this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2024
983 points (98.1% liked)

politics

19104 readers
3067 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
[–] MonkRome 15 points 3 months ago (1 children)

He said don't rely on polls "too much", not "not at all". Those with reading comprehension would recognize what he meant was that there is real possibility that there is a smaller gap to bridge than you might think.

You're on some weak ego tangent that has nothing to do with anything, quoting an expired poll aggregate of Biden v Trump.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Now here is what I am saying: Rely on the polls. Use data to back your beliefs. Reject emotional responses which fuel your personal biases, be objective and make the best choices based on verifiably true information. If you have a better source than a poll that is great, if not then the poll is better than you.

[–] rekorse 1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

If you think polling is that reliable be my guest. Noones trying to force you to be reasonable.

[–] jj4211 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I think his point is not that polling is supremely reliable, just that it is more reliable than the article here, which is entirely based on one person's gut feeling about what they randomly see (and want to see). Florida may not be a lost cause , but it's also not something to get your hopes up too much over. The polling is at least a decent relative indicator that FL is a much more uphill battle than other states with a closer polling margin.

[–] rekorse 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I understand the point but people are trying to change "more accurate than a gut feeling" to "the best predictive tools we have", which betrays how accurate they are.

I'm not sure anyone here would defend the methodology of these polls but they keep referencing them constantly.

I understand we have nothing else, but maybe we just can't predict the future as well as we think we can.

[–] jj4211 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

“the best predictive tools we have”, which betrays how accurate they are.

I understand we have nothing else

Yes, we don't have anything better, so they literally are the best predictive tools we have. It's just that all our tools suck. If you see someone say "Florida is now a Harris state based on a couple of rallies I've seen" it's more than fair to counter with "polls show Trump has a sizeable lead there", particularly when you compare with polls run the same way in other states and use it as a rough relative indicator of Trump v. Harris bias between states, even if the absolute values are likely to mismatch the result.

[–] rekorse 1 points 3 months ago

How is that any different than two people arguing about who's right about a math problem, where one is trying to cook their way to the answer, and the other is trying to crochet their way to the answer.

Neither of them are ever going to be right, neither side should be using those tools to solve that problem.

Maybe you can explain to me all of the benefits we gain from pre-vote polls?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

You have selective vision, I wonder if optometrists can do anything about that?