• Diotima@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Probably the most relevant line in the entire article:

    a series of polls have suggested Biden will narrowly beat Trump in the November vote. But with eight months to go, and the polls so tight, this could change and a number of polls have also indicated that Trump will win the election.

    Whether Biden wins or loses is going to come down to how well he engages people in key states. Outside of the “blue no matter who” crowd, people have decidedly mixed feelings about voting for a candidate whose strongest argument is that he isn’t Trump. Everything from events in the weeks leading up to the election to the weather (which affects Dems more than Reps) will matter, so rather than leaning on polls that suggest a victory… it might be wise to end those behaviors and policies that have human rights advocates concerned.

    • Fedizen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      it strikes me that congress might have authority under the 14th amendment to ban winner-take-all apportionment of electors and gerrymandering

    • Thirdborne@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      It’s going to depend on the severity of several pending scandals and what the Saudis decide to do with oil prices between now and November. Democrats should have an astronomical campaign warchest while the GOP is blowing their wad on the candidate’s legal bills. The Democrats game to lose and that’s their expertise.

    • SparrowRanjitScaur@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      I don’t get this point. I feel like Biden’s done a great job as president so far. He’s had a lot of tough issues to deal with as president and so far he’s handled everything really well.

  • scripthook@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Remember that the 2024 election will boil down the WI, MI, PA, GA and AZ. Whichever candidate wins 3 of those 5 states (minimum) will win the election. It’s mathematically impossible to get to 270 otherwise.

    • kofe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      I’m still voting for Biden in a red state. We used to be more purple and really still are if looking just at the popular vote. He lost here by 500k votes in 2020 but it’s very possible these narratives being pushed about swing states affect turnout more than we give credit for. We’re lucky to get 50% turnout of registered voters in presidential elections. Local elections are more like 25% if we’re being generous, and those are more important.

      • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        GA comes down to the Black vote and Black voter turnout. And Black Georgians are making Biden work for their vote right now. Understandably so.

    • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Voting for 3rd party means tacitly supporting the candidate leading in the polls. Trump leads in the polls. A vote for RFK is a vote that Biden could use to beat Trump. Also, calling Biden and Trump “garbage candidates” is reductive and just plain wrong. We saw what Trump did for 4 years, and we’ve read Project 2025. Biden is the only ethical vote. But go off, king.

      • PlantDadManGuy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Voting for Biden is not ethical. He’s actively supporting genocide. I’m still going to vote for him because he’s better than the other bastard, but don’t fool yourself into thinking he’s innocent.

      • Sybil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Biden is the only ethical vote.

        it’s unethical to vote for biden… but go off, king

      • UsernameIsTooLon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Useless votes. Unless we change how our votes are counted, those votes are no better than not voting, especially if the main goal is to protest to top 2 nominees.

        • Katana314@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          For the record, I oppose their choice of candidate. I think we’re better off encouraging voting as a whole, than encouraging people to fully give in to the two party system - even if I’m convinced by those arguments and plan to vote for Biden, I know other people have other perspectives and priorities.

          On the other hand, we KNOW for sure that people who oppose voting as a whole are Russian bots or completely reprehensible bastards, and that is a very easy sentiment to stand by. We also know that there is one party that wins more often when more people decide to vote. I’ll let you guess which one.

          I’d also say for future elections, putting more and more votes on third parties can warn the two parties that a pure message of “At least I’m not HITLER” is not viable enough.

      • eclipse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        I realise the US uses FPTP, but can someone explain to me why this comment is being downvoted? I’d think participating in the democratic process would be considered a good thing regardless.

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          It’s not as bad as refusing to participate, or voting for the downfall of democracy, but I don’t think it crosses into the threshold of “good”. Just “useless”.

          • eclipse@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            Legitimate question: is there no benefit to voting for a party if they won’t win?

            Do they get any future election funding or… anything?

            • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              If a third party gets at least 5% of the vote, they get a small amount of the official presidential campaign funds.

        • Jolteon@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Despite what most people say, the only want you to vote if you’re voting for the person they support.

    • samus12345@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      The voting electorate is extremely fickle and the only poll that matters is the one they go to on election day.

    • Psythik@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Nobody wants Biden, but would you rather have Project 2025 become a reality?

      Please, for the sake of the country, vote blue no matter who.

      • madcaesar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Nobody wants Biden? I want Biden. He’s done a good job. This whole he’s old shit just shows again how good Republican propaganda is, that even on here people are parroting the same shit.

          • AFaithfulNihilist@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            There is a pro-Israel candidate with a blind spot for genocide and a pro-genocide candidate with a soft spot for Hitler.

            Both willfully support Israel’s ethnic cleansing of the native people, but only one of them wants to “finish the Palestinians”.

            Democrats are a shitty ally but Republicans are an effective enemy.

        • Psythik@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          If he’s doing such a “good job”, as you say, then where is UBI? Free healthcare? A wealth tax? Income caps? $20/hr minimum wage? Manditory gun registration? Most importantly: Why is life still shitty for anyone who isn’t in the top 1%? Dude isn’t even trying.

      • KneeTitts@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        the polls had Hillary winning easily

        Well Hillary didnt pay off her hookers 2 weeks before the election… like that kinda means he cheated. So Id say its a lot harder to win when you play by the rules. And Im not defending Hillary cuz I know she shafted Bernie, but what she did is not even on the same scope as what donnie rapist did/does on a daily basis.

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        They had her anywhere between a 70-90% chance to win. If you predict 90% chance that something will happen, and it always happens, your prediction is wrong because you should have predicted 100%.

        When I hear someone say “you can’t trust the polls because they got 2016 ‘wrong’” they are just telling me they don’t understand statistics.

        • Cosmicomical@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          What are you talking about? Polls are not valid statistics, they are riddled with biases that can’t be eliminated.

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            Funny that this was in response to me and not the above poster that claimed that something happened in 2016 that made them no longer reliable.

            Additionally, I suspect you don’t really know what you are talking about because the issue you point out is not a statistical issue, but that they are just not a good measurement to begin with. Which isn’t even a good point either because they do a pretty good job of consistently getting pretty close. In the last election the mean error was only about 4.3 and they didn’t seem to favor either side.

            • Cosmicomical@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              Polls would be ok if the sample was peefectly random. However it is never fully random, and in practice they always overrepresent politically active people and underrepresent the poor.

        • KneeTitts@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          They had her anywhere between a 70-90% chance to win

          And its important to note that these predictions were for the pop vote, which she did actually win, so they were actually right.

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            And its important to note that these predictions were for the pop vote, which she did actually win, so they were actually right.

            I’m not sure this is entirely true. Many polls just look at the popular vote, but most of the polls that claim “chance of winning” take into account the EC.

            • Pips@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              538 had her going into the election with a 70% chance of winning the electoral college. Nate Silver also went on multiple shows basically doing everything he could to get people to understand that meant 3 out of 10 times she loses.

          • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            No, 538 (and RCP?) actually has a rolling projection of ‘real’ chance to win the EC. But the chances of Hillary declined from >90% to 70% in the last week or so. When she was >90% everybody would say it looked like she was going to win, and that’s what people remember.

        • Nobody@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          I understand the point you’re making about probabilities, but we’re speaking in the context of politics. Polls accurately predicted the results in 2008 and 2012. Something fundamentally changed in 2016, and the polls were off across the board.

        • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          It’s been awhile since I read anything about that, but it seems like the last time I read about it, was something along: “80% of polls have Hillary projected to win”, but the actual polls that they were using were all almost within the margin of error.

          tl;dr 80% had Hillary winning by about 2-3%.

          • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            margin of error

            People in almost never speak about the margin of error when presenting a poll, especially one that’s favorable to them.

            f you look at the fine print, and see the margin of error percentage, then you apply the maximum amount to both people in the race, you’ll see a lot of times it’s a tie.

        • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          they are just telling me they don’t understand statistics.

          You’re right, but in fairness to the regular person who gets their news from regular news outlets, they were being told that Clinton had a 98% chance of winning when in reality it was more like 75%. The fact is while everyone was cocky in 2016 and nervous in 2020 I was the opposite because I followed the polls and Biden in 2020 had consistently bigger leads on Trump than Clinton in 2016 with even bigger leads in swing states. His odds of winning were much greater than hers and the likely margin of victory was much higher, but they were being underestimated by a media machine that was absolutely snakebit after going all in on congratulating HRC in June for being the first woman president with a dem supermajority in both houses of congress and flipping Texas blue.

    • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      They do and they don’t. Some people see polls and say “why bother”. Some people see polls and scream “GET OUT AND VOTE”. They may not be indicative of the final outcome, but they are a motivating factor for a lot of people.

    • FreakinSteve@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yeah, polls are stupid and useless; only the election day poll counts…though last week some idiot on here was desperately trying to defend polling is being both dependable and correct (as long as you throw out the ones that were wrong)

            • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              I’m seeing quite a few months of primaries to go

              And quite a lot of Biden still supporting Genocide.

              So uncommitted it is.

              • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                Oh, I see. You were just playing dumb to parrot “genocide joe.” My bad. I shouldn’t have given you the benefit of the doubt.

                • go_go_gadget@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  You know at some point you’re going to have to consider it’s the moral obligation of Biden and the people supporting him sending weapons to Israel to change.

          • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            Biden has more than half the total delegate count already pledged to him. Primaries are over, Biden has won regardless of the outcome of the remaining primaries and will be the democratic nominee in 2024.

          • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            They are more or less. It’s part of why our primary system sucks. There’s still downballot races though and you can and should vote for progressives to be the Democrat nominee in them. And you can cast a symbolic noncommitted for president to express displeasure with Biden.

        • hamid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          You realize the actual Nazis lost the election to Hindenburg in 1932 and came to power anyway in 1933 regardless. Just voting doesn’t seem to be very effective if you’re fighting Nazis, they don’t care about democracy.

          • TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            Hidenberg handed Hitler the chancellorship. Hidenberg, the only check on the Nazi power, remained president until his death until 1934. After which, using the Enabling Act, Hitler was able to proclaim himself both chancellor and president.

            Hitler becomes chancellor because Brünig, Hidenberg, Papen, and Schleicher all think they can control and temper Hitler all while staying in power and keeping the left wing out of power.

            • hamid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              Hindenburg did that because the Nazi party won what was essentially Congress with the most seats, just like how the Republicans are going to control Congress at some point in the next two years and currently control all your courts and have manipulated every state and local district. The US is a crisis away from an anti democratic takeover regardless of who wins in November.

              Nazis don’t care about democracy and will come to power if the material conditions exist for them to come to power regardless of your elections.

              • TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                I was contending “Nazis lost the election to Hindenburg … and came to power anyway in 1933 regardless.” Hitler didn’t come to power for some amorphous reasons, but specific decisions by people in power. I agree that material conditions are important, but it’s so vague here that it’s meaningless and can be shifted at any point in this discussion to support your position.

                The Nazis agitated support on multiple fronts including electoral politics. Hindenburg surrounded himself with other military conservative and as conditions in the streets continued to worse economically and support swung to the nsdap, they urged him to give support to Hitler. However, the Nazis had won a plurality of the vote in every Reitsrat election starting in 1930.

                Electoral politics alone isn’t the answer. Never was. Garnering support on the ground is difficult work.

                • hamid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  Electoral politics alone isn’t the answer.

                  This is literally my point. Never told anyone not to vote for biden but unless you start arming yourselves to the teeth and resisting in real ways the Trump train is coming for you no matter what

                  It isn’t vague and there are a lot of similarities

                  The Nazis agitated support on multiple fronts including electoral politics.

                  This is true for MAGA and the republicans. They are raising militias. They have taken over all the courts and churches.

                  Hindenburg surrounded himself with other military conservative and as conditions in the streets continued to worse economically

                  Look at the democratic party and people like Manchin in the party and Sinema who was an infiltrator. The democrats are pro funding wars around the world and Israel. The Overton window is so far right in the US that you can’t even recognize that they are a right wing fascist party themselves. Fascism is when capital controls the state.

                  they urged him to give support to Hitler.

                  The US is one crisis away from this and having a weak octogenarian hand over power to a fascist. Maybe in his own party, Maybe a republican, it doesn’t matter. The US is a terminally corrupt state.

  • 3volver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Do not believe polls. Vote regardless. Democracy prevails only if we vote in great numbers.

    • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Especially PA and Georgia, imo. If those two turn blue it decreases RNC victory odds by a metric fuckton.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        PA is a nail biter right now, Biden +1 to Trump +6. Could really go either way, and it will be tough for Biden if he doesn’t take it. “Son of Scranton” and all that.

        I still think Georgia was a fluke in 2020. You have to go back to '92 for a D win there, and that was only because a) Clinton was a Southerner and b) Perot bled off 13% of the vote.

          • frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            Nate Silver has long defended keeping them in. It’s not that the absolute number is any good, but a change in the number can be good. If Rasmussen shows a 3 point shift between two polls, that’s probably real and can be applied to the model.

            • ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              It’s not a bad take - if it shows a consistent bias, it’s still consistent data. It’s translating the bias from a descriptive to a predictive model that’s the hard part. Maybe they found that the swings in correlation were too wide.

              • Eccitaze@yiffit.net
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                IIRC they ejected them because Rasmussen Reports put out a ridiculously flawed article that called the results of the Arizona gubernatorial election into question based on a study whose methodology was so flawed that it could be torn apart by a particularly sharp grade schooler–they took a poll, sponsored by a Republican group, four months after the election, then weighted it against exit polls (not the actual election results), and then used that to claim the Republican won by eight points instead of losing by 1. This prompted the guy in charge of 538 to send them a letter basically saying “are you gonna fix your methodology to reflect something close to reality, orrrrr…” and Rasmussen said “lol no”

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yeah. Article is bragging about 3 national polls, where Biden is winning by 3% at most…

      Because of the system, Dems need popular vote, to make up for the flyover states going conservative and be worth more due to electoral college

      If Biden was polling 5% over trump nationally, we should be concerned.

      And I have zero faith in the DNC and people running Joe’s campaign to focus on the right states to win the electoral college.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        And I have zero faith in the DNC and people running Joe’s campaign to focus on the right states to win the electoral college.

        That’s why I put North Carolina in the watch list. There are folks out there who think it’s winnable a) because they assume the Nikki Haley vote will flip to Biden, and b) because the Republicans just picked a batshit CRAZY candidate for Governor on Super Tuesday.

        We really need to see new polling there.

        https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/north-carolina/

        As of 2/29 to 3/3 it’s either Trump +12 or +14, but some folks are still saying Biden can win.

        Doubt.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          a) because they assume the Nikki Haley vote will flip to Biden

          If Biden moves far enough right to grab a handful of Haley voters… Hed lose 10x the votes he gains.

          The most we should try to get republicans to do is abstain, the payoff for courting Republican votes has never been worth it.

          Biden is definitely trying to get Haley voters, it’s just a god awful strategy

          • a lil bee 🐝@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            I don’t think he’s been appealing to Haley voters on the policy front at all. His new budget proposal is anathema to the republican way of thought, even the less crazy sections. He is appealing to Haley voters on the decency front, which he absolutely should. Even if you are a conservative, Trump should drastically frighten you. Not because he’s not a conservative, but because he is a destructive demagogue. Biden is appealing to voters with a distaste for that because he is not that, simple as.

            • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              The thing Dems absolutely refuse to understand is that policy. Does. Not. Matter. Optics matter, that’s all. 99% of voters do not know anything about any policies. They know headlines. They know memes. Joe Biden could personally walk in front of IDF bullets to defend Palestinians and it would not matter if the media decided not to cover it.

              Win the media, win the election. Truth does not matter. Results do not matter. Only the media matters.

              Republicans get this. Democrats keep insisting they can run on substance.

              • a lil bee 🐝@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                I don’t think we’re in disagreement? Biden has nothing to lose by playing up his decency factor, because it is Trump’s primary weakness. Why would you ever not appeal to potential voters (regardless of political spectrum) by playing up a factor you planned to stress anyway? I only brought up policy in response to commentors saying Biden is kowtowing to the GOP to court Haley voters, which I just do not see happening right now. You would have seen a much more moderate budget proposal (which to be clear, is also optics, because presidential budget proposals are basically just wish lists that don’t come true) if that were the case. He’s courting the left, if anything.

                The only policy proposal I see being affected by Haley voters is Ukraine funding, because Trump’s isolationism is a common complaint from her crowd. Democrats were going to support that anyway, so I’m just not seeing it.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            Yeah, but what you’re missing is that big business Democratic donors love it when the Democrats move right, so that’s what they do every single fucking time.

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              I saw a Jordan Klepper clip yesterday where he talked to Haley voters…

              Most said Trump was terrible, that 1/6 was a violent insurrection, but that they’d still have to “pick the lesser of two evils” and vote trump because they’d never vote Democrat.

              It just doesn’t make any sense.

              Neither Haley voters or Biden’s campaign team. None of what they’re doing makes sense.

      • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        And I have zero faith in the DNC and people running Joe’s campaign to focus on the right states to win the electoral college.

        Why? They’ve done it once already.

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          I don’t think Hillary, on her own, CHOSE to ignore Michigan and Wisconsin in 2016. Somebody told her campaign “Yeah, those are safe, you don’t need to go there…” and that was one of the factors that tanked her campaign.

          Joe cannot win without them. He needs to campaign HARD there.

          Latest polling in Michigan shows it at a virtual tie, 43% to 43%.

          Primary data shows more energy on the Republican side:

          Donald Trump - 68.1% - 759,122 votes⁩
          Nikki Haley - 26.6% - ⁦296,431 votes⁩
          Uncommitted - 3% - ⁦33,561 votes

          Joe Biden - 81.1% - ⁦623,642 votes⁩
          Uncommitted - 13.2% - ⁦101,457 votes

          Now, you can argue more people came out on the Republican side because they were motivated by having a choice, but just over a million Republican votes to just over 600K Democratic votes needs to be a giant fucking wake up call.

          Same deal for Wisconsin, polls showing Trump +2, +3, +4:

          https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/wisconsin/

          Their primary is on 2/20. It will be interesting to see how the vote goes as Haley is officially out.

          • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            I, a Michigander, voted against Trump in the primary and will be voting against him again in the general. And I know I wasn’t alone, which accounts for some of the total Republican ballots. Open primaries mean that can happen.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Against an incumbent trump when people believed Biden’s campaign promises…

          This time being the incumbent hurts Biden. 4 years ago if someone said Biden would be supporting a genocide, trying to codify Trump’s border policies, and calling migrants “illegals” I’d have laughed in their face.

          Biden is less popular now then when all most voters knew about him was he was Obama’s VP.

          Dude took 36 years to win his first presidential primary, he wasn’t that popular to begin with.

          • HubertManne@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            Hes more popular for me. I still can’t believe how much he has done in one term with an adversarial congress that improves my quality of life. and yeah I feel sad about international affairs but I vote on internal affairs. especiallly when its so obvious how much worse the alternative is internationally.

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              Hes more popular for me

              Well, less then a third of Americans hold a favorable opinion of Biden like you do…

              Just slightly better than trumps numbers.

              https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-unpopular-polls-2024-election-1877870

              I hope it’s enough, and I do feel a lot more comfortable now then a week ago. We just need Biden to stop reaching out to Haley voters and start trying to get liberal votes on his side.

              It’s just insane to me that less than two thirds of the country hold a favorable opinion of either candidate. No matter what happens, the majority of the country will be unhappy with it.

              That means depressed turnout, and those are the only elections republicans have a chance at winning. I’d rather not give them that chance

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              The “incumbent advantage” is often misunderstood. Because a weak incumbent gets primaried.

              So the DNC says primarying a candidate hurts them, and why NH didn’t get delegates this year.

              The reality is only weak incumbents get primaried. Whether they get challenged or not in the primary doesn’t make them weaker or stronger.

              By taking a primary away, we’re not helping a candidate, we’re throwing away the option to run a more popular candidate. Which hurts the party and every American if it means trump is elected.

              It’s like saying the only reason trump got caught on his tax fraud was he ran for president. Running for president brought attention to it, but he cheated on taxes decades before running and could have been prosecuted at any time.

              An actual primary wouldn’t have made Biden unpopular, it would have just made how unpopular he is more public, while giving him a public stage to move left to his voters and win some over for the general.

              Hiding it doesn’t make it better, it just gives people a false sense of security, which ironically often leads to lower turnout.

              And as always:

              Low turnout is how republicans become presidents

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              Did trump win as an incumbent?

              No, because he was incredibly unpopular.

              Both Biden and trump are currently sitting just under 1/3 favorably.

              Being an unpopular incumbent hurt trump in 2020, and it will hurt Biden in 2024.

  • linearchaos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    So they’re going to call random people in swing states and ask them who they’ll vote for.

    What if one side decided to tell all their voters to say the other side to give them a sense of security, then push hard to out vote them…

    Polls cannot be trusted, they’re so really manipulated. Gerrymandering is worse than ever in most places…

  • chronicledmonocle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    The fact things are this close is amazingly disappointing in humanity as a whole.

    On the one side, you have Trump who wants to be a dictator, actively hates anyone who isn’t white and conervative, said he wants to kill his political opponents, tried to overthrow the government, had a 4 year presidency that was basically an episode of Jersey Shore everyday, and idolizes Putin/Hitler/etc.

    And then there is Biden, who isn’t super “exciting”, old AF, and supports Israel too much for political reasons, but otherwise has done an alright job as president for 4 years.

    How are the polls and the race even remotely this close? It’s no wonder we can’t do something like fix climate change as a society when people are this fracking stupid.

    • Crikeste@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Ahhh yeah, the milquetoast liberal criticism of Joe Biden as “unexciting.” Go get him, tiger.

      Your comment is a shining beacon for American ignorance.

      • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        “Unexciting” is a paraphrasing of “Sleepy Joe”, the Republican pet name for Biden that seems to highlight his absolute worst attribute.

        Aside from his expected support of Israel which every single POTUS before him has upheld since the creation of Israel, what ways is Joe Biden the new devil?

      • KeenFlame@feddit.nu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yeah extreme times calls for extreme takes and hopefully flash them only during a quick seconds with background music or the dopamine wilts

      • chronicledmonocle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        That’s not everything, but it’s a big part of it.

        Sabotage of the education system Systemic and hostile takeover of the Judicial system Crowbaring Religious bigotry into government

        There are more than one reason.

    • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      as a society when people are this fracking stupid.

      Remember all those times when a certain party cut back spending on education? That’s how we get to where we are today.

      It wasn’t just the judges that were part of a long-term plan.

      • chronicledmonocle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        I have a sister-in-law that thinks I’m crazy every time I say that the systematic sabotage of education is part of the plan to dumb down America and turn people into uneducated Republican voters.

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      I plan to vote for Biden.

      I do not plan on telling any polls that. If Biden polls too well, I’m convinced voters will be complacent and risk not voting.

    • Tinidril@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      supports Israel too much for political reasons

      Now c’mon, does this statement really embrace reality? Aside from it’s toxic passivity, it’s not even true. Biden’s brand of support for Israel has been absolutely toxic politically. He supports Israel because it is the hub of US power projection in the Middle East.

      • Daze@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        He supports Israel because it is the hub of US power projection in the Middle East.

        How is that not a political reason?

        • Lols [they/them]@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          what does that even mean? ‘ok he supports a genocidal ethnostate, but its only cause of power projection in the middleeast’

          • porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            Exactly, it’s not that he, personally, wants to slaughter millions of Arabs, it’s just that that’s the price we have to pay to preserve the American ability to slaughter millions of other Arabs in the future.

        • Tinidril@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          It’s politics in the sense that war is politics by another means, but that’s not really what people associate with the word. If you want to take it that far, there isn’t much that couldn’t be called politics.

          “Biden supports Israel because it gets the first lady horny”. Well, that’s just marriage politics!

          • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            Meh israel does not provide any security anymore. If anything they make the region less secure and unified against America.

            Saudi is bending over backwards to keep supporting israel for America.

            • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              Meh israel does not provide any security anymore.

              No disrespect meant, but that is a factually ignorant statement to make. We regular people don’t see allot of whats going on in the background.

                • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  We regular people don’t see allot of whats going on in the background.

                  No we just see israel committing Genocide after Genocide and destabilizing the entire middle east.

                  Exactly. We don’t see all the behind the scenes stuff for security reasons.

                  Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think any military/country is allowed to kill civilians to get to their enemies, ever. A country doesn’t get to use an ‘our enemies are in that population zone so we can destroy the population zone to get to them’ excuse.

                  But there’s a lot of history, security wise, going on between America and Israel, that is not so easily dismissed.

      • TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        He supports Israel because they’ve been standing Allie’s for like 70 years and a lot of things right in the US being seen as a reliable ally.

        Not saying I agree, just that any other president would be doing the same thing

        • Tinidril@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          What enemy does the US need Israel to help us face? Israel’s strategic value to the US is largely as a base for US operations. Not that Israel doesn’t have a strong military, but it’s not that important for the US.

          Yes, I agree that any other president would do the same. Biden, in fact, has pushed Israel harder than any other US president since WWII. Of course Israel is being more psychotic in this moment than it has ever been before, so I would expect us to be applying more pressure.

  • Krudler@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Poll favors Trump = Polls are inaccurate; they only survey boomers at home that still answer unknown numbers from their landline!

    Poll favors Biden = Polls are very accurate.