1036
democrats got this
(lemmy.blahaj.zone)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2025
1036 points (92.8% liked)
Political Memes
7838 readers
1521 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Good job. Your non-vote really helped.
Protest votes did not meaningfully impact the election
Its a pathetic excuse to hate fellow poor people
As I said in another thread elsewhere on the same subject a while back:
The Protest Vote Paradox™
As we’ve all read time after time in the months leading up to the election, the Protest Vote™ simply states states that:
“We refuse to vote against a Tyrant-Felon in order to send a clear and concise message that we will not stand for [roll D20 for random popular single issue], and alongside our refusal to vote against the Tyrant-Felon, is a collective hope that the aforementioned clear and concise message- if ignored, is received under unmitigated duress!”
-Cut to Tyrant-Felon’s win, and the aftermath:
Whether observed or not, the behavior of the Protest Voter will attempt to achieve the following:
• Obnoxiously tell everyone: “We told you all what would happen!”
• Onnoxiously claim there is: “No way protest voting could cause trump to win.”
As both of these options cannot simultaneously be true in the same reality without breaking important time-space things that we would probably prefer not be broken- we are left with only a few logical conclusions:
Something, something, something Ted Talk.
This is just a long-winded, inverted version of the aphorism about liberals' paradoxical view of progressives; they're a small, niche group, and the Democrats shouldn't try to appease them because they'll just alienate mainstream voters by courting this insignificant block of voters. However, progressives are somehow also a large, powerful cabal that can be blamed for every major Democratic loss.
The enemy is both weak and strong. The progressives are too small to pay attention to their requests, but cost millions of votes.
Yup, it was not lost on me that this was essentially Eco's 8th feature of fascism. Not that the Democrats are fascists; they don't match most of the other features, especially 6 (I don't think it'd ever occurred to them to appeal to anyone's frustrations), but it seems liberals have at least borrowed this rhetorical attack to punch left.
I mean when you consider how much they benefit from Trump and his economic polices, it makes sense why they do. Not to meantion how many are some of the most bigoted people until its profitable enough. Scatch a liberal...
I mean, I tend to believe that they're actually just a truly incompetent, cowardly bunch that are too afraid to fight and too stupid to realize that a party can't simultaneously serve a working-class base and billionaire donors. That being said, I've been much more open to the controlled opposition theory since Schumer caved on the budget for no conceivable reason.
Oh progressives are definitely weak. But numerous. A simple bare minimum vote would have stopped ALL of this from happening.
But you couldn’t even do that. So yeah.. weak as fuck if you ask me.
Then you’re clearly not who I’m talking about. I guess it’s either that simple reading comprehension is an issue for you, or you have a white knight complex.
One of the two- but my point remains untouched regardless.
Name one moment in history where abstaining from the bare mimimim to avoid catastrophic consequences results in a net gain.
I ask this because you’re trying to make this party thing where I’d title paring attention and reading for context- you’ll see clearly that It’s an ACTION thing.
Interesting that you went to progressives so quickly though. Especially since I never even mentioned the word.
That says a LOT.
Name a point where I said abstaining from voting was good. My point wasn't that protest voting was good. It was that you could make the exact opposite point (with a lot fewer words) using your exact logic. Which means it's not a good point.
Again, fine, let's make it an action thing. If the protest voters were so necessary to Harris' election, why didn't she take any actions to win them over? That was incredibly irresponsible of her.
Are you beginning to see how all your arguments can be flipped just as easily to place the blame on the candidate instead of the voters? Do you think maybe that's because, even though you've convinced yourself that what your saying is cold, hard logic, your actually just screaming your opinions at people?
For the record, I voted for Harris out of harm reduction, and I wish she'd won. However, I believe that it is a candidates job to win an election, not the voters job to get them elected. If there was a significant contingent of voters withholding their vote, I think that candidate must have been doing a shitty job.
Yeah, it says I saw more than 2 minutes of political coverage in 2024, so I knew that Harris wasn't getting criticism for being too progressive. Grow up.
Yawn….
Wow. So witty and insightful. And it only took you 24 hours to come up with it. Amazing.
It’s far more that your nonsense warrants.
I guess I should have actually been more encouraging; the first comment, it took you more than 200 words to say nothing. This time, you did it in one. That's a huge improvement! Good job!
Progressives could be the largest voting block and most still wouldn't come out to vote. Why bother trying to gain the vote of a group that has historically low voting. There's a reason Bernie didn't win the primary despite massive grass roots movements.
Literally the opposite is true. People on the far-left and far-right are much more likely to vote than people in the middle.
"Study using self-reported data shows that those more interested in politics are more likely to self-report data with post-election surveys. More at 11."
They literally say they are using self-reported post election surveys. Most people I know, including myself, have never done a post election survey. People that don't vote also are not participating in post-election surveys. It's an interesting study, but this is 100% textbook selection bias and I'm surprised Pew Research Center missed the mark on this one.
If progressives voted in overwhelming numbers, then Bernie would have won the primary. I voted for Bernie, but clearly not many others did.
Not that I should even have to debate this, since my my source is the Pew Research Center and yours is, "most people I know," but that's a blatant misrepresentation of the methodology. The survey uses data from a group of randomly selected panelists, not self-reported post-election surveys.
The only reference to self-reporting I found was people self-reporting whether or not they voted, and even then, that was independently verified. I'm pretty sure you clicked the first link you saw, scrolled down until you found this paragraph, and didn't read it very carefully:
Also, if Bernie's failure to win the Democratic primary proves progressives don't vote, then it stands to reason that Clinton and Harris' defeat proves that moderates don't vote either, right? I mean, it seems stupid to me to make broad, sweeping generalizations about voter behavior over something that has as many variables as an election, but if that's what you want to do, then you must concede that Harris and Clinton prove that moderates don't vote.
Buddy, there's nothing to debate. The "people I know" is in reference to the post election surveys. Something most people don't participate in. Something your own quote says only 50% of those selected agreed to participate. It's also not something I'm arguing, but you are choosing as a red herring.
It literally says, "Note Validated voters are citizens who said they voted in a post-election survey and were found to have voted in commercial voter files."
#IT LITERALLY SAYS POST-ELECTION SURVEY
You even quoted a section saying, "Panelist participate via self-administered web surveys"
#IT LITERALLY SAYS SELF-ADMINISTERED
How fucking stupid are you that you prove my point when trying to pull a gotcha?
Furthermore, the Pew Research Center is not iron clad and immune to selection bias. They continue to recruit people for the panel and those interested participate, then they recruit more later. This goes back to me saying, "those interested in participating, vote more often." Plus there is the caveat of surveys. Which are, at best, unreliable. If you understood anything about research, you would know that surveys are always carefully measured in terms of meaningfulness. People lie or misrepresent things ALL THE TIME.
#THIS IS VERY CLEARLY 100% SELECTION BIAS
You also can't make a board sweeping generalization about Democrats not voting because many were vocal about it. You know what Progressives were vocal about, NOT VOTING. You're even currently arguing with someone else about how not voting is somehow doing something positive. Like holy fuck. Every day I meet more and more fucking morons.
Oh my God, please sit down, you walking Dunning-Kruger. Clearly the quotes were over your head, so I'm going to explain it using smaller words.
So, you're looking at very small quote from a single graph that says, "Note Validated voters are citizens who said they voted in a post-election survey and were found to have voted in commercial voter files." You think that means that this survey is conducted exclusively by people who just voted, but it's not. It's just explaining to you how they verified that people, who were already randomly selected for the survey, actually voted.
How these people were actually selected was described in my first quote, but since it went over your head, I'll rephrase it for you; the respondents were randomly selected through a random sampling of phone numbers, both landline and cell. 50% of those people asked if they'd like to be included in the survey said yes, which was about 10,000 people. This took place between July 8th and July 18th of 2021.
I know it said, "self-administered," at one point, and that was very confusing for you, but that isn't describing how people were selected for the survey, it's describing how they took the survey. They self-administered it online, but it was still sent out by Pew to randomly pre-selected candidates, not anyone who wanted to take it. Do you get it now?
So, just to be 100% clear, so you don't get confused anymore, between July 8th and July 18th of 2021, Pew Research Center selected about 10,000 randomly selected Americans for a survey. They then self-administered that survey through a website shared with them by the Pew Research Center. They were asked about their votes in the last election, and while that information was self-reported, it was also independently verified with voter databases to ensure it was true. There are literally 2 Appendices of information attached to this survey that explain all of this.
So, A) no, this is not a selection problem, you just don't understand the selection process, and B) if it seems like everyone else is a, "fucking moron," well, I've actually got a theory on why that is.
You have no argument. You are trying to pull a gotcha on a report you randomly googled and then didn't read. Projecting that I didn't read it, when I did. Clearly better than you. And now you're trying to call this a Dunning-Kruger situation, when clearly you don't understand how surveys work, how studies work, or possess the proper reading comprehension skills to actually understand and digest the information you are glancing at and speed reading.
However, you are right, this is a Dunning-Kruger situation, because YOU are not a researcher and YOU do not understand the caveat associated with surveys, especially self-administered surveys. (A distinction you clearly don't understand).
You have no argument. You have no point. You are done. No go fuck off and continue to not vote while demanding change.
LOL, you are a fantastically stupid person who has somehow convinced himself he's brilliant. You can keep repeating, "self-administered post-election survey," but that just means, "survey that was conducted after the election, in which the participants administered the survey to themselves rather than being given the questions by a surveyor." You think that means there was selection bias, but all of those steps took place after the selection process.
You're reading a one sentence summary of a single process to verify one data point and thinking you understand the entire survey methodology. It's like you've got the directions for baking a cake, and you're only looking at the last step that says, "remove cake from refrigerator and cover with icing." Then, when someone tries to tell you that you need to put the cake batter in the oven, you keep saying, "no, cakes go in the fridge, can't you read, dumb-ass?"
It was honestly kind of infuriating at first, but it's becoming funnier and funnier the longer it goes on. Please keep digging this hole.
We can dig this hole, but this is honestly funny to me because you just don't understand.
Participants were randomly selected. This study was done three times and they randomly selected participants each time. On that total participants 50% agreed to participate. Then those 50% took a survey, which I have to remind you for the nth time, surveys ALWAYS HAVE A CAVEAT OF BEING POTENTIALLY INACCURATE. People lie or exaggerate on surveys all the time. Then those people were validated with election data to validate they did in fact vote. The potential inaccuracy here is how they rate themselves on the political spectrum. That's fine.
The part you are very clearly missing and why it is selection bias, is because this isn't just for a survey of those on the political spectrum and how often they vote. This is also a survey that shows those more interested in politics are more likely to agree to a survey about politics to begin with. It even says 50% decided not to participate. In that same study they even use Twitter as an example of those more interesting in politics. Well duh, you and I are commenting on a political memes channel on Lemmy. So we are more interested in politics and more likely to interact with political topics and vote. It's very likely many people who are on the political fence or only vote for the president and not in mid-terms or down ballot are not interested in a political survey.
Those with strong opinions are interested in surveys to show their strong opinions. It's not a hard concept to understand, but you continuously miss the mark. You have ZERO critical thinking skills and that buddy, is both hilarious and truly sad. The education system has failed you.
Wow, great point! Except for two things; first, if people with strong political beliefs were more likely to reply to surveys, would that mean that basically every political survey was inherently biased? Second, if you look under the section of Appendix A marked, "incentives," you can see that they corrected for sampling bias by offering higher incentives to groups that have a lower response rate:
Anyway, do want to keep trying to prove that the Pew Research Center doesn't know how to conduct a survey, or are you finally tired of digging?
77 million voted for Trump. 75 million votes for Harris. Just under 3 million voted for a third party candidate of some kind. 90 million didn’t vote but were registered to vote. We don’t know the number of potentially eligible but not registered people there are. The US has an estimated 340 million population. An estimated 260 million are adults.
Care to shut the fuck up or do you want to say more stupid shit?
It's normal in US elections for less than half the population to vote.
For local elections it's less than a fith.
The protesters were almost all young people 30 and under, which when we look at the numbers, that group didn't vote any differently than any other election, same as always they don't vote in any meaningful capacity, so they didn't effect the election in any meaningful way.
I would love it if young people voted, but they don't.
Care to shut the fuck up or do you want to say more stupid shit? I know you won't tho, keep convincing yourself of reasons to attack your fellow slaves XD
You have no argument and you're too stupid to realize it. You also didn't even get the statistic correct.
https://www.electproject.org/national-1789-present
Life must be hard for you.
What a good little slave.
Master will be proud.