https://www.newsweek.com/presidential-election-latest-polls-biden-trump-1877928
The Democrat is outperforming the Republican in a series of polls.
They had her anywhere between a 70-90% chance to win. If you predict 90% chance that something will happen, and it always happens, your prediction is wrong because you should have predicted 100%.
When I hear someone say "you can't trust the polls because they got 2016 'wrong'" they are just telling me they don't understand statistics.
They had her anywhere between a 70-90% chance to win
And its important to note that these predictions were for the pop vote, which she did actually win, so they were actually right.
And its important to note that these predictions were for the pop vote, which she did actually win, so they were actually right.
I'm not sure this is entirely true. Many polls just look at the popular vote, but most of the polls that claim "chance of winning" take into account the EC.
538 had her going into the election with a 70% chance of winning the electoral college. Nate Silver also went on multiple shows basically doing everything he could to get people to understand that meant 3 out of 10 times she loses.
No, 538 (and RCP?) actually has a rolling projection of 'real' chance to win the EC. But the chances of Hillary declined from >90% to 70% in the last week or so. When she was >90% everybody would say it looked like she was going to win, and that's what people remember.
But the chances of Hillary declined from >90% to 70% in the last week or so.
Oh yeah, the Comey Probe. Back in the days when having the FBI open an investigation into you was enough to kill your presidential aspirations.
Or at least that was the case for Hillary Clinton and the moderate voter bloc, but somehow Donald Trump is not held to such high standards.
It's been awhile since I read anything about that, but it seems like the last time I read about it, was something along: "80% of polls have Hillary projected to win", but the actual polls that they were using were all almost within the margin of error.
tl;dr 80% had Hillary winning by about 2-3%.
margin of error
People in almost never speak about the margin of error when presenting a poll, especially one that's favorable to them.
f you look at the fine print, and see the margin of error percentage, then you apply the maximum amount to both people in the race, you'll see a lot of times it's a tie.
I understand the point you're making about probabilities, but we're speaking in the context of politics. Polls accurately predicted the results in 2008 and 2012. Something fundamentally changed in 2016, and the polls were off across the board.
And "polls were historically accurate" in 2022.
And in reality we are talking about an weighted error difference of about 1.3/1.5 points between 2008/2012 and 2016. It's not like they got it massively wrong.
You said something changed, and then I showed how last election they were actually more accurate than in the past. And I already pointed out that they were "wrong" about 2016. So I'm not sure what your point is about this.
they are just telling me they don’t understand statistics.
You're right, but in fairness to the regular person who gets their news from regular news outlets, they were being told that Clinton had a 98% chance of winning when in reality it was more like 75%. The fact is while everyone was cocky in 2016 and nervous in 2020 I was the opposite because I followed the polls and Biden in 2020 had consistently bigger leads on Trump than Clinton in 2016 with even bigger leads in swing states. His odds of winning were much greater than hers and the likely margin of victory was much higher, but they were being underestimated by a media machine that was absolutely snakebit after going all in on congratulating HRC in June for being the first woman president with a dem supermajority in both houses of congress and flipping Texas blue.
What are you talking about? Polls are not valid statistics, they are riddled with biases that can't be eliminated.
Funny that this was in response to me and not the above poster that claimed that something happened in 2016 that made them no longer reliable.
Additionally, I suspect you don't really know what you are talking about because the issue you point out is not a statistical issue, but that they are just not a good measurement to begin with. Which isn't even a good point either because they do a pretty good job of consistently getting pretty close. In the last election the mean error was only about 4.3 and they didn't seem to favor either side.
Polls would be ok if the sample was peefectly random. However it is never fully random, and in practice they always overrepresent politically active people and underrepresent the poor.
the polls had Hillary winning easily
Well Hillary didnt pay off her hookers 2 weeks before the election... like that kinda means he cheated. So Id say its a lot harder to win when you play by the rules. And Im not defending Hillary cuz I know she shafted Bernie, but what she did is not even on the same scope as what donnie rapist did/does on a daily basis.
paying off hookers isn't actually cheating, the issue is that he used campaign funds to do it and that's fraud (but not electoral fraud)
They do and they don't. Some people see polls and say "why bother". Some people see polls and scream "GET OUT AND VOTE". They may not be indicative of the final outcome, but they are a motivating factor for a lot of people.
The first sane take in this whole thread. Modern polling is unreliable when the margins for victory in certain elections can come down to literally a single vote in some cases.
Show up and get counted when it matters.
Yeah, polls are stupid and useless; only the election day poll counts...though last week some idiot on here was desperately trying to defend polling is being both dependable and correct (as long as you throw out the ones that were wrong)
Are primaries over? I thought there was more https://edition.cnn.com/election/2024/calendar
I'm seeing quite a few months of primaries to go
And quite a lot of Biden still supporting Genocide.
So uncommitted it is.
Oh, I see. You were just playing dumb to parrot "genocide joe." My bad. I shouldn't have given you the benefit of the doubt.
You know at some point you're going to have to consider it's the moral obligation of Biden and the people supporting him sending weapons to Israel to change.
They are more or less. It's part of why our primary system sucks. There's still downballot races though and you can and should vote for progressives to be the Democrat nominee in them. And you can cast a symbolic noncommitted for president to express displeasure with Biden.
Biden has more than half the total delegate count already pledged to him. Primaries are over, Biden has won regardless of the outcome of the remaining primaries and will be the democratic nominee in 2024.
What did anyone actually think Uncommitted was going to take the nomination or something?
Hidenberg handed Hitler the chancellorship. Hidenberg, the only check on the Nazi power, remained president until his death until 1934. After which, using the Enabling Act, Hitler was able to proclaim himself both chancellor and president.
Hitler becomes chancellor because Brünig, Hidenberg, Papen, and Schleicher all think they can control and temper Hitler all while staying in power and keeping the left wing out of power.
I was contending "Nazis lost the election to Hindenburg ... and came to power anyway in 1933 regardless." Hitler didn't come to power for some amorphous reasons, but specific decisions by people in power. I agree that material conditions are important, but it's so vague here that it's meaningless and can be shifted at any point in this discussion to support your position.
The Nazis agitated support on multiple fronts including electoral politics. Hindenburg surrounded himself with other military conservative and as conditions in the streets continued to worse economically and support swung to the nsdap, they urged him to give support to Hitler. However, the Nazis had won a plurality of the vote in every Reitsrat election starting in 1930.
Electoral politics alone isn't the answer. Never was. Garnering support on the ground is difficult work.
Amazing what a stellar State of the Union can do, but as always... national polls are useless because we don't have national elections.
Watch the polling in the key swing states. So far, it doesn't appear that new polling has been done since the State of the Union.
These are the states we want to see swing Biden.
Arizona:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/arizona/
Georgia:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/georgia/
Michigan:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/michigan/
Nevada:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/nevada/
New Mexico:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/new-mexico/
North Carolina:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/north-carolina/
Pennsylvania:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/pennsylvania/
Virginia:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/virginia/
Wisconsin:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/wisconsin/
Oh, they ditched Rasmussen? Makes sense. Leading up to 2020, I think they were showing Trump up by something like 5-8 points - my memory is fuzzy.
Yes but Biden's comes with a slate of competent advisors. Trumps comes with a lukewarm hamberder and throwable ketchup
Nate Silver has long defended keeping them in. It's not that the absolute number is any good, but a change in the number can be good. If Rasmussen shows a 3 point shift between two polls, that's probably real and can be applied to the model.
It's not a bad take - if it shows a consistent bias, it's still consistent data. It's translating the bias from a descriptive to a predictive model that's the hard part. Maybe they found that the swings in correlation were too wide.
IIRC they ejected them because Rasmussen Reports put out a ridiculously flawed article that called the results of the Arizona gubernatorial election into question based on a study whose methodology was so flawed that it could be torn apart by a particularly sharp grade schooler--they took a poll, sponsored by a Republican group, four months after the election, then weighted it against exit polls (not the actual election results), and then used that to claim the Republican won by eight points instead of losing by 1. This prompted the guy in charge of 538 to send them a letter basically saying "are you gonna fix your methodology to reflect something close to reality, orrrrr...." and Rasmussen said "lol no"
Yeah. Article is bragging about 3 national polls, where Biden is winning by 3% at most...
Because of the system, Dems need popular vote, to make up for the flyover states going conservative and be worth more due to electoral college
If Biden was polling 5% over trump nationally, we should be concerned.
And I have zero faith in the DNC and people running Joe's campaign to focus on the right states to win the electoral college.
And I have zero faith in the DNC and people running Joe's campaign to focus on the right states to win the electoral college.
Why? They've done it once already.
I don't think Hillary, on her own, CHOSE to ignore Michigan and Wisconsin in 2016. Somebody told her campaign "Yeah, those are safe, you don't need to go there..." and that was one of the factors that tanked her campaign.
Joe cannot win without them. He needs to campaign HARD there.
Latest polling in Michigan shows it at a virtual tie, 43% to 43%.
Primary data shows more energy on the Republican side:
Donald Trump - 68.1% - 759,122 votes
Nikki Haley - 26.6% - 296,431 votes
Uncommitted - 3% - 33,561 votes
Joe Biden - 81.1% - 623,642 votes
Uncommitted - 13.2% - 101,457 votes
Now, you can argue more people came out on the Republican side because they were motivated by having a choice, but just over a million Republican votes to just over 600K Democratic votes needs to be a giant fucking wake up call.
Same deal for Wisconsin, polls showing Trump +2, +3, +4:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/wisconsin/
Their primary is on 2/20. It will be interesting to see how the vote goes as Haley is officially out.
I, a Michigander, voted against Trump in the primary and will be voting against him again in the general. And I know I wasn’t alone, which accounts for some of the total Republican ballots. Open primaries mean that can happen.
Against an incumbent trump when people believed Biden's campaign promises...
This time being the incumbent hurts Biden. 4 years ago if someone said Biden would be supporting a genocide, trying to codify Trump's border policies, and calling migrants "illegals" I'd have laughed in their face.
Biden is less popular now then when all most voters knew about him was he was Obama's VP.
Dude took 36 years to win his first presidential primary, he wasn't that popular to begin with.
Hes more popular for me. I still can't believe how much he has done in one term with an adversarial congress that improves my quality of life. and yeah I feel sad about international affairs but I vote on internal affairs. especiallly when its so obvious how much worse the alternative is internationally.
Hes more popular for me
Well, less then a third of Americans hold a favorable opinion of Biden like you do...
Just slightly better than trumps numbers.
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-unpopular-polls-2024-election-1877870
I hope it's enough, and I do feel a lot more comfortable now then a week ago. We just need Biden to stop reaching out to Haley voters and start trying to get liberal votes on his side.
It's just insane to me that less than two thirds of the country hold a favorable opinion of either candidate. No matter what happens, the majority of the country will be unhappy with it.
That means depressed turnout, and those are the only elections republicans have a chance at winning. I'd rather not give them that chance
The "incumbent advantage" is often misunderstood. Because a weak incumbent gets primaried.
So the DNC says primarying a candidate hurts them, and why NH didn't get delegates this year.
The reality is only weak incumbents get primaried. Whether they get challenged or not in the primary doesn't make them weaker or stronger.
By taking a primary away, we're not helping a candidate, we're throwing away the option to run a more popular candidate. Which hurts the party and every American if it means trump is elected.
It's like saying the only reason trump got caught on his tax fraud was he ran for president. Running for president brought attention to it, but he cheated on taxes decades before running and could have been prosecuted at any time.
An actual primary wouldn't have made Biden unpopular, it would have just made how unpopular he is more public, while giving him a public stage to move left to his voters and win some over for the general.
Hiding it doesn't make it better, it just gives people a false sense of security, which ironically often leads to lower turnout.
And as always:
Low turnout is how republicans become presidents
Did trump win as an incumbent?
No, because he was incredibly unpopular.
Both Biden and trump are currently sitting just under 1/3 favorably.
Being an unpopular incumbent hurt trump in 2020, and it will hurt Biden in 2024.
And I have zero faith in the DNC and people running Joe's campaign to focus on the right states to win the electoral college.
That's why I put North Carolina in the watch list. There are folks out there who think it's winnable a) because they assume the Nikki Haley vote will flip to Biden, and b) because the Republicans just picked a batshit CRAZY candidate for Governor on Super Tuesday.
We really need to see new polling there.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/north-carolina/
As of 2/29 to 3/3 it's either Trump +12 or +14, but some folks are still saying Biden can win.
Doubt.
a) because they assume the Nikki Haley vote will flip to Biden
If Biden moves far enough right to grab a handful of Haley voters... Hed lose 10x the votes he gains.
The most we should try to get republicans to do is abstain, the payoff for courting Republican votes has never been worth it.
Biden is definitely trying to get Haley voters, it's just a god awful strategy
Yeah, but what you're missing is that big business Democratic donors love it when the Democrats move right, so that's what they do every single fucking time.
I saw a Jordan Klepper clip yesterday where he talked to Haley voters...
Most said Trump was terrible, that 1/6 was a violent insurrection, but that they'd still have to "pick the lesser of two evils" and vote trump because they'd never vote Democrat.
It just doesn't make any sense.
Neither Haley voters or Biden's campaign team. None of what they're doing makes sense.
I don't think he's been appealing to Haley voters on the policy front at all. His new budget proposal is anathema to the republican way of thought, even the less crazy sections. He is appealing to Haley voters on the decency front, which he absolutely should. Even if you are a conservative, Trump should drastically frighten you. Not because he's not a conservative, but because he is a destructive demagogue. Biden is appealing to voters with a distaste for that because he is not that, simple as.
Edit: Can someone help me understand how I said something controversial here? Does anyone have any examples of the Biden campaign making policy adjustments to gain Haley voters?
The thing Dems absolutely refuse to understand is that policy. Does. Not. Matter. Optics matter, that's all. 99% of voters do not know anything about any policies. They know headlines. They know memes. Joe Biden could personally walk in front of IDF bullets to defend Palestinians and it would not matter if the media decided not to cover it.
Win the media, win the election. Truth does not matter. Results do not matter. Only the media matters.
Republicans get this. Democrats keep insisting they can run on substance.
I don't think we're in disagreement? Biden has nothing to lose by playing up his decency factor, because it is Trump's primary weakness. Why would you ever not appeal to potential voters (regardless of political spectrum) by playing up a factor you planned to stress anyway? I only brought up policy in response to commentors saying Biden is kowtowing to the GOP to court Haley voters, which I just do not see happening right now. You would have seen a much more moderate budget proposal (which to be clear, is also optics, because presidential budget proposals are basically just wish lists that don't come true) if that were the case. He's courting the left, if anything.
The only policy proposal I see being affected by Haley voters is Ukraine funding, because Trump's isolationism is a common complaint from her crowd. Democrats were going to support that anyway, so I'm just not seeing it.
Not necessarily in disagreement. I'm just saying "the policy front" does not matter at all.
Especially PA and Georgia, imo. If those two turn blue it decreases RNC victory odds by a metric fuckton.
PA is a nail biter right now, Biden +1 to Trump +6. Could really go either way, and it will be tough for Biden if he doesn't take it. "Son of Scranton" and all that.
I still think Georgia was a fluke in 2020. You have to go back to '92 for a D win there, and that was only because a) Clinton was a Southerner and b) Perot bled off 13% of the vote.
Probably the most relevant line in the entire article:
a series of polls have suggested Biden will narrowly beat Trump in the November vote. But with eight months to go, and the polls so tight, this could change and a number of polls have also indicated that Trump will win the election.
Whether Biden wins or loses is going to come down to how well he engages people in key states. Outside of the "blue no matter who" crowd, people have decidedly mixed feelings about voting for a candidate whose strongest argument is that he isn't Trump. Everything from events in the weeks leading up to the election to the weather (which affects Dems more than Reps) will matter, so rather than leaning on polls that suggest a victory... it might be wise to end those behaviors and policies that have human rights advocates concerned.
I don't get this point. I feel like Biden's done a great job as president so far. He's had a lot of tough issues to deal with as president and so far he's handled everything really well.
it might be wise to end those behaviors and policies that have human rights advocates concerned.
I don’t get this point.
Don't play stupid; you know exactly what the grandparent commenter is talking about.
I understand that it was about the Israel/Hamas conflict. And I understand that many people disagree with the US supporting Israel and the way things have played out so far in Gaza. I wish the US would not get involved in conflicts in that region, but to me a single international policy isn't enough to negate all of the good that I feel Biden has done during his presidency. I also believe that any Israelis that have committed war crimes should be held accountable.
Also, it's extremely stupid to say "I don't like how this person is handling the situation, so I will trust the person who wants to make it worse"
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-israel-gaza-finish-problem-rcna141905
Or you know, vote for someone who wouldn't support it in the first place...which you could do if the DNC didn't collude with fascists to keep alternative voices silenced.
Ranked choice voting would also fix it
This. Be sure to ask every elected official you've ever see about this, bring it to the forefront of their consciousness.
It's interesting how wilfully ignorant people get when the data doesn't support their candidate. I should be angry, but at this point it's become so comical that I have to laugh.
So ethnic cleansing and support thereof is now reduced to "a policy?" That's a big oof.
Biden mishandled COVID, has slowly re-enacted some of Trump's worst policies on immigration, abandoned those who, at no small risk to themselves, supported us in Afghan, has presided over a massive increase in the cost of housing... and I guess, on the bright side, forgave a fraction of a percent of the student loans he said he'd forgive.
Maybe it's time to support someone who doesn't have the blood of countless innocents on his hands.
Here's some other things Biden did to fuck over the progressive and leftist voters who helped him win the 2020 general election:
Called on congress to block the rail strike: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/biden-calls-on-congress-to-block-potential-railroad-strike
Walks back his own campaign promise for $50k forgiveness: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/539139-biden-balks-at-50k-student-loan-forgiveness-plan/
Goes around congress to sell weapons to Israel: https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/29/politics/biden-congress-israel-military-aid/index.html
Forced federal workers back to office: https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/13/politics/in-person-work-biden-administration/index.html
Increased the defense budget: https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/28/politics/defense-budget-biden-administration/index.html
Maybe it's time to support someone who doesn't have the blood of countless innocents on his hands.
Does this include forcing R to kick out Trump too?
If it were up to me, I would see the Republican party dismantled. Were I a member, I would vote for it's dissolution. But thing is, they can nominate whoever they like, including a fascist psychopath. That he's second most likely to win is a direct result of GOP and DNC collusion.
He's done an OK job for a run of the mill president during run of the mill times, but in my opinion he has failed to rise to the big threats of today, especially RAPIDLY encroaching fascism, climate change, and nearly catastrophic wealth inequality.
So our choice is between run-of-the-mill president or a guy who says he wants to a dictator, violently tried to overturn the last election, had fake electors etc. etc.
I'm not excited about Biden but the choice seems to be pretty straightforward and I'll be SURE to get to the polls.
I'm on board with voting for him as a means of harm reduction but I'm also not gonna pretend he's been great like a lot of blue maga liberals claim.
Lol the downvotes. I said I'm voting for the guy, but y'all are so mad that I'm not going to dickride him as well.
Meh, I upvoted you. I personally think he's been about as good a president as someone could hope for, which is a pretty fucking low bar, but I still voted uncommitted in my primary yesterday even though I would crawl over broken glass to vote against Trump in November. I don't blame anybody who holds their nose and votes as a pure harm reduction measure.
I’m not excited about Biden but the choice seems to be pretty straightforward and I’ll be SURE to get to the polls.
I will be getting to the polls as well but it won't be to reward Moderates for picking a shit candidate and threatening not to back him every time there's an opportunity for him to compromise with leftists and progressives.
When moderates are ready to compromise I'll be here. We've done our part, it's time for them to hold up their end of the bargain.
The president has little power to address climate change/wealth inequality on his own. That all relates to the budget and is firmly in control of congress. Replace Manchin/Sinema with two progressive senators and you would have the BBB bill, which would have addressed both these concerns.
With respect to encroaching racism I am just not sure what any politician can do about it. Ideally, you would like to change the mind of hardcore Republicans, but it’s not like they are listening.
Democrats could have used the reconciliation bill in order to pass the BBB but they didn't.
Tells me all I need to know about establishment Democrats: they're not on my side.
What part about Manchin/Sinema is difficult to understand here? How does that relate to Biden who pushed the bill?
I'm relatively unconvinced by laying all the blame on them. The president is the leader of his party and has the massive power of the bully pulpit to help bring them into line. He was unable or unwilling to do that.
Question: what party is Sinema in now?
It's pretty evident now Sinema could not be bullied if she was willing to immolate her career over even the soft demands made of her.
And if he had used that "power" then he'd be called a bully, etc, (including by people who don't give a shit when R does it)
Manchin/Sinema could not have stopped Democrats from using the reconciliation bill as a bargaining chip to pass the BBB. It was not called for by Pelosi, Biden or any establishment Democrat for one simple reason: They didn't care and expected voters to just show up anyway.
What are you talking about? They needed 50 votes in the Senate for a reconciliation vote which they did not have, because of the aforementioned senators. The bill was passed by the house (of which Pelosi was Speaker at the time). There was a lot of negotiation between the White House and the two senators to get the bill to 50 in the Senate. None of what you are saying is correct!
Most underrated President of all time. (Best president of my time at least).
I will donate the closer it gets and to the key races.
I agree but not everyone votes because of these things. It's 8 months away. Lots of stuff can come out from today until then to change a voter's mind. They could literally vote for whatever they feel matters.
Lots of stuff can come out from today until then to change a voter’s mind.
Yes lots of stuff could but we all know Biden won't do those things. He's demonstrated zero regard for the opinions of people who helped him get elected in the 2020 general.
Objectively, he has been a mediocre president whose most impressive victories have stemmed from the fact that the economy was already recovering from a worldwide pandemic. His handling of the withdrawl from Afghanistan was an appalling travesty that got countless innocents killed, his two-faced positions on Gaza (lamenting the human rights abuses while cutting aid and supplying weapons,) the fact that the interest rate for home loans has skyrocketed in an already difficult to afford housing market, and quite honestly, his racist and homophobic past make him difficult to swallow.
Called on congress to block the rail strike: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/biden-calls-on-congress-to-block-potential-railroad-strike
Walks back his own campaign promise for $50k forgiveness: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/539139-biden-balks-at-50k-student-loan-forgiveness-plan/
Goes around congress to sell weapons to Israel: https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/29/politics/biden-congress-israel-military-aid/index.html
Forced federal workers back to office: https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/13/politics/in-person-work-biden-administration/index.html
Increased the defense budget: https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/28/politics/defense-budget-biden-administration/index.html
Just some more examples of Biden's inexcusable behavior over his term.
It's going to depend on the severity of several pending scandals and what the Saudis decide to do with oil prices between now and November. Democrats should have an astronomical campaign warchest while the GOP is blowing their wad on the candidate's legal bills. The Democrats game to lose and that's their expertise.
it strikes me that congress might have authority under the 14th amendment to ban winner-take-all apportionment of electors and gerrymandering
It honestly doesn't matter what Congress has the authority to do at this point. They lack the capacity. Once we get a solid Dem majority, then we can start exploring what Congress can do.
Once we get a solid Dem majority
We had that in 2008 for four years. Turns out they can't do much at all.
No we didn't. We had it for a few months, and we got the greatest expansion of health insurance in modern history.
Are you confusing the words "majority" and "supermajority"? Because Democrats did have a solid majority for four years. Democrats had a supermajority for a few months.
I used the vague term "solid majority" because it depends on what legislation you're trying to get passed. Supermajority is great, but reconciliation only requires a simple majority iirc.
The fact things are this close is amazingly disappointing in humanity as a whole.
On the one side, you have Trump who wants to be a dictator, actively hates anyone who isn't white and conervative, said he wants to kill his political opponents, tried to overthrow the government, had a 4 year presidency that was basically an episode of Jersey Shore everyday, and idolizes Putin/Hitler/etc.
And then there is Biden, who isn't super "exciting", old AF, and supports Israel too much for political reasons, but otherwise has done an alright job as president for 4 years.
How are the polls and the race even remotely this close? It's no wonder we can't do something like fix climate change as a society when people are this fracking stupid.
as a society when people are this fracking stupid.
Remember all those times when a certain party cut back spending on education? That's how we get to where we are today.
It wasn't just the judges that were part of a long-term plan.
I have a sister-in-law that thinks I'm crazy every time I say that the systematic sabotage of education is part of the plan to dumb down America and turn people into uneducated Republican voters.
I plan to vote for Biden.
I do not plan on telling any polls that. If Biden polls too well, I'm convinced voters will be complacent and risk not voting.
That's not everything, but it's a big part of it.
Sabotage of the education system Systemic and hostile takeover of the Judicial system Crowbaring Religious bigotry into government
There are more than one reason.
supports Israel too much for political reasons
Now c'mon, does this statement really embrace reality? Aside from it's toxic passivity, it's not even true. Biden's brand of support for Israel has been absolutely toxic politically. He supports Israel because it is the hub of US power projection in the Middle East.
He supports Israel because it is the hub of US power projection in the Middle East.
How is that not a political reason?
what does that even mean? 'ok he supports a genocidal ethnostate, but its only cause of power projection in the middleeast'
Exactly, it's not that he, personally, wants to slaughter millions of Arabs, it's just that that's the price we have to pay to preserve the American ability to slaughter millions of other Arabs in the future.
Meh israel does not provide any security anymore. If anything they make the region less secure and unified against America.
Saudi is bending over backwards to keep supporting israel for America.
Meh israel does not provide any security anymore.
No disrespect meant, but that is a factually ignorant statement to make. We regular people don't see allot of whats going on in the background.
No we just see israel committing Genocide after Genocide and destabilizing the entire middle east.
We regular people don’t see allot of whats going on in the background.
No we just see israel committing Genocide after Genocide and destabilizing the entire middle east.
Exactly. We don't see all the behind the scenes stuff for security reasons.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think any military/country is allowed to kill civilians to get to their enemies, ever. A country doesn't get to use an 'our enemies are in that population zone so we can destroy the population zone to get to them' excuse.
But there's a lot of history, security wise, going on between America and Israel, that is not so easily dismissed.
It's politics in the sense that war is politics by another means, but that's not really what people associate with the word. If you want to take it that far, there isn't much that couldn't be called politics.
"Biden supports Israel because it gets the first lady horny". Well, that's just marriage politics!
He supports Israel because they’ve been standing Allies for like 70 years and a lot of things ride on the US being seen as a reliable ally.
Not saying I agree, just that any other president would be doing the same thing
What enemy does the US need Israel to help us face? Israel's strategic value to the US is largely as a base for US operations. Not that Israel doesn't have a strong military, but it's not that important for the US.
Yes, I agree that any other president would do the same. Biden, in fact, has pushed Israel harder than any other US president since WWII. Of course Israel is being more psychotic in this moment than it has ever been before, so I would expect us to be applying more pressure.
@chronicledmonocle @Rapidcreek too bad he's busy running on GOP talking points when it comes to immigration. Yet another self-inflicted wound.
Biden is an effective President brought down by poor PR and image in the eyes of voters.
Ahhh yeah, the milquetoast liberal criticism of Joe Biden as “unexciting.” Go get him, tiger.
Your comment is a shining beacon for American ignorance.
"Unexciting" is a paraphrasing of "Sleepy Joe", the Republican pet name for Biden that seems to highlight his absolute worst attribute.
Aside from his expected support of Israel which every single POTUS before him has upheld since the creation of Israel, what ways is Joe Biden the new devil?
Yeah extreme times calls for extreme takes and hopefully flash them only during a quick seconds with background music or the dopamine wilts
What's the point in starting your campaign early when it's just a rehash of the last one? The only reason trump started campaigning so early is to stay out of jail. Biden doesn't need to spend money now when the impact will be far greater the farther into the race we get.
I wouldn't hold my breath on these numbers.
Another poll of 1,350 registered voters by Emerson College put Biden ahead of the Republican by two percentage points, 51 percent to 49 percent. The survey was carried out between March 5 and 6.
Of the 6,334 registered voters surveyed by Morning Consult between March 1 and 5, 44 percent would vote for Biden and 43 percent for Trump.
And Biden would beat Trump 43 percent to 42 percent, according to TIPP polling.
1-2% points is a slimmer margin than Gore had against Bush in '00 and Hillary had against Trump in '16. Both are inside the margin of error, even.
Looks even worse when you get to the bigger battleground states - your Arizona and Georgia and Pennsylvanias - where people are seriously pilled on the Invading Hordes of Illegals narratives. Nevermind the Midwest states - Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan - with the large enclaves of Muslim voters, who aren't super thrilled with the genocides Biden keeps funneling money and military equipment into.
with the genocides Biden keeps funneling money and military equipment into
Yaaaaa... so you can fight Putin in Ukraine or you can simply do nothing and wait till he attacks a nato country. Lots cheaper to do it while he is in Ukraine.
you can fight Putin in Ukraine or you can simply do nothing
"You" appear to be doing nothing. After that ill-fated Reddit Expeditionary Force got shelled into fine paste, none of the Keyboard Commandos on this site or any other appear to be booking tickets out to Kyiv to enlist.
This isn't a war between Western Liberals and The Slavic Menace. Its Ukrainian conscripts press ganged into the meat grinder, while bowtie dipshits on the cable news shows clap. "You" only know how to post. "You" haven't fired a shot in this war.
You know he was behind, right? These polls reflect trajectory, not dominance. I'd all but given up hope completely before this 🤷
I agree he needs the leftist and Muslim vote in the rust belt. But besides a reversal I'm decades of US single state policy, which he's now done, along with investing in aid infrastructure, not sure what more can be done. People wanna get Trump elected to spite themselves, can't get through to them- equally cultist as GOP. The 2024 Bernie Bro.
These polls reflect trajectory
Then Biden is fucked, because he can't do State of the Unions all the way from March to November and hope to ride the bump off each one.
But besides a reversal I’m decades of US single state policy, which he’s now done, along with investing in aid infrastructure, not sure what more can be done.
STOP. SENDING. WEAPONS. TO. ISRAEL.
Fuck, if he really wants to go balls-to-the-wall, he can pick up the phone and tell Linda Thomas-Greenfield to call a meeting of the UN Security Council for the purpose of organizing an international peacekeeping force into Gaza. Same shit we were more than happy to do during the Bosnian Genocide and the Guatemalan Civil War and the East Timorese Crisis.
People wanna get Trump elected
This has nothing to do with Trump. This is between Biden and the tens of thousands of American Muslims who are getting news of family and friends slaughtered in Palestine on a daily basis.
This is between Biden and the tens of thousands of American Muslims who are getting news of family and friends slaughtered in Palestine on a daily basis.
And those of us who have no skin in the game but just hate seeing Israel steamroll over civilians and blatantly lie about it.
And those of us who have no skin in the game
Continue to show callous disregard for the now north of 30,000 dead, while quizzically demanding a reason for Biden's collapsed support.
Remind them Trump want to make it worse
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-israel-gaza-finish-problem-rcna141905
Hundreds of thousands of people in Rafa are starving to death right now. You think they're going to live to see next January?
I mean.. you kinda lose all good will from me when you espouse nonsense like "this has nothing to do with Trump" when we're talking about his being elected as a result of the decision to not vote against him. So your words don't mean anything when he's president and affects our lives. And supporting genocide in Gaza. And supporting genocide in Ukraine. The things he's said he will do if elected. Yeah, I think you're feigning leftism to get Trump elected. Because logic, as I've clearly laid it out. But feel free to talk about your feelings and hopes as if they're the same.
But don't you get it, the only way I can show support for Palestine is by staying home, even if it means electing a fascist who promised to promised to wholeheartedly support Israel in their genocide! /s
when you espouse nonsense like “this has nothing to do with Trump”
This is a US foreign policy that goes back to the Truman Administration and has continued uninterrupted across virtually every administration since (with some marginal credit given to Obama who had beef with Netanyahu from day one).
So your words don’t mean anything
Plugging my ears and shouting "You need to support my guy to end the genocide" but he's been president for three years and the genocides in Ukraine and Palestine still won't end.
Remember that the 2024 election will boil down the WI, MI, PA, GA and AZ. Whichever candidate wins 3 of those 5 states (minimum) will win the election. It's mathematically impossible to get to 270 otherwise.
I'm still voting for Biden in a red state. We used to be more purple and really still are if looking just at the popular vote. He lost here by 500k votes in 2020 but it's very possible these narratives being pushed about swing states affect turnout more than we give credit for. We're lucky to get 50% turnout of registered voters in presidential elections. Local elections are more like 25% if we're being generous, and those are more important.
GA comes down to the Black vote and Black voter turnout. And Black Georgians are making Biden work for their vote right now. Understandably so.
This is going to make Republicans seethe and will remind them of the mail-in ballots. I'm sure there will be talk of fakery, no matter who collected the data.
Trump ahead: of course! Biden ahead: FAKE NEWS
Most people don't understand probability, they must never have spent any time grinding low % drop rates. Things that have a 28.6% chance are not mind-blowing when they happen.
But, nonetheless it's a very good reminder that hopefully people will learn from. But people en masse learning a lesson beyond a single 4 year period, let alone two, well now that would be mind-blowing.
The voting electorate is extremely fickle and the only poll that matters is the one they go to on election day.
Also, didn't 538 recently ditch a right-wing poll that was screwing up their poll results?
Ehh, they gerrymandered a shit ton and Biden is insanely less popular now than he was 4 years ago.
I fear for the worst.
Eh. It affects the composition of state and local governments, which is what allows for voter disenfranchisement policies in red areas, which dramatically affects presidential elections.
Most Americans would rather see a President that falls asleep at the wheel than one that wants to burn the house down
So they're going to call random people in swing states and ask them who they'll vote for.
What if one side decided to tell all their voters to say the other side to give them a sense of security, then push hard to out vote them...
Polls cannot be trusted, they're so really manipulated. Gerrymandering is worse than ever in most places...
And that's exactly why the polls are fixable because people that hear about the poles go oh they're right, people can't be thinking that hard about it and organizing to throw the numbers off. You know like it happened in 2012. How are the poles so far off but the voting so close?
Because the poles are easily rigged.
Poll favors Trump = Polls are inaccurate; they only survey boomers at home that still answer unknown numbers from their landline!
Poll favors Biden = Polls are very accurate.
Nobody wants Biden, but would you rather have Project 2025 become a reality?
Please, for the sake of the country, vote blue no matter who.
Nobody wants Biden? I want Biden. He's done a good job. This whole he's old shit just shows again how good Republican propaganda is, that even on here people are parroting the same shit.
There is a pro-Israel candidate with a blind spot for genocide and a pro-genocide candidate with a soft spot for Hitler.
Both willfully support Israel's ethnic cleansing of the native people, but only one of them wants to "finish the Palestinians".
Democrats are a shitty ally but Republicans are an effective enemy.
If he's doing such a "good job", as you say, then where is UBI? Free healthcare? A wealth tax? Income caps? $20/hr minimum wage? Manditory gun registration? Most importantly: Why is life still shitty for anyone who isn't in the top 1%? Dude isn't even trying.
People who think it's simple to solve problems that are as intractable as those listed above singlehandedly almost deserve politicians like Trump that promise to fix it alone and never deliver anything but tax breaks for billionaires.
Which politician do you believe would be able to solve all or any of those issues with the razor thin majority in Congress the Democrats have had during Biden's administration?
Garbage candidates.
Its gonna come down to a wire with this stupid system.
I might just vote RFK or green party, fuck em all
Voting for 3rd party means tacitly supporting the candidate leading in the polls. Trump leads in the polls. A vote for RFK is a vote that Biden could use to beat Trump. Also, calling Biden and Trump "garbage candidates" is reductive and just plain wrong. We saw what Trump did for 4 years, and we've read Project 2025. Biden is the only ethical vote. But go off, king.
Voting for 3rd party means tacitly supporting the candidate leading in the polls
this is storytelling
Trump leads in the polls. A vote for RFK is a vote that Biden could use to beat Trump.
then how does biden plan to earn that vote?
calling Biden and Trump “garbage candidates” is reductive and just plain wrong
no, they are both bad people
Biden is the only ethical vote.
it's unethical to vote for biden... but go off, king
Voting for Biden is not ethical. He's actively supporting genocide. I'm still going to vote for him because he's better than the other bastard, but don't fool yourself into thinking he's innocent.
Useless votes. Unless we change how our votes are counted, those votes are no better than not voting, especially if the main goal is to protest to top 2 nominees.
Unless we change how our votes are counted
Ask every politician you ever speak to about ranked choice voting.
For the record, I oppose their choice of candidate. I think we’re better off encouraging voting as a whole, than encouraging people to fully give in to the two party system - even if I’m convinced by those arguments and plan to vote for Biden, I know other people have other perspectives and priorities.
On the other hand, we KNOW for sure that people who oppose voting as a whole are Russian bots or completely reprehensible bastards, and that is a very easy sentiment to stand by. We also know that there is one party that wins more often when more people decide to vote. I’ll let you guess which one.
I’d also say for future elections, putting more and more votes on third parties can warn the two parties that a pure message of “At least I’m not HITLER” is not viable enough.
I realise the US uses FPTP, but can someone explain to me why this comment is being downvoted? I'd think participating in the democratic process would be considered a good thing regardless.
It's not as bad as refusing to participate, or voting for the downfall of democracy, but I don't think it crosses into the threshold of "good". Just "useless".
Legitimate question: is there no benefit to voting for a party if they won't win?
Do they get any future election funding or... anything?
If a third party gets at least 5% of the vote, they get a small amount of the official presidential campaign funds.
Despite what most people say, the only want you to vote if you're voting for the person they support.
