675
Biden supporters mostly back him in 2024 election because they oppose Trump, poll finds
(www.theguardian.com)
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 10 Jun 2024
675 points (94.5% liked)
News
23263 readers
2572 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's stunning that each party managed to find a candidate that could lose against the other.
Its not that stunning. In fact, its more common than you'd guess.
Only Ford could lose to Carter. Only Dukakis could lose to Bush. Only Hillary could lose to Trump. Hindsight 20/20. Foresight blind as a fucking bat.
Ford did himself in. Apparently in 1976, American's didn't like the fact that the President could commit crimes while in office and get off with a pardon from his former VP. Crimes he was never charged with or convicted of.
Today, a scandal is like a badge of "honor" and being a convicted criminal and morally bankrupt sleezeball is basically a requirement for the Presidency. At least it is if you're a Republican.
But bats aren’t blind
If the election was today, Biden would lose. Imagine if Trump wasn't the nominee for November, the GOP would win the presidency.
Edit: it's just reality according to the current polling.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the polls are likely skewed towards the GOP, and it's thought that this is because of random text/calls, which boomers are more likely to respond to.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/17/politics/michael-cohen-poll-rigging/index.html
You're correct. They did it back then. They absolutely are still doing it now.
B-B-Biden bad! You really got to get it in huh.
Is a non-genocidal candidate capable of beating the criminal traitor Trump too much to ask for?
If he would lose the election today, YES, Biden is bad. Where's the disconnect?
There it is again.
The disconnect that exists is that people don't see the good things he does. You know, green energy, chips act, unions, drug price controls, student debt relief, telling them to look at marijuana rescheduling, infrastructure building. It just goes on and on. You're doing mental gymnastics to say B-B-Biden bad! Ciao.
r2o admitted that he only posts the negative stuff. It's why he got banned from politics.
This is the point being made. If the election were tomorrow, Biden would lose because Trump is beating Biden in key swing states.
That could be a point, but the person I was responding to is on the war path of trying to make/change the point of "B B BIden bad".
I never said Biden is bad. He's doing the bare minimum. Expect more from our politicians.
Lol you all caps shouted "YES" agreeing to what I said and literally said "Biden is bad".
Bare minimum huh? Back to your mental gymnastics. Biden's doing fucking great.
You want more? He doesn't even have control of the house of representatives. If you want more give him and Dems consistent and resounding victories.
I think this is where I inform you that Dems have had control of all three (house, Senate, and presidency) for a whooping 4 years of the last 24 years. If you include Bill Clinton, then it's 6 of the last 32 years. You want more progress? Give Dems consistent and resounding victories. Not a measly half term every second president.
Good luck.
While it's obviously not good to have a low approval rating, it also doesn't tell you whether or not a person will vote for him. I don't approve of him, but will still vote for him because there's no other viable non-fascist alternative.
It doesn't tell you whether a person will vote against them, but its a classic litmus test for turnout in favor. Below 50% approval rating signals a higher than average likelihood of an incumbent losing one's seat. And the only countervailing narrative is when the primary opposition also has low approval.
Obama beating Romney in '12 was a case of two Presidential candidates being underwater and Romney simply having worse negatives than Obama on election day. Both parties saw a drop-off in voter participation relative to the '08 high water mark.
This doesn't even reply to what I said. Is that where you're at?
My apologies, I post anything critical of Biden and the centrist rage comes out of the woodwork to defend him. I got my comments mixed up.
What should Biden do differently to run away with the change of winning re-election?
Fucking lol dude. That you admit it in one thread, but then try to beat around the bush and deny your deep seated hatred in another doesn't help you. People can see through it and call you out. That you only admit it in a different chain doesn't matter. You're playing games, shouting it in one chain and then denying it another. This doesn't help you at all.
Have to point out your projection of "rage". You are raging, so you project it.
And then you play the game, after I listed off all the good things he did, of asking me what he should do differently to change? Do you mean chance? Whatever, all you're doing it playing games. Any answer will be met with mental blackflips for whatever game. Ok I said it before, ciao
Ok...?
Here you go, make sure you volunteer ASAP. If you aren't doing everything you can to help Biden, that means you're voting for Trump...
https://www.mobilize.us/joebiden/
https://joebiden.com/work-with-us/
I would say that the bare minimum would actually include not actively supporting a genocide, but maybe I'm just out of touch.
Some genocide is actually fine. /s
Expanding the oil industry and shutting down strikes then giving them a pittance isn't good. Liberals keep lying ig, maybe if you lie hard enough biden will stop being a piece of shit
/s nothing and no one will stop him from being a piece of shit, telling blatant lies isn't gonna get people to like him
Whether we like it or not, gas prices play an outsized role. Have to do that while we get some rail infrastructure up, gas milage up, EVs up and the green energy to go with that. And guess who wants to kill all that?
On unions: https://youtu.be/EM6jMtG_MB8
And way to ignore all the other points.
If you think polling relates to reality then look into polling and how it doesn't.
The Polls Were Historically Accurate In 2022
"Polls have “called” elections correctly 78 percent of the time" according to that article. Just because they are more accurate than in another time frame does not mean they are accurate overall. This is an incredibly poor rate in the larger picture. Independent groups are notoriously hard to poll and they are the ones that decide elections. If it's a landslide then of course the poll will be correct. Completely unreliable in close elections. However they make excellent time filters for news networks.
Maybe you should just read their argument as to why this is a garbage metric. Especially if you are arguing they don't even "relate to reality."
If always predicting who will win is the requirement for polls, the problem isn't the polling itself, but your understanding of what a poll means and how statistics work.
Polls only predict well in places where you don't need polls... hence their 78% success rate. What is their rate in closer elections? Likely right at 50%...useless.
The article talks about this and why it's a bad metric. If you're going to ignore their descriptive argument, you'll just ignore my less than descriptive argument here.
But rest assured that at least part of the problem here is that you don't understand statistics and probability.
This is a thread where someone made the statement "Trump would win if the election was today." based on polls. You said yourself, that's not what polls are for. Take it up with the person who is misusing the poll to make definitive statements like that rather than the person saying you can't trust the polls for that.
Both that poster and this one can be wrong.
The difference is that the other poster is just conflating will with favored and it's kind of pedantic to argue with that.
This poster is claiming that they are no relationship with reality, which is just blatantly wrong.
The reason people go to "No relationship with reality" is because many people use the polls to say "will" instead of "favored" or conflate "will" and "favored." When that's the standard you are often presented, of course you are going to come to conclusion polling doesn't have all that much to do with reality. Because it isn't that predictive. Especially when you're looking at things where we take this somewhat fuzzy number and turn it into a binary yes or no while the cloud of possibilities comfortably encompasses both outcomes.
So when talking to some making definitive statements about the outcome of an election based on polls, how they are using polls only has a tenuous relationship to reality.
So, like I said, they don't understand polls and probability? I'm not sure why I have to be pedantic with the other poster, when this poster is just ridiculously wrong.
They're the exact same mistake. Since the commenter you were responding to wasn't the one to originally make the mistake, but instead was arguing with someone who's premise relied on that mistake, it's weird to only get on them about it.
You really think Biden would win the election if it was held today? Have you not been paying attention at the work he still needs to do to win?
You're not allowed to suggest Biden might lose. That's the same as voting for Trump.