this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2025
17 points (60.5% liked)

politics

19356 readers
2052 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jeffw -2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

To piggyback on this, left-leaning echo chambers tend to underestimate the impact of turning on Israel amongst older voters, who tend to be more religious.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

From the other article covering the poll, Biden-Harris respondents were also asked how a change in policy would have affected their enthusiasm. 5% said it would make them less enthusiastic, 35% said more.

[–] jeffw 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

lol so this is cherry-picked data. They link to a source that shows if Kamala had been more conservative in these areas, she would’ve had more support:

Immigration Fossil fuels Ukraine (withdrawing support)

It also said that 14% said her support of Israel made them more likely to vote for her. 9% said it made them less likely.

Maybe MOST importantly is that the issues the polled on, in order of importance to voters, shows Gaza ranks LAST in importance. Shame on Common Dreams, I expected better.

It’s so easy to lie with data, thanks for illustrating that

Edit: okay, this is hilarious. Even the source they linked is wrong: “New Poll Shows Gaza Was #1 Issue For Biden 2020 Voters Who Did Not Vote For Harris

Then the actual data disproves this. Neither for Biden voters who switched or Biden voters who backed Harris, it was not the top. For those who switched, it was NEAR the top. For others, it was dead last.

Also, the poll is exclusive to swing states.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

They link to a source that shows if Kamala had been more conservative in these areas, she would’ve had more support:

Immigration Fossil fuels Ukraine (withdrawing support)

What the fuck does this have to do with anything? Is this just a desperate grasp for some result to boost centrism in general?

Maybe MOST importantly is that the issues the polled on, in order of importance to voters, shows Gaza ranks LAST in importance.

For the "Biden to Harris" voters. Of course it's low importance to them (3%). That's a key difference between those who stayed and those who didn't. Which validates the whole point that it wouldn't lose many votes. Few Harris voters cared about it, but the companion poll shows that those who didn't vote for her did care.

Even the source they linked is wrong: “New Poll Shows Gaza Was #1 Issue For Biden 2020 Voters Who Did Not Vote For Harris”

Then the actual data disproves this. Neither for Biden voters who switched or Biden voters who backed Harris, it was not the top.

There's literally that exact question. Which is the one being referenced in the articles with specific percentages where Gaza was at the top.

"Which one of the following issues was MOST important in deciding your [vote for presidential candidate/decision to not to vote for president]?"

Also, the poll is exclusive to swing states.

Ok? So? The other states literally don't matter.

[–] jeffw -3 points 2 days ago

Skimmed the article and I’m still confused. Why can’t people just link to the actual data?

[–] LovingHippieCat 0 points 2 days ago

I definitely agree with that. We can argue about whether Harris would have benefited from saying she'd stop arms being sent to Israel, but to say it wouldn't have hurt her as well is ignoring how much of the public supports Israel. There's also a lot of people on the left who would have simultaneously said they're glad she supports stopping arms sales to Israel and yet still find some other reason not to vote for her. The decision on which way for the campaign to go on the Palestinian genocide isn't as easy or clear cut as many seem to think.