360
Biden ‘not sure he’d be running’ in 2024 if Trump wasn’t: ‘We cannot let him win’
(www.theguardian.com)
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 05 Dec 2023
360 points (96.9% liked)
politics
25060 readers
1091 users here now
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Last time I mentioned that poll, people tried to come up with all kinds of reasons to discredit it. Reasons that the poll explicitly stated how it accounted for them.
How do they account for a poll being early AF?
The point of the poll is to see how things are tending, not to see how the election will happen 10 months from now. You're just another person trying to discredit what you don't understand.
That's a bold statement for someone putting so much stock in the implications of 11 month pre-election polling.
You should really comment less on shit you don't know about, you're embarrassing yourself.
Okay, feel free to ignore the polls and reap the consequences of that. Remember when the trends of polling was ignored in 2016 and how that turned out?
Projection
Hahaha you dumb fuck!
2016 was proof not to put so much stock in polling.
Lol, you just showed your ignorance. The polling showed Hillary constantly losing ground. By the time of the election, she was within the margin of error of most polls. Like I said, you pay attention to the trend. Or you keep your head in the sand just like 2016.
Yup and they just disagree with arbitrary opinions they think are factual and downvote without consideration of how statistics work. If they respond with data it's some very niche thing extrapolated way beyond it's significance. Ultimately it's downvoting what they don't want to be true as what happens on all social media.
Have you seen people taking statistics classes? It's almost universally hated because, for some reason, people struggle with it. I really enjoyed it because it's probably the most practical form of math you can take. I was only one class away from getting a minor in statistics, but wasn't going to take an additional semester just for that minor.
I really enjoyed my stats classes. It was a lot of really great information and general knowledge.
I do think having that background makes me simultaneously more and less trusting of polls. The recent performance of polls in the midterms and across various races this year are quite surprising to me. They haven't done a good job of capturing the abortion backlash trend against Republicans.
There would have to be a reason however for their deficiency, and that's where the stats background is helpful. I'm not going to baselessly dismiss polls because I dislike the results, I need reasons. And the best explanation I can think of is the simple random sample. The people they're polling don't constitute a true SRS, because I wager there's some conflating factor skewing results. Landlines are going to favor older populations. Texting people to take polls is going to have the bias of who actually goes on to take them.
The biggest enemy to statistics is that there's no law forcing people to answer questions if they're chosen for a poll.
Sure, but look at the polling method. They used landlines and cellular.