Thank you, I was questioning the results too, and your info perfectly illustrates why. I’d bet dollars to doughnuts that the most difficult eligible voters to predict are the kind of people who don’t check their mail, don’t sign up for research surveys, and don’t want to tell you who they’d vote for. Eligible non-voters didn’t care enough to vote, so why would they cast a ballot with Pew research?

Considered how many countries was couped or bombed by the united snakes, the reputation ahould have been so low for decades

I think it was pretty perceptive of people that they can notice us being trapped in a slow decline and voting for chaos to get us off this path for better or worse.

Same thing happened in 2016. When people are disillusioned they vote for change, when the Democrats don't offer positive change then they vote for the Republicans who always cause negative change.

This was the Pew Research Center, the most credible polling organization in the US, and in the article it explains how they compensate for potential biases.

They even surveyed 9 times the usual sample size to make sure this was a legitimate trend.

The article is from NPR, the most credible news outlet in the US.

People need to snap out of this denial that the US didn't willingly vote in a fascist because we were sick of stagnation

Idk. I want to agree, but that's how we got Qanon. Thinking for yourself without data is just inviting biases to control what you believe to be true.

I want it to be true that America would not have actually chosen Trump, but the older I get the more I see, the more I realize we're surrounded by severely under informed, misinformed, disinformed, igorant, selfish, people. The moment nuance is required to actually understand a situation, you can bet it won't be. :(

Just a reminder that it is, in fact, possible for the claim to be true as well.

If find it's a bigger problem when people are presented with valid credible data and then still refuse to accept reality.

This thread consists of people in denyal about a survey that was conducted by the most credible organization that could have done it.

The more charismatic candidate wins almost every time. The parties and candidates already analyzed which issues will get them the votes, they have whole teams breaking down which positions poll the best in which county.

The actual result is based on which candidate voters would rather have a beer with. The elections are mostly decided by swing voters. Swing voters don't have strong opinions on the issues which is why they are swing voters

You really don't need to survey many people to get statistically significant results, assuming your sample is truly random. For a population of 340 million, you only need to randomly sample ~2500 people to get a 95% confidence interval with a 2% margin of error.

A sample of 9000 people would get you closer to a 99%+ confidence interval.

Statistics is hard.