166
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 19 Jul 2024
166 points (85.2% liked)
politics
19089 readers
1878 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I think it's best for the country if he stays in the race because he's the incumbent and the best (according to the polls) person to replace him is already on the ticket. Also, if you think they're gonna put someone progressive up, I have some bad news. Essentially, take every position Biden has, and you can safely assume his replacement will be at best as good, and probably at least a little bit worse.
538 puts his chances above Trump's. The Keys to the White House puts Joe Biden as favored to win (at least, that's the expected prediction). I have yet to find a single poll that puts Biden below Trump by more than the margin of Error unless that poll shows 18 to 20-somethings largely voting for Trump, which suggests a sampling bias. Donald Trump already lost to Joe Biden, and since then he attempted an insurrection. Pair the previous fact with the data suggesting Trump didn't get the expected boost from the assassination attempt, and you reach the inevitable conclusion that America probably hates Trump.
Each individual datum I presented defies your conclusion, so I'm given to wonder why you have such confidence that it's not just unlikely but impossible not only for Biden to win but for a reasonable person to disagree? What outstanding evidence do you have that would allow you to reasonably reach this strongest of all conclusions?
Edit: for those of you having trouble reading, I'm criticizing this person claiming that everyone who disagrees is unreasonable.
538 is not what it was. Nate Silver left and took the model with him. The current 538 model is new and untested. The old 538 model has Biden at 26%.
Good to know, thank you! My point about the other person's degrees of certainty remains; it's absolutely asinine to say that you know for sure and everyone who disagrees with you is unreasonable when the supporting data is that shaky.
A. That's a bald faced lie. 538 shows 50/50ish odds right now because it's heavily weighted to do so until after the conventions.
B. Polling in Pennsylvania, the only swing state Trump needs to win, is disastrous for Biden.
C. The bullet bump is hitting now. Polling is always delayed, the news stories breathlessly published the day after were nothing but click bait.
What do you mean by that? That 18-20s don't largely vote R or that they are being disproportionately represented in the data?
Because for the former, Steve Bannon has been working to corrupt the "gaming" community completely. My YouTube algorithm associates gaming with right wing material so he's already succeeded in that department. Not that all 18-20s are gamers, but I believe more of them are than older generations.
I think young voters are on average less likely to vote for Trump, including that particular demographic. I believe that because younger generations are more likely (among other things) to be openly queer, and more politically engaged than people of that age used to be. I believe this because a lot of my friends online and offline are people just out of high school. Almost every young person I meet is about as or more progressive than me, with those who who are less progressive going no further than to the left of Joe Biden. Those exceptions who I've personally met can be counted on one hand, and those I interact with have given me no reason to believe that they're an exception.
If 18 to 20-somethings were tending right wards, people who are still in high school would be reporting their classmates being swept up in the pipeline as well, but we don't see that happening. For clarity, I live in a red county, on the boarder of a swing state, and in a small city surrounded by rural communities. Furthermore, I have a career where I interact with a lot of young people and hobbies that push me towards interacting with the groups you're talking about. If there was a successful strategic effort to push that demographic to the far right, I'd be in a very good position to notice first hand.
I'm 21, from a blue county in a reddish state, it seems mostly 50/50
It makes sense that some areas would be different from others, but that deviation is far wider than what I was expecting.
I'm glad to hear some first hand experience with that then! Thanks for sharing!
None of these models take into account the issue that an 81-year old cannot campaign as effectively as a younger person. It’s very unlikely that Biden can turn the tide in his favour through a great debate performance or speech. The best Campaign he can run is by hiding such that voters do not see how old and fragile he is. That’s not our best bet for beating Trump.
The Democratic donors say it’s over. No money, no campaign.
The question is if Biden can beat Trump, and I'm not considering direct plutocrat interference. Also, no one asked you.
Thought it was pertinent information.
And they have an amazing track record in predicting who can beat Trump.
Please re-read my reply.
^ I see. This guy's comments get to stay, but someone here wants to suppress or censor my opinion which was widely supported by the community. Makes sense....
That ship has sailed. Americans don't turn out for weakness. Whether it's a squee while the 70 ton Main Battle Tank you're riding in takes a jump or showing up to a debate cosplaying "confused old man".
It's not rational and political analysts hate it but it's always been true. Biden had about a week to go on a barnstorm and show us the debate was a fluke and he handled it the exact wrong way. He stayed home and let his campaign staff try to spin things. He needs to step aside now.
There's an argument to be made that incumbency could actually be a drag right now. People don't feel the government is working for them and they blame those currently in power. We saw with Trump that a lot of people will vote for any kind of change, even if it's objectively worse.
Alright, make it. People haven't felt like the government has been working for them since I was old enough to vote, so I very much doubt that by itself is really your reasoning. People tell me that I change my mind surprisingly easily, so go ahead.
Look at the wave of right wing populists winning across Europe. Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, and a bunch of other countries have elected these kind of anti-establishment candidates. Same pattern as "MAGA" conservatives in the US. These people don't win elections because they're competent. They aren't even good campaigners. They get elected because they're promising to trash the system.
It's not just that people don't feel like the government is working for them, it's that they are looking to authoritarianism to provide solutions.
France and the UK just gave the right a pair of fat Ls, so I don't think your chosen narrative is as clear as you seem to think. Furthermore, we were discussing the potential advantage/disadvantage of specifically being the incumbent, rather than the appeal of the right wing. That is to say, your argument fails to support your thesis.
Trump was an incumbent in 2020. He lost.
Wow, how completely irrelevant to the entire point.
Well I just made incumbency irrelevant to your point, so it seems relevant.