Really getting flashbacks to 2016 when Hillary supporters refused to acknowledge reality, then got mad when reality stuck around and she lost.
If you hear about things that are hurting Biden, and you want to help him…
You should be pulling him to the left, not telling people their concerns aren’t valid
Hillary lost because of Russian election interference. She won the popular vote.
Russian bot farms spammed the internet with their talking points in strategic areas to influence the electoral vote.
That is why it is important to check the history of accounts who post to see if they are pushing specific talking points.
Or asserting “everyone who disagrees with me is just calling me a Russian bot, definitely not putting up detailed reasoned arguments which I then pretend aren’t happening”
Or repeatedly falling back on “OBVIOUSLY the economy is doing terrible, we all agree” instead of looking at historic union gains and low-wage earner gains even under punishing Covid inflation which yes they’re not nearly enough but are actual progress in the right direction after God knows how long of nothing
Or posting clearly maliciously false criticism of Biden on things like marijuana or union support, and then falling back on “I’M ONLY TRYING TO HELP THE DEMOCRATS WITH MY WELL MEANING PUSHING OF HIM TO THE LEFT” and claiming they’re being punished for their constructive criticism
Ask me if I’m salty about the overall nature of the discussion 🙂
She lost because she’s unlikable in her bones and huge swaths of people of all political persuasions are officially and permanently over corporate, establishment status quo candidates in general. Those candidates simply cannot bring people out to vote any more and Dems will keep falling further and further behind until they understand that business as usual and lesser evil isn’t cutting it.
The Russians bots only ensured that right-wing morons were motivated to go out in enough numbers to beat Clinton’s anemic, half-assed campaign.
And because she unapologetically fucked over 95% of the committed Democratic support base who’s in it for genuine and heartfelt reasons when she fucked over Bernie Sanders
Don’t forget about that bullshit. Trump was still worse to a catastrophic degree, but that was her election to lose and she did everything in her greedy little disingenuous power to make sure she would lose it
Winning the popular vote doesn’t matter for shit in our system. It’s like saying I should be president because my mom voted for me.
She won the popular vote.
Do you think that decides the American president?
That seems to be what Hillarys campaign thought when she did a victory in Cali while trump went to the battleground states that won him the electoral college.
But Hillary’s campaign not understanding how elections work doesn’t mean reality is wrong.
Really getting flashbacks to 2016 when Hillary supporters refused to acknowledge reality, then got mad when reality stuck around and she lost.
Oh that’s been persistent this entire race, and lemmy has been as guilty as any other platform. They’ll also accuse you of being a Trump proponent because you are pointing out why Biden’s policy positions are causing him to flounder in this election. But its your fault for not carrying water.
Hillary was a terrible candidate, maybe one of the worst that could have been run in 2016. Republicans had been developing opposition research on her for decades. They knew she would be the candidate. Having someone else swoop in and snake the primary would have headfaked the Republicans so hard their ankles would have broken. Her steps to the right during her campaign, her incredibly dismissive attitude towards BLM, her ongoing relationship with banks, she was a terrible fucking candidate. This is all on top of the fact that the DNC actually did put their thumb on the scales for Hillary.
Its just not any different with Biden. We saw all the same things and were seeing them all again now. But what lemmings need to start getting into their head, is that their apologetics for Biden as a candidate support these losing strategies. Being an apologist actually makes Biden a weaker, less likely to win candidate. What the apologists need to realize is that they aren’t a monolith in terms of voting, and their arguments don’t bring voters to Biden.
Stop excusing him and his shitty policies, and start demanding more before its too fucking late.
I’ve been ringing the alarm for months on here. Been called everything from Russian bot, Trumper, Chinese bot, right wing troll, commie, etc.
They only want to put their heads in the sand and hope “but Trump” works.
Oh I see the work you do. Its important and you catch a lot of slings and arrows for it.
Hence the downvotes haha right on cue
Been at this since Obama, survived the Hillary/Bernie wars, etc. Nothing new to me.
Hence the downvotes haha right on cue
Yeah they’re scared. And they should be. But if fear is dictating your actions, you are going to fail.
One fascinating statement hidden in the article:
The Bloomberg News/Morning Consult poll of registered voters does not take into account how likely respondents are to vote in an election still more than six months away.
I thought yesterday about posting the story Joe Biden Has Stunning 9-Point Lead Over Donald Trump Among Actual Voters, but I decided that reporting on the polls as an indication of the quality of the candidate is just as misleading when it’s pro Biden as anti Biden.
But, if we are going to treat the polls as things as newsworthy as the news likes to treat them, that little statement is a pretty fuckin significant oversight.
And then your poll…
However, the poll also found that 46 percent of overall respondents would vote for Trump in the presidential election, while 44 percent would vote for Biden when only offered the choice of these two candidates.
Do you not think it’s relevant to attempt to figure out, when you’re polling voters, which ones of them are likely to actually vote in the upcoming election?
I mean I know that Trump is at this point leading by some small handful of percentage points of overall respondents in most head-to-head matchups. My point was that limiting it to likely voters seems like it makes a pretty dramatic difference. No?
While you and others keep saying “polls don’t matter”
From your article:
However, the poll also found that 46 percent of overall respondents would vote for Trump in the presidential election, while 44 percent would vote for Biden when only offered the choice of these two candidates.
You should read articles before posting them…
You should also believe in science, and whether you agree with the polls or not, statistical analysis is a valid science.
Yep, I read it. What was the question that led to +9 for Biden versus the question that led to +2 for Trump, again? It’s two different questions to analyze statistically, and knowing which is which is pretty valid, yes.
It’s…
It’s right there in what I quoted…
However, the poll also found that 46 percent of overall respondents would vote for Trump in the presidential election, while 44 percent would vote for Biden when only offered the choice of these two candidates.
What are you confused about?
If the only two options are trump or Biden, more people will pick trump than Biden.
What are you confused about?
Not confused. I’m asking you a question to see if you know the answer. Your first try (“when only offered the choice of these two candidates”) wasn’t the answer – when other candidates are included, Biden wins by 2% among all poll respondents. Want to try again or should I tell you? What’s the question that leads to +9% and how is it different from the one you quoted?
What was the question that led to +9 for Biden versus the question that led to +2 for Trump, again?
I assumed you knew that since that’s why you were linking it…
According to a Public Opinion Strategies poll for NBC News, the Democratic incumbent is ahead of his Republican challenger by 9 points among people who voted in the 2020 general election and 2022 mid-term elections.
So it excluded everyone younger than 22 and people who didn’t vote in both 2020 and 2022…
Do you not understand how big of a demographic that is?
Non presidential years almost always see a dip in voters.
But your article doesn’t link the to the poll, so I can’t tell you if that was head to head or with other candidates.
I assumed you knew that since that’s why you were linking it…
Obviously I knew that yes; as I already explained, that’s why I asked. Have you not seen this before, someone asking a question they know the answer to as part of a debate to see the other’s person’s response before taking the next step in the conversation?
IDK, maybe I should change the way I talk to people on Lemmy. You seemed to be genuinely for-real confused by it and I’ve seen that before more than once (where people assume that I’m asking questions because I must not know anything about the topic).
So it excluded everyone younger than 22 and people who didn’t vote in both 2020 and 2022…
Do you not understand how big of a demographic that is?
I do, yes. But I think that including it (including one factor that introduces, maybe imperfectly, an impact into the poll to account for different people having different probabilities of voting, instead of treating them all as the same) is better than treating all people as equally likely to vote, when clearly they are not. You wouldn’t agree with that?
There’s a difference between discounting a whole demographic (we polled only whites and not blacks) and selecting particular people to poll based on criteria which make them statistically more likely to impact the election.
No?
based on criteria which make them statistically more likely to impact the election.
No?
If it was just 2020, yeah, I could see that arguement.
But a non presidential election is always going to have lower turnout.
So I don’t see any worth in only counting people who voted in 2020 and 2022.
You know a big thing my graduate level statistical analyst prof told me the first day of class?
Anyone can find a weird sample to validate preconceived notions
Without seeing the poll (your article doesn’t link it) it seems safe to assume Newsweek looked for the highest pro Biden result, and presented as something they intentionally checked for.
It’s really really not uncommon.
And to be clear, this isn’t a problem with the data or polling practices, just in how sometimes the media picks their result first then hunts for the data to rationalize it.
but Biden’s name is not Trump and the economy is doing fantastic and he is protecting the US from evil apps like TikTok and everything is sunshine and rainbows
this has to be fake news
If we had an actual choice in this election I’m sure I’d care, but I’ve been told there is only one option I’m allowed to vote for or I’m evil and stupid.
So no matter how bad the economy gets, no matter how many children Israel kills, no matter what Biden does or doesn’t do there is no way I’m not voting for him.
Because we live in a democracy.
It’s almost like you have to compromise to get along with other people?
I mean It sounds like you might actually have to get along with others rather than force a purity test.
How scary…
It’s almost like you have to compromise to get along with other people?
It’s almost like Democrats think “compromise” and “capitulate” are synonyms.
Yes, you’re right. Expecting to have an actual choice is very selfish of me. I should just shut up and be happy because there’s literally no chance for anyone to have to compromise with me, I’m always going to compromise with them.
Because we live in a place with freedom. And I’m just too weird for anyone to care to try to represent me.
I think working for leftist candidates sounds great. Working for better outcomes outside the electoral system sounds great. I think what people are telling you, that you’re deliberately misinterpreting as “I should just shut up and be happy” or that you can’t do those things for some reason, is that in this particular election it’d be good to vote for the better outcome instead of the worse one.
But yes, working for better candidates in general sounds great, working for Ranked Choice Voting to solve the problem at a little more underlying level sounds great. Working to try to misrepresent the best outcome that’s currently available to make him look worse than he is (thus helping to promote an even worse outcome) sounds bad. Surely that all makes sense?
I have never participated in a presidential election that wasn’t “VOTE BLUE OR ELSE!” And it’s never going to be any different.
The bottom line is that I am just too weird to ever, ever be happy with my government. For the same reason all my favorite shows get cancelled: Politics is mass market and I’m not a viable customer base.
I have never participated in a presidential election that wasn’t “VOTE BLUE OR ELSE!” And it’s never going to be any different.
There’s your problem, I think. If all you do is vote for president every four years then it’s gonna be deeply unsatisfying, and the level of actual impact you’re gonna be able to have on the system (especially as a left wing person) is gonna be pretty much nonexistent.
I think working for the pres campaign of someone you really believe in (Bernie Sanders from back in the day, some local school board, maybe like a state congressional seat) might be more satisfying. And there are plenty of people who are working for positive change outside of just showing up periodically to vote for which corporate candidate, and sometimes they get big wins.
I think it’s easier to make change on a local level than on a national level and definitely than on a presidential-election level. But yeah, I feel you on this. I’m just saying that change is possible. I mean… weed is legal now in a bunch of places. When I was growing up people still sometimes went to prison for a long long time for that shit. It never made any sense, and everyone knew the system was busted, but nothing ever changed for decades and decades, until one day, hey! It did.
I vote in every election. Even in the odd years when it’s for prothonotary and constable and weird shit like that. So it’s not like all I’m doing is voting for a president every four years. My parents have been involved in the local Democratic Party since the 80s so I know all about going door to door and bothering my neighbors.
I think it’s easier to make change on a local level
I thought that, too, until I saw how much “change” my dad could make when he got elected to the town council. Same ugly car-brained developments going up with no plans for bike infrastructure beyond “here’s some road paint, good luck.”
When I asked him about it he shrugged and said “That’s the best we can do. Trust me, the other designs were a lot worse.”
And that summarizes my experience with government: This is literally the best we can do. We have to run like crazy to stay in place. We’ll get one step ahead - like not getting busted for weed - and take two or more steps back - Roe overturned, Israel killing children, Trump still not in fucking jail.
It’s futile and disheartening and I’m sick of it, and I don’t get to opt out. I just have to wait until it falls apart and vote blue like a good little human.
My dad got into local politics because he thought he could help, but after two terms on the town council he’s so sick of not getting a damn thing done he’s resigning.
If I rewound by 20 years and told you or your dad back then that if you got real involved in politics you could get weed legalized, what would you have told me?
You say this as your very words remove those choices. So where is the blame…
“Expectations” and “literal” chances should not preclude doing the right thing.
deleted by creator
Fair
