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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. 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.
- 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
It's because right-wing pollsters are flooding the landscape with fudged polls. They're literally all liars, why do we trust their polling methodologies. Seems to me they're just setting up for the eventual loss so they can point to this polling during the Steal 2.0.
Bingo!
Ehhhhhh, yes they are putting out more polls but all reputable polling aggregators, including 538, account for them and their biases.
You can read about it here:
https://www.natesilver.net/p/are-republican-pollsters-flooding
Nate Silver IS a right winger, though, so I don't believe anything on his site, and I especially don't believe him on this topic. Even if he wasn't outright a right winger, polls do not matter and are frequently incorrect for various reasons.
Plus, he's no longer affiliated with 538.
Calling Silver a right winger is more than a bit silly. He's not as far left as some but damn, to call hin right wing, that's just some kind of ridiculous.
And no, he's not affiliated with 538 but he is explaining how polling aggregation, which 538 and others do, works.
Again, even if he isn't an outright right winger, that's fine. I'm willing to back off on that. But polls do not matter, and in fact the only thing they seem to do is reduce turnout. I really don't care about Nate's thoughts, and never have since 2016. I think a lot of people stopped trusting polls and definitely stopped trusting him back then.
All they do is predict the future.
Here's 538 going over the 2020 predictions (in a historically difficult polling year):
They sure didn't get 2016 right, which is what I referenced and what caused distrust. Just because they got 2020 right doesn't mean they'll get 2024 correct. It's meaningless and only serves to make people feel like they don't have to turn out. They definitely don't just "predict the future".
Also, I'm not sure if quoting the very pollsters that got 2016 wrong will make people trust them now. It's certainly not working for me.
Goodness gracious.
In 2016, 538 argued trump had a 1/4 chance of winning. And the thing about 1/4 changes is that they happen every so often, about, oh. 1/4 times.
And meanwhile, if you actually read what I quoted, you'll note how astoundingly accurate they were in 2020.
And if you or anyone else is dumb enough to see "trump has a 51% chance of winning" and that somehow makes you not want to vote, damn, how many tries does it take you to put your shoes on the correct feet? Three?
I already voted, so don't attempt insinuate that I'm not voting. You do realize that most people do not vote, right? And that most people are indeed idiots when it comes to politics? It's those people that will not turn out when it's needed because they saw a pollster say their candidate was ahead.
We're in a country where a known racist conman was elected.
Except that isn't true. In 2020, 2/3rds of eligible voters voted. Which, if your math is rusty, is a healthy majority of people.
I mean, if this is correct, polls showing trump ahead should depress Right votes which I presume we agree is a good thing. (Though, this seems counter to the whole narrative about Republican pollsters flooding the zone.)
I dunno, it really seems like you have a lot of problems with polls that are simply misunderstanding, like not knowing how aggregation works, not understanding what a probabilistic prediction is or just ignoring reality (like the impressive number of accurate predictions in most cycles.)
I think to dislike something, you should be moderately informed about it. Your attitude to polling feels a bit like right wing attitudes towards lgbtq stuff "I don't get it, I don't want to learn about it so I dislike it!"
And this is where I call it. You're saying my (rightful) distrust of polling is comparable to straight up bigotry? They are not even close to the same thing, and honestly as a queer it's pretty disgusting to see you bring up something that I've battled against my entire life all so you can feel like you're the smartest one in the room.
I now see that you don't really give a shit, and just want desperately to be right. I don't need to talk to you about this any more.
Well yeah, but that's assuming their pollster quality metric is actually good. Without knowing the result, who's to say that previously reputable pollsters weren't "bought" this cycle. With the billionaire interest and dark money floating around, why not?
Polls are shit, go vote!
This is getting into some pretty nonsense conspiracy level.
Given that high quality pollsters like Emerson, Sienna, the Times are all showing similar movements in their polls, your theory about buying out reputable pollsters requires most pollsters to simultaneously burn their reputations, be open to corruption etc allegations and presumably suffer criminal penalties as most of their polls are technically done for a client. And none of whom are instead exposing the very offer as a huge media boost? And for what? So the polls look marginally better for trump?
This kind of wishful thinking reminds me of listening to stolen election nonsense, where yeah, you can make believe a conspiracy where the Dems bought off a bunch of judges, election officials, forensic analysts etc but it beggars belief.