this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2024
139 points (82.9% liked)

politics

19096 readers
3058 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 36 points 4 months ago (12 children)

He's still projected to lose according to composite polling like 270toWin, Rasmussen, RealClearPolitics, and fivethirtyeight. It's hardly changed in months and it never looked great. I recommend people get out there and start trying to change peoples minds with methods proven to be effective and nonthreatening.

[–] HaiZhung@feddit.org 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

„Biden is projected to lose“ is spun a bit negatively for a 49-51 split, no?

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/?cid=rrpromo

Basically it’s anyone’s game now, and it will come down to extremely few votes in the end.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

538 is still 50/50 because they have a base assumption that it's too early to tell anything. So the algorithm is pretty hardcoded to read 50/50 for another couple months.

We have the polling though and his battleground polling absolutely took a hit after the election. For example Biden either needs PA and one other state or all but one if he loses PA. So that's a pretty hard requirement. He was basically even with Trump in PA the night of the debate. But now that gap is opening up, the wrong way. There are very clear indicators of a an impending catastrophe.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 0 points 4 months ago

It's still a projection to lose. Far too close for my taste, and if you look at the 270towin EC Projections Trump only needs 2 swing states at the least while Biden needs 3, Republicans have 12 victory outcomes to Democrats 9, 1 potential tie. It does not look good.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Sssshhhhh you're fuckin up the narrative

We've pivoted from "the debate was a CATASTROPHE look at these polls falling" to "how can you say Biden is still viable when he's 2 points behind right after something majorly depressive to his numbers happened and there are only 4 months more to go"

It's actually pretty impressive how seamless it went from caring deeply how much his poll numbers have dropped to caring deeply how they're sitting at practically exactly the same level they were, which is slightly behind

Also there's this

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Mozz, please don't get bamboozled. One of this guys "keys" for his mathematical model is "Charisma". That's a stat he pulls out of his ass and pretty disqualifying in the world of statistical models. His claim to fame in predicting modern elections is ridiculous. Half the people I went to college with could predict the majority of races with reasonable accuracy. Obama McCain was probably the one toss up until the VP debate, which Palin lost to Biden really badly. Hillary is the one people like to point to, but people watching the numbers were shouting warnings at the democrats only to be called bernie bros.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Oh, I don’t give a shit about his “keys”. I was talking about the part I linked to - basically, why the fuck are you guys covering this like a normal presidential election instead of as an effort to hijack the presidency by a hostile and malevolent force that’s explicitly hostile to the whole American system and willing to kill to get its way. Especially since anyone in the media will be first in the Gulag line if it is able to come to power, it seems like an absurd and horrifyingly dangerous dereliction of the media’s responsibility.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Wow, I'll be honest. I hit the stop button the second I saw him and this kind of attitude is exactly why. You may consider Trump to be a fascist con artist, but 74 million people did vote for him in 2020. The media are doing their job. And if they came out in such a partisan manner they would instantly lose the trust of anyone not a diehard democrat. Their job isn't to ring alarm bells, it's to faithfully report news. And they've done so, that's why for example Trump had to distance himself from Project 2025.

His rant that they aren't being partisan may feel good to you, but it shows a complete lack of understanding in what role the media plays in our democracy.

load more comments (8 replies)