this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
399 points (92.9% liked)

politics

19246 readers
2746 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
[–] [email protected] 110 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Okay, before people start beating me up, I'm not arguing for complacency, but this headline is more than a bit click-baity.

This is a small poll, and per the poll's methodology (scroll down, keep scrolling.... nope keep going... ok... there you go - emphasis mine):

The New York Times/Siena College poll of 1,329 registered voters nationwide, including an oversample of 818 registered Republican voters, was conducted in English and Spanish on cellular and landline telephones from July 23-27, 2023. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.67 percentage points for all registered voters and plus or minus 3.96 percentage points for the likely Republican primary electorate.

Not only did they over sample Republicans, their margin of error is almost 4% within that group.

This feels like the NYT attempting to establish a narrative based on a very small, biased sampling of data. Remember that the mass media wants to amp up the uncertainty levels (which drive engagement and advertising revenue), and with Trump basically blowing out the primary, they'll need another spectacle to ensure that it appears to be a close contest down to the finish line. The timing of the poll release and the headline is also suspect, especially as this poll was taken before the news of the latest indictment, yet presented as if it's a reaction to today's news.

That being said, I think it is an accurate portrayal of sentiment from those who still consider themselves Republicans. I don't believe, given the small sample sizes and admitted bias, that it's an accurate picture of the country.

Again, that's not an argument for political complacency - rather, it's one against media driven narratives relying on biased polling that make you scroll down six pages of tables to find their methodology.

[–] FrankFrankson 80 points 1 year ago (4 children)

It's also a telephone poll...that guarantees it's mostly people 50 and older because who the fuck under 50 answers phone calls from unknown numbers?

[–] cmhickman358 54 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I rarely answer calls from known numbers

[–] kescusay 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don't even answer calls from me.

[–] ajoebyanyothername 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's OK, I don't answer calls from you either.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

That's especially good since I haven't been calling you, which means that's a spoofed number

[–] FlyingSquid 1 points 1 year ago

You'll only make your mother cry.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Man, I actually answered a telephone pole a couple weeks ago. I was so excited to get his stupid poll while I was driving, and stuck in traffic. I figured I might as well sacrifice my 5 minutes (they claimed) to help get some more lefty numbers in their poll numbers.

Then it turned out it was a fucking poll for a natural gas company trying to greenwash their image and were looking for support for their anti-environmental ad campaign.

I was so bummed. Plus it took 45 minutes, fuck polls!

[–] TrickDacy -1 points 1 year ago

Why in God's name did you give them another 40 minutes after finding out they lied?

[–] whofearsthenight 2 points 1 year ago

I mean, I wouldn't encourage any one to relax when it comes to Trump, but based on what's up today, there is extremely low likelihood that Trump wins. People should realize just how unlikely it is for an incumbent to not get re-elected. Trump would have skated to re-election had he just not so catastrophically fucked up COVID and thus the economy. Again, not even be competent at it, just be less incompetent.

Biden probably has this in the bag barring some act of god. He's going into '24 as one of the most legislatively accomplished presidents, great economic numbers including avoiding recession, etc. Then there is the whole "Trump might be in jail by the election" thing, and even if not in jail, he's going to be so mired in legal proceedings it is unlikely he'll be able to effectively campaign. DeSantis is a distant 2nd, and seems to be only widening that gap every time him or his campaign opens his mouth. The rest in this primary are auditioning for roles on Fox or lobbyist positions.

Again, I would not relax because if somehow Trump is elected we probably just sealed the countries fate into a full fascist dictatorship, but it's just not likely.

[–] eran_morad 1 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago

I was thinking about this after my first comment.

"Was it mostly land line polling?"

Boomers. Nothing but Boomers and their lead ravaged brains. You could probably run the electricity for the Eastern seaboard with the amount of spinning happening in the graves of their parents.