None of this matters. I mean the DNC could run some octogenarian and Dem voters would happily vote for him/her. The RNC could run some octogenarian who was twice impeached and thrice indicted and the Republican voters would happily vote for him. It’s crazy town.
The DNC IS running an octogenerian, and I’ll vote for him, but not happily. Because the alternative is fascism.
On the other hand, it will be fun to vote against Trump a third time. Looking forward to the fourth time in 2028 as well (if he’s still alive)!
Without clicking the link, my assumption is they are both tied at 0, because neither of them should be running in the first place. Is if these are the two best candidates the DNC and RNC and produce, than maybe those two organizations shouldn’t exist anymore.
Is this another landline poll? Those are notoriously and increasingly useless.
Do they still really do landline polls? No one I know has a landline anymore. My neighbor tried to get one and the phone company told her it wasn’t possible.
It depends on your area. I live in a more rural area currently, and landlines are decently common. They’re more reliable than a cell phone depending on where you’re at. Some people even have them run out to their barns/buildings, just in case something happens.
The New York Times/Siena College poll of 1,329 registered voters nationwide, including an oversample of 818 registered Republican voters, was conducted in English and Spanish on cellular and landline telephones from July 23-27, 2023. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.67 percentage points for all registered voters and plus or minus 3.96 percentage points for the likely Republican primary electorate
Landline and cellular plus an oversample of republicans? Maybe someone better at statistics can say why that was needed
Probably because the ratio of r:d is higher for actual voters than for registers voters.
If you have access, the ny times article goes into all of the methodology
Cross-Tabs: July 2023 Times/Siena Poll of the 2024 Race and National Issues https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/08/01/us/elections/times-siena-poll-registered-voters-crosstabs.html?smid=nytcore-android-share
You mean you don’t take 15 minutes out of your day to answer random questions when a random phone number calls?
At this point I hope for pollsters to contact me just so I can see how the process works.
I think I got texted once about the 2020 election and that was it. People who don’t have landlines are invisible when it comes to polls like this.
I get texts ALL. THE. TIME. for surveys like this. It’s just another spam text. I actually went through all the hassle of filling the goddamn thing out one time because they were asking about a local office and I really cared about the candidate I wanted to win.
It was like 30 pages of questions asking the same three questions from every direction possible, and when I went to submit it there was an error and it told me I would not be able to submit or retake the survey.
I don’t do it anymore.
Okay, before people start beating me up, I’m not arguing for complacency, but this headline is more than a bit click-baity.
This is a small poll, and per the poll’s methodology (scroll down, keep scrolling… nope keep going… ok… there you go - emphasis mine):
The New York Times/Siena College poll of 1,329 registered voters nationwide, including an oversample of 818 registered Republican voters, was conducted in English and Spanish on cellular and landline telephones from July 23-27, 2023. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.67 percentage points for all registered voters and plus or minus 3.96 percentage points for the likely Republican primary electorate.
Not only did they over sample Republicans, their margin of error is almost 4% within that group.
This feels like the NYT attempting to establish a narrative based on a very small, biased sampling of data. Remember that the mass media wants to amp up the uncertainty levels (which drive engagement and advertising revenue), and with Trump basically blowing out the primary, they’ll need another spectacle to ensure that it appears to be a close contest down to the finish line. The timing of the poll release and the headline is also suspect, especially as this poll was taken before the news of the latest indictment, yet presented as if it’s a reaction to today’s news.
That being said, I think it is an accurate portrayal of sentiment from those who still consider themselves Republicans. I don’t believe, given the small sample sizes and admitted bias, that it’s an accurate picture of the country.
Again, that’s not an argument for political complacency - rather, it’s one against media driven narratives relying on biased polling that make you scroll down six pages of tables to find their methodology.
I was thinking about this after my first comment.
“Was it mostly land line polling?”
Boomers. Nothing but Boomers and their lead ravaged brains. You could probably run the electricity for the Eastern seaboard with the amount of spinning happening in the graves of their parents.
It’s also a telephone poll…that guarantees it’s mostly people 50 and older because who the fuck under 50 answers phone calls from unknown numbers?
Man, I actually answered a telephone pole a couple weeks ago. I was so excited to get his stupid poll while I was driving, and stuck in traffic. I figured I might as well sacrifice my 5 minutes (they claimed) to help get some more lefty numbers in their poll numbers.
Then it turned out it was a fucking poll for a natural gas company trying to greenwash their image and were looking for support for their anti-environmental ad campaign.
I was so bummed. Plus it took 45 minutes, fuck polls!
Why in God’s name did you give them another 40 minutes after finding out they lied?
Seriously.
I mean, I wouldn’t encourage any one to relax when it comes to Trump, but based on what’s up today, there is extremely low likelihood that Trump wins. People should realize just how unlikely it is for an incumbent to not get re-elected. Trump would have skated to re-election had he just not so catastrophically fucked up COVID and thus the economy. Again, not even be competent at it, just be less incompetent.
Biden probably has this in the bag barring some act of god. He’s going into '24 as one of the most legislatively accomplished presidents, great economic numbers including avoiding recession, etc. Then there is the whole “Trump might be in jail by the election” thing, and even if not in jail, he’s going to be so mired in legal proceedings it is unlikely he’ll be able to effectively campaign. DeSantis is a distant 2nd, and seems to be only widening that gap every time him or his campaign opens his mouth. The rest in this primary are auditioning for roles on Fox or lobbyist positions.
Again, I would not relax because if somehow Trump is elected we probably just sealed the countries fate into a full fascist dictatorship, but it’s just not likely.
I rarely answer calls from known numbers
You’ll only make your mother cry.
I don’t even answer calls from me.
It’s OK, I don’t answer calls from you either.
That’s especially good since I haven’t been calling you, which means that’s a spoofed number
deleted by creator
🤦♂️
deleted by creator
Propaganda works great, doesn’t it?
That sounds about right as a standard gauge of American intelligence.
There is already an accurate gauge of American intelligence (am American):
0
Yeah, Biden sucks that fucking bad lmao. Wish we could get a functional third party in this country
deleted by creator
That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. There is plenty of legitimate criticism that could be levied against President Biden specifically, and the mainstream Democratic party more generally. However, this moment in time has shown me that President Biden was correct when he said, “Don’t compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative”. I voted for President Biden in 2020, and I will confidently vote for President Biden again in 2024.
People lost in the “but he’s not my perfect candidate” rhetoric need to grow the fuck up. They are never going to get the candidate they want by pouting and throwing a tantrum. Meanwhile their childish response results in severe negatives - to them, the country and our future. I guess their pointless protest made them winners…idiots.
Politically, I think Biden is doing a great job, tbh. He has accomplished a ton, especially in the first two years. I’m not a huge fan or anything, but I’d still vote for him again any day of the week, because the alternative is just not an option in my world.
I’d settle for a functional second party.
I think Biden is doing pretty good.
Not surprising. US Americans are used to their government breaking the law all the time, all over the world. Why would they expect something else at home?
With such a small sample all you can really take from this is that both parties will receive votes. This says next to nothing about how close the race will be.
All of the polls are horribly off. Trump is way behind. Biden"s approval ratings are also way off. They are much higher than the media portrays it. This is just corporate media selling us a horse race and FUD for ratings as usual.
Don’t suppose you can back any of that up with, you know… facts?
Learn how to read poll numbers.
Here is a great example on this very poll. https://lemmy.world/comment/1956223
Polling is basically horrible. It is basically marketing. Its either marketing for a candidate or for news media. It is a tool used to control what you read and believe, rather than to inform.
If anything this should scare the Democrats. Imagine if the Republicans nominated someone even slightly decent?
I said it after 2020 with all the trouble he had getting elected, Biden probably should be a 1 term president and not run for re-election.
The electoral system is built to favor small-population states. Since most of those states are deep red, Republicans have a massive systemic advantage. That’s how they stay competitive. Democrats have won the popular vote eight times out of the last seven out of eight straight presidential elections. Biden will most likely win the popular vote again, but the electoral count may say something different.
Most republicans are registering democrat to throw a wrench in the primary and give RFK an artificial boost against Biden. Shitstain McGhee (trump) is just a distraction. They have their sights on the DNC itself. That’s where everyone’s attention should be at the moment.
💀
Hey I didn’t say they WILL, I said IF.
Republicans can’t, though. I mean Trump started a literal insurrection on Jan 6 to try and overturn the last election. Do you really think he’ll just bow out gracefully if he somehow looses the primary?
I don’t know, and honestly it’s a long ways away still. However I don’t think he is that stupid. A lot of people make swipes at him, but people really underestimate him. The dude won the presidency in the first place, it’s like people calling George W. Bush a moron because of his verbal mistakes when public speaking. They may be dumb for presidents but they are presidents.
If the Republicans nominate Desantis, Trump could burn that bridge and fuck him over, or get behind him and play the “I helped him win” card and make him look like a “Kingmaker” whether he did anything or not. But I think completely screwing a Republican nominee over will harm his following a lot, as well as his legacy, and I imagine both of those are things he still cares about.
Or maybe he’ll go Scorched Earth because he really is that stupid… who knows, but I don’t think he’s really THAT crazy.
But I think completely screwing a Republican nominee over will harm his following a lot, as well as his legacy, and I imagine both of those are things he still cares about.
He’s old as dick, I don’t think he much cares about the next go round.
When people get older they stop caring about their current life and start thinking legacy. Tom Brady didn’t play his last two-three seasons in the NFL because he needed the money, or fame… he did it to prove a point/build his legacy/brand.
Bill Gates is a massive piece of shit, but there was a point he left Microsoft and started to care more about his legacy. He gave millions to fight diseases in Africa, and pretty much white washed his image… if it wasn’t for Jeffery Epstein… (but seriously Bill Gates is pretty horrible person his time at Microsoft show who he really was, also there’s a history of sexual harassment, as well as just adultry with staff under him, there that people forget about). This happens to almost every person over time, but it’s the truly rich who have the ability and luxury to realy decide their legacy.
Trump is pure ego… But I almost guarantee that he wants books to be written about him as a great president by someone. He doesn’t want to be seen as Nixon and vilified by almost everyone.
Piss off the Republicans, and he’ll have no one singing his praises.
Being elected because your a genuinely awful person is not an indication of intelligence.
He really is as stupid as people say. Look at all the stupid shit he says. That’s not an intelligent person speaking. His sound bites sound even dumber in context than out. Like that time he very seriously suggested injecting bleach as a cure for Covid.
And no. Trump’s ego won’t let him take a back seat to anyone. Again: he incited an insurrection to over turn the last election. He’s a sore looser and will absolutely go scorched earth if he’s not handed the nomination (and/or looses the ‘24 election)
Someone who is even slightly decent doesn’t have what it takes to get the Republican nomination.
I originally said “not Trump” And probably should stick with that. Basically that election was a 4 year referendum on Trump. That energized a lot of the Democrat base, and got the vote out. And Biden still struggled, when he probably should have destroyed him.
It honestly feels like both parties are choosing the weakest candidates over the last eight years.
deleted by creator
WOAH
It’s almost like politicians will say whatever to get elected or something…so weird! This is probably the first time in American history a politician has lied for votes…I’m sure of it…
The same thing is going on everywhere, tbh.
Right-wing populist arseholes are gaining traction because the political mainstream has just been fucking us all over for decades.
Agree.
We need serious political reform before that is likely to change. A country of 300+ million people with only 2 parties, and a choice between 2 weak old men. It is deeply depressing.
I fear the reform. Mostly because most reform won’t really change what people expect and we’ll just have a big upheaval to be back in the same place.
Let’s say we get rid of First past the post. But still the people with the most money will still win the presidency. Libertarians constantly talk about "Well if ranked voting had a "… What happens when people vote only for their favorite and don’t throw a vote to the libertarians? I imagine it’ll still be mostly two parties.
I love looking at Britain’s parliament. I love hearing about the “Pirate party” got a seat or what not. But yet when you hear talk of them, it always seems like the Labour or Tories are the only ones who have real power. I know the theory, and how the smaller groups get SOME say, especially when one group isn’t holding 50 percent of the house, but it’s still MOSTLY the voice of two parties… so what’s the major difference?
I mean we’ll progressives, and liberals, and they’ll form a coalition and get power… and it’ll be different than the modern democratic party because… umm?
(There are probably reforms that may make a major change, but I do feel like we’ll see the same system evolve quite often)
Heads up friend, the UK also has FPTP. We’ve effectively got a two party system because we have the same way of voting as you do. Even where a third party actually has a seat (like the SNP in Scotland), it just becomes a two party race between them and whichever of the two big ones the third party didn’t locally displace
Northern Ireland is basically the exception, as it has separate parties and its very specific history
Maybe I’m not understanding it, I thought the UK had an election for parliament, and parliament was divided by the percentage of votes each one got. You don’t for a specific representative, but rather a party. So if 49 percent of people voted for party A, 39 percent voted for party B, and 10 percent voted for party C, even if they aren’t all in the same area, 10 percent of parliament would be party C (and thus party A and Party B has to cater to party C’s desires).
Maybe it was the EU, but I thought the UK also worked like that, and at the very least in that situation party C has more power, but also both Party A and Party B could enact things for the public good as long as party C could be persuaded.
It’s possible you heard about the Scottish or Welsh parliaments within the UK (like a state government in the US, although with somewhat more power I believe), which partially work like that. Or you’ve just gotten us mixed up with one of our European neighbours that does do it. Sweden and the Netherlands use a system like you described.
The UK’s House of Commons, which I’ll refer to as Westminster going forward, is our equivalent to the American House of Representatives. We’ve also got the House of Lords, which is our equivalent to the Senate, but it’s unelected (largely chosen by each outgoing prime minister) and far, far less powerful than the US Senate. It can’t make Westminster pass or not pass something. Anyway, Westminster is elected by first-past-the-post. 650 constituencies, each one is considered totally separately from the other, highest number of votes for a candidate in that constituency gets the seat. Whichever party has the most seats gets to try to form a government first, either with its own majority, in coalition with a minor party if it doesn’t have one (happened recently with the Conservatives and the Northern Irish party the DUP), or just as a minority government if the opposition is unable to form a larger coalition.
Situations like you describe where A and B try to win the allegiance of C do happen, particularly when the Liberal Democrats were still a significant force as they typically sit somewhere between our A and B on a lot of matters. For whatever reason, smaller parties have persisted in some specific areas despite having no chance whatsoever of winning nationwide. The Northern Isles of Scotland are committed Liberal Democrat voters, for example, even though they’ve not been anywhere near winning nationally for a century. The C is now a pro-Scottish-independence party that is absolutely never going to agree on much with A, and which B is going to be hesitant to work with despite a number of similar policies because B doesn’t want Scotland to leave either, so A and B are looking at the really small parties to work with when they need to.
The Scottish and Welsh parliaments use a mixed system. Two thirds of the seats are appointed with FPTP, but everyone makes two votes. Your first vote is for your constituency just like in Westminster or the US HoR, but you also have a second vote for your region, a collection of about eight constituencies which also gets multiple seats. The regional seats are weighted so that parties that parties that are proportionately overrepresented get less of them, so the regions loosely counteract the imbalances of the first round. In Scotland, for example, the SNP typically wins a lot of seats in both Scottish and British elections. In the British ones this results in the SNP having a huge majority of Scotland’s seats (upwards of 90% some years) while only getting a little around 50% of Scotland’s votes. In Scottish parliament elections, they other parties that lost to the SNP in the first round get boosted in the regional round and it comes a lot closer to being proportional, resulting in an SNP-Greens coalition government.
Again, Northern Ireland is entirely its own thing, and this comment is already getting very long
Another reason to fear reform, the wrong reform might win and set us back further.
See, the leading candidate for election reform is currently Ranked Choice. RCV can lead to worse election outcomes than First Past the Post, and has lead to worse results in several US based elections already.
It’s a deeply flawed system that, on the surface, looks like an upgrade. And when people experience the flaws first hand, it makes them not want to try actual better systems.
Want a super simple system that easily outperforms RCV and FPtP? Try Approval, It’s been tried in a few US elections to good result.
If you want to be able to rank your candidate choices against each other and have it matter, try STAR, a voting system designed to be easily used and easily understood. Designed to take advantage of basic human psychology to get the best result.
The choice for the star rating to be 0-5 was very specific. Humans tend to group ratings at the edges and the middle in ranking systems. For instance, a rating system of 0-100 would see lots of 0, 1, 50, 99, 100. And that would be about all the points of the scale used. You might have one person out of a hundred who will use more, but mostly it’s going to be ratings at either end of the scale, and then smack dab in the middle. So the best rating system is actually the scale of 0-5.
Anyway. STAR takes that rating, then adds them all up for each candidate, the top two move on to the second round, where each ballot is examined to see who placed higher on that ballot. You count those ballots as their vote total. You also count the ballots where they were scored evenly and release that info as a “no preference” so that the winner knows what sort of mandate they actually have.
If you want to change things up, you could also do the average in the first round. It slightly changes how the votes are counted, with ratings of 0 actively hurting a candidate, but in testing it doesn’t seem to actually change the result.
Anyway, this whole tangent was about how RCV is bad, and saps political will from being able to implement actually good systems, which makes RCV even worse.
Oh, a final thought, with Approval and STAR, you can also ditch the primary elections. They can both handle more candidates natively, and perform better the more you have. RCV actually performs worse the more candidates you have, which has led to several of its failures.
Talking about different reforms, the tv show QI was talking about the best system for election… and they suggested choose someone at random from the populace. It would make bribery to get elected impossible, it’d eliminate the contentious elections, and a random selected person is likely more moral and a better leader than someone already in power now…
Not going to say it’s the best system, but I wouldn’t mind seeing it attempted once or twice, I do honestly believe it couldn’t be worse than the current systems.
deleted by creator
But a non Trump candidate wouldn’t fire up the Democratic base either, and steal some of the voters away from Biden at the same time.
There’s many democrats that even today say they didn’t vote for Biden, they voted against Trump and that was who the democrats picked. They might be saying that, but I think even someone like Ron Desantis might have good odds of winning. Basically it’s probably going to be a tight race if the Republicans don’t nominate Trump… And yet Trump’s the most likely nominee right now.
It makes me crazy that we’re even talking about this and it’s more than a year away. Our election cycles in the US are too damn long.
This is what happens when political parties are treated and viewed like sports teams
pretty sure that if a ball of clay was on the ballot most people would vote for it over both Biden and Trump. basically anything else is better than what we have now and what we had before.
Nah. If the choice is between Biden and Trump (or any other Republican for that matter), I’ll vote for Biden 100 times out of 100. And happily so.
All it takes is for Biden to develop a sudden health problem, as old people sometimes do; then it’s Trump vs Kamala Harris and we’re fucked.
I’ll never understand why the DNC didn’t start grooming someone for 2020 immediately the day after the election in November 2016. Yet another tactical blunder that is so characteristic of the party.
They did. She didn’t stand out
Who are you referring to?
As long as the same two parties rule the country in a cycle you will always be fucked
There are different levels of fucked though.
And there’s also the possibility of not voting these two parties
Yes but no one here said they wanted to guarantee an advantage to Republicans, unless that is what you are saying?
How does not voting for these two parties advantages one or the other?
You split the vote. If you would have voted for one of the parties but you instead vote for a third party, third parties are not going to win in this day and age and your vote can no longer support whichever of the two parties you prefer. If enough members of one party does that (because they have simmilar views), the party that doesn’t have some of their voters voting for a third party gains an advantage. It’s kinda dumb but it’s also why it was inevitable that this voting system would become 2 party.
We need Ranked Choice Voting for presidency ASAP. I am super happy to see that it’s making it’s way into some states lower votes. But to be honest out of all the things I vote on, the most important one feels like the President and that’s the one I want RCV for.
As long as people like you keep drinking the propaganda made by the two parties system that no third party can win, then no third party will ever win
Oh! Oh! You’re one of the 10k today! Watch this please. It’s awesome and 6 minutes. If that’s too long, watch it at 1.25x speed.
First Past The Post voting means that if you have one right-wing candidate get 40% of the vote, and three left-wing candidates get 20% each, the right-winger wins.
It’s not the system we want, but it’s the system we’ve got, and until we have the power to change that, it’s the rules we’ll have to work with.
Enough of this bullshit, any party has the same chances of winning the vote don’t trust the propaganda
Similarly Trump could fall over dead tomorrow and then it’s old man Biden vs young . This is the current plan for any Republican currently in the race, the hope that Trump takes himself out, either via the legal system or just poor general health, and then they can swoop in and be Trump “lite”.
Similarly Trump could fall over dead tomorrow
Hamberder/Coronary for the win!
Yeah, but if it’s DeSantis the GOP is still screwed. Normal people hate him, too.
Trump could fall over dead and his cult of followers would still vote for him.
That would be good, wouldn’t it?
Yes, but I think the point they were making is that the plan to wait for trump to die is kinda pointless.
Well not if the dead guy actually won!
Trump is only 3 years younger. They’re both old as fuck.
That and Biden still jogs and bikes. Trump has a hard time shuffling down a ramp.
And drinking water with one hand.
