politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I see polls are unreliable again. Until someone says Biden should step down, then you have polling on alternate candidates that is the word of God Almighty.
Well problem is most of the polls are general popular opinion votes, but US presidential election is not a straight popular vote. As such the general "who majority of the nation like" doesn't really matter. Secure states are secure, so you might as well not ask their opinion and leave them out of opinion poll. Focus even on voting district levels in states the use electors to elect the electors and so on.
Problem is such polls are really hard work.... Almost no one does those and instead tries to read tea leaves out of general opinion polls. Polls which simply don't have the granularity of data to make conclusions. You need to ask "what is mood in this swing district in this swing state". After you have first added up the secure states, well with some looking of "are our old estimates of what are secure states for blue or red correct". Not that opinion wise all states aren't purple, but as far as election system results go there absolutely is blue and red states.
As I understand even in USA maybe one of two whole nation granular polls are done, with the actual amount of data to actually conclude how the actual electoral votes split. Given as said, since in some cases it isn't "you have to go down to state by state". Nope "we have to go district by district since this state has weirdo way of electing electors or adding up the totals."
Polling is archaic. It no longer works. People lie to pollsters now. Even exit polls are getting it wrong.
See you next time a poll says something you like.
Not me, I've written off all political polls, for some years now.
Reminds me of a line from a song: "It's not in the paper, it's on the walls."
Ok.
Arguments can be wrong in multiple ways
“The polls are not reliable, but even if they were, they don’t show what you say they show” is not two contradictory statements that invalidate one another
(There’s a whole separate issue that confounding factors make the polls bad metrics of the overall reality, but you can still look at relative difference within the same poll from week to week or candidate to candidate and it’s useful to a certain extent)
Pretty sure I have made both of those points multiple times in the last few days when talking about polling
Couple days ago, you demanded to know who would be an alternate for Biden, and announced that for any answer, you would post some of the polls you selectively find credible when they confirm your existing biases. Here's the alternates. Provide your garbage polls that aren't any good because polls are worthless.
Harris. Newsom. Franken. Buttigieg. Whitmer.
The chart is from this which was sent to me by one of your allies in an effort to prove that Biden was cooked.
There ya go. Polls are accurate as long as they say what you want.
Hey cool we're back around to the very first comment you sent and the reply I made
You can go back up there on your own, and imagine that I replied with what I said last time, and then you don't have to reply because you already said what you had to say in response. Victory! It is the end of the conversation.
Hey, you confirmed it to be true.
Selectively believing in data that proves your point and denying data that challenges is is republican level shit, and they wonder why people are fed up with mainstream Dems.