- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Please please please don’t vote the orange man into office… good God.
Unlikely to improve. The Biden team is making it clear that they intend to move to the right to get the voters they think they need this election cycle.
Its also pretty clear to any one with eyes that he’s not going to find the voters he needs there, but it is what it is.
For context, no incumbent has ever won a second term with an approval of less than 51%.
no incumbent has ever won a second term with an approval of less than 51%.
Sigh Relevant XKCD
You are misinterpretting the XKCD.
Its not as if incumbents with approvals this low haven’t competed. They have.
We have the data on it. You don’t win the presidency with an approval this low.
They aren’t misinterpretting the XKCD.
Even though Biden is not very popular a lot of people will be thinking twice about voting in a man convicted of thirty-four felonies to the white house.
This might make Biden the guy who breaks that record and that’s what the comic is about.
My (parent) comment didn’t mention Te-felon Don.
So I’m sticking with them not understanding the XKCD or the parent.
But the whole idea is so-and-so can’t win if so-and-so.
Until they do.
No, its not. Again, a misunderstanding of what was said.
The point isn’t that it hasn’t been attempted. It has, repeatedly. The XKCD is all examples of things that haven’t happened.
The example provided is something specific that has been attempted, repeatedly, where we know the answer (not the felonious aspect, but the low approval. Don being a felon was never a point of discussion).
Its both a misunderstanding of the XKCD and the statement.
Plenty of incumbents with low approval have run. They don’t win their elections. We’ve got lots of data on this.
Plenty of incumbents with low approval have run. They don’t win their elections.
Until they do and that’s the point of the comic.
Its not as if incumbents with approvals this low haven’t competed. They have.
And he’s up against a convicted felon. And we have the data on it. You don’t win the presidency with a felony conviction.
against a convicted felon. And we have the data on it. You don’t win the presidency with a felony conviction.
…
I mean the felon part actually would be in bounds of the logic of the comic. We can’t observe the probability of a felon getting elected because it hasn’t occurred before, and therefore we can’t calculate a statistic.
Are the “probabilities” of both, based on historical data, not currently 0%?
Based on historical data, no, they are undefined. It’s expressed as the number of historical wins divided by the total number of historical felons running. There have been zero historical felons running, and dividing by zero is undefined.
I’d rather express it as the number of federally-elected felons over the total number of historical presidential elects… which seems to be what the comic is using.
Its a divide by 0. We can absolutely put down a probability of Bidens likelihood to win based on current polling or approval, because we have an N to divide by.
We don’t have an N to divide by in the felony issue (or any of the issues cited in the comic), and so can’t calculate a probability.
“X has never happened (until it happened)” is literally the point of the comic.
It’s not a divide by zero problem because we’re looking at all the presidents for a given criteria. N is the number of presidents elected.
Every one of those blurbs, and the two additional ones suggested here, are a situation where N equals the number of prior presidential elections. And all of them are 0%, because the listed criteria were always 0/N.
No convicted felon has been elected. I don’t think anyone has ever had a second term with someone between either…
has ever had a second term with someone between either…
Once. Grover Cleveland. His party basically blew the 4th year election, and his second term was a pretty strong showing.
And no challenger has ever won with an approval rating as bad as Trump’s. One way or another a historically unpopular candidate is going to get their second term.
Yeah, I mean, its super interesting in an academic way.
And, you know… panic inducing in almost every other way.
If Cornell West hadn’t clustered the fuck out of his candidacy, we could have been seeing a Green party & Independent coalition representing a viable third party threat this year. The Green party is the only third party that had the infrastructure in place to get onto the ballot in all 50 states. But West screwed the pooch. I think he with Stein as running mate might have actually been able to make it happen, purely based on how hated the two extant candidates are.
Don’t forget that Drump has NEVER WON the popular vote. Not in 2016 and certainly not in 2020
So the biggest issue on polling is that it’s a broken system. It relies on all people to answer when asked, and what we’re seeing is people flat out aren’t doing it. Think about it. When’s the last time you answered an unknown number, and if that number wasn’t something you were expecting (like your car repair person telling you your vehicle was ready) did you stay on the line?
This same kind of thing is popping up when we look at polling for the primaries and then see the actual voter data. They haven’t been lining up for a while.
Think back to 2022. The media, for months, was saying there was going to be a red wave election. Polling was supporting this as well. And… they had a measly 5 seat majority.
I think people are putting way too much faith in polling the past few cycles, because something fundamentally changed in how people interact with them.
Yeah, I was texted the other day to fill out a survey and didn’t even reply with the “stop to opt out”. Just, leave me alone. I’m not excited for Biden but I’m going to do what I need to do. That won’t show in any polls.
Yeah like, most people have shit to do. I’m excited to vote for Biden again actually (he did get a lot of good stuff done with an extremely tight congress), and sure there are things he 100% did that I’m not on board with, but that’s everything. You’re never going to get 100% of what you want, but he’s the closest I’ll get so lets do it!
It’s just very frustrating how they’re framing the race this cycle. They completely ignore trumps many disqualifiers while talking about polling that, by all rights, he’s paying for bad results again.
IMHO, I think the bigger issue is that people don’t understand statistics. They see a poll that says Trump has a 25% of winning, then when Trump wins, they think the poll is wrong. That’s not how statistics works.
That means if you held the same close election four times, Trump would win one.
People mock the polls, but I wonder how many of those people actually took a basic GE statistics 101 glass.
For random events, that’s true. But we are able to poll people before the event to see how it will turn out. With a big enough sample size, you’re able to get pretty close to actual results. After all, the election itself is just one big poll, not a die roll.
I say this as someone who went to school for this stuff and does a lot of surveying and statistics daily.
This doesn’t work when you’re comparing things that are going to be neck and neck. In order forecast with very high confidence, with something that is neck and neck, you need a huuuuge sample size and absolutely perfect surveying conditions.
The reason polls have been a toss up lately isn’t because the polling is bad. The problem is that the big races were also ways going to be nail biters, and we’re looking at the odds that a race will be 1% one way or another.
The good polls have been pretty damn close to the final vote percentages numbers. The problem is that the variance needed to swing a win right or left is absolutely minuscule. We’re often talking about percentages that are less than 2%, or less than 1%.
I’m not mocking polls here. I’m saying that if you have a sizeable population of people that refuse to participate in them, even if you get to a statistically significant number of people, the poll will be off. trump was also found to have been paying for polls that were slanted towards him to be put out there.
So, if a candidate is using bad polls to flood the zone with bad results, and then on top of that you have a statistically significant number of people who refuse to participate in said polling, your data is corrupted, is it not? This is exactly how people can use statistics to lie to people.
Calls, rarely. Texts and Facebook polls, every chance I get (though I don’t use Facebook that much any more).
Well I wonder what could be the Gaza that.
Business Insider is utter crap. Please ignore those idiots.
This right here -> “Joe Biden: Nothing would fundamentally change if he’s (re)elected”.
Yes, things would get worse with Trump, but you got to verbalize your plan to MAKE THINGS BETTER.
If Biden wins the popular vote and the convicted felon orange man ends up winning we’re so fucked. This entire system is shaking.
Genocide “Not a Felon” Joe finds out being pro genocide, not-a-felon, are not enough to get votes. Oh if there was something he could do about that.
"The felon"s lowest approval was still more than 3% lower than Joe’s new low. That ain’t sayin’ much though.
I think that tells you everything you need to know about Biden as a candidate.
Non-viable. If you can’t out approval a 34-count convicted felon, we shouldn’t be running you as candidate.
I think that tells you everything you need to know about Biden as a candidate.
It absolutely does. Biden is the right pick over Trump.
Non-viable. If you can’t out approval a 34-count convicted felon, we shouldn’t be running you as candidate.
Did you have reading comprehension error? Trump was more than 3% LOWER in approval. Than this new low for Biden. As in, even Biden as his worst approval rating is better than Trump (at his worst).
It absolutely does. Biden is the right pick over Trump.
I mean that’s an editorial or moral opinion. Which is fine, but not relevant.
Trump was more than 3% LOWER in approval.
Was. Not is. Trumps approval was also much higher then Bidens ever has been at some points. Do those times not count?
What should matter is that right now. Trumps approval is 5 points higher than Biden. Not at some other time. Not cherry picking one time for one and a different time for the other. Just the facts ma’am.
Living in exacerbated disbelief of reality or in a heighten state of moral panic over the fact that, apparently, the country approves of Trump more than they do Biden does nothing to change the political reality we find ourselves in.
There is no moral comment being made when we show through data that Biden is losing this election. Living in a constant state of outrage because reality doesn’t meet your expectations and other people obviously don’t share them is delusional to the point of exhaustion.
Was. Not is.
Was, when President. Which is the equal measure.
Trumps approval was also much higher then Bidens ever has been at some points. Do those times not count?
Not cherry picking one time for one and a different time for the other. Just the facts ma’am.
Now who’s cherry picking? Biden’s highest approval is above Trumps highest approval, during both of their Presidencies. With Biden at 59% and Trump only reaching 47%.
Living in a constant state of outrage because reality doesn’t meet your expectations and other people obviously don’t share them is delusional to the point of exhaustion.
You brought your whole army of strawmen didn’t you? Did you even see how I started this thread?
Feel free to respond to the void. I won’t be wasting more time on you and your bad faith arguments.
Biden, 37%
Trump, 43%
All that matters.
I’m not American so it shouldn’t concern me, but fuck you’re a bunch of idiots.
Well I am an American and it does concern me!.. and your analysis is spot on.
And it’s stressful as hell because they keep shaping the world around them to be worse, too. Canada’s got too many wannabe republicans and it’s starting to really piss me off.
