain itself. Cut them off, it stops.
I will never have a nice evening.
It's easy to gamble when you are comfortable. It's not so easy for the vast swathes of people trump views as undesirable when their rights and way of life is endangered (non-cis people, non-hetero people and women to name the first that come to mind). This is exactly why it's such a gamble and I agree with you that at this time idealism, while commendable and something I agree with, is in practice a luxury.
No. I've said it many times here. I can't morally support a genocider. I'm in California so my vote won't make a difference anyways.
While I too am horrified by how the Palestinians have been forgotten, abused, and annihilated, this is Bibi's thing. Bibi's been stoking his base on that fire forever. It is not Biden's fault that he happened to be in office while this latest round took place, but Biden has been more compassionate towards Palestinians than ... well let's just say more than several other leaders I could name.
Even if Biden personally murdered every single person who's died in Gaza, Trump has promised to do worse. Bibi, Captain Genocide himself, wants Trump to win. I'm sorry, "I'm not voting for Biden because of genocide" just doesn't make any goddamn sense in this situation and I don't buy it.
That's why I'm not voting for either genocider/pro-genocider.
That's like opting to do nothing and get force fed a bag of broken glass when the options were eat a plastic bag or eat a plastic bag full of glass.
Rest easy, they're in California, so their vote doesn't matter anyway.
Nice to know genocide isn't the red line for some people.
You are completely (and very possibly intentionally) missing the point. Either way, I have no interest in continuing this conversation so byeeeeee!
kthx bye.
When the options are less genocide and more genocide, you're ok with not standing against the more genocide candidate and letting them win.
Seems like genocide isn't as big of a red line as you say it is if you don't care to lessen it.
Bidens only being more passionate towards them now because of the backlash he's received for continuing to help Israel
Oh fuck off; your account has been shitting on Biden non-stop for the last year and in our system all that does is help trump.
Block me if you don't want to stay up on political news.