Nikki Haley planning Feb. 15 launch for 2024 White House bid

[ort]

Dude, where do you think tartar sauce comes from?

[SuperSpreader]

8 hours ago, ort said:

Dude, where do you think tartar sauce comes from?

 

Borat

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

So, in other election news: my advice to anyone who thinks polling isn't a totally broken science and has some knowledge of historical precedents in polling trends is...avert your eyes, unless the prospect of living under Orbanian soft fascism and the hellscape of Project 2025 gives you the warm fuzzies.

 

Because right now many of the most recent post-SOTU polls that are dropping show Biden's approval rating at an all-time low--even as views of the economy are improving--and Trump ahead in Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.

 

Yes, there's close to seven months to go; yes, they are a snapshot of public opinion right now, and not communiques from Delphi predicting the future; yes, people might not be paying attention yet.  But no incumbent in the poll era has ever come back from deficits like this, and neither Biden nor Trump are unknown quantities, so a major makeover is a taller order than it would be were they fresh faces.

 

So, if you're trying to brew up some copium with polling data, seek other means, because the ingredients at your disposal are pretty terrible.  You've got things like "maybe the coming election will break with historical precedent", "maybe polling is a defunct way to measure public opinion", "hey the midterms worked out better than we thought".

 

But "hey Biden's gonna poll well because he's running against a convicted rapist who's also guilty of fraud who also tried to overturn the results of a presidential election and also has a publicly available plan to create a right-wing authoritarian state" is not a viable ingredient at the moment--it's just a reason to feel like an alien in your own country.  Because when polled about half of the country says "Hey that rapist doesn't sound so bad, maybe he'll make my groceries less expensive."

 

    

[CitizenVectron]

51 minutes ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

So, in other election news: my advice to anyone who thinks polling isn't a totally broken science and has some knowledge of historical precedents in polling trends is...avert your eyes, unless the prospect of living under Orbanian soft fascism and the hellscape of Project 2025 gives you the warm fuzzies.

 

Because right now many of the most recent post-SOTU polls that are dropping show Biden's approval rating at an all-time low--even as views of the economy are improving--and Trump ahead in Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.

 

Yes, there's close to seven months to go; yes, they are a snapshot of public opinion right now, and not communiques from Delphi predicting the future; yes, people might not be paying attention yet.  But no incumbent in the poll era has ever come back from deficits like this, and neither Biden nor Trump are unknown quantities, so a major makeover is a taller order than it would be were they fresh faces.

 

So, if you're trying to brew up some copium with polling data, seek other means, because the ingredients at your disposal are pretty terrible.  You've got things like "maybe the coming election will break with historical precedent", "maybe polling is a defunct way to measure public opinion", "hey the midterms worked out better than we thought".

 

But "hey Biden's gonna poll well because he's running against a convicted rapist who's also guilty of fraud who also tried to overturn the results of a presidential election and also has a publicly available plan to create a right-wing authoritarian state" is not a viable ingredient at the moment--it's just a reason to feel like an alien in your own country.  Because when polled about half of the country says "Hey that rapist doesn't sound so bad, maybe he'll make my groceries less expensive."

 

    

 

At the same time...every single actual election that has occurred has resulted in Democrats seeing +5% to +10% compared to polls. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

55 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

At the same time...every single actual election that has occurred has resulted in Democrats seeing +5% to +10% compared to polls. 

 

The problem is that the participants in those elections are typically high-information voters who by and large will skew Democratic while the general election will attract a larger proportion of low-information voters whose level of engagement simply won't be as high so there probably isn't a "significant" correlation between those results and the general election.

 

Unfortunately, I'm with @Signifyin(g)Monkey on this one and genuinely do think that the polling isn't necessarily all that "broken" at all.  We really, really need to start mentally preparing ourselves as best we can for what genuinely looks like will be an unthinkable, but all-too-probable outcome.  That's not "doomerism" - that's recognition of a reality that it's probably best to make some degree of "peace" with starting right now.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

I'd say the results of this poll pretty much reflect my sentiments as well:

 

Yahoo News/YouGov poll: 'Dread' tops list of Americans' feelings about 2024 election — but 'optimism' is growing

WWW.YAHOO.COM

---

A majority of Americans (53%) chose at least one of the negative feelings (dread, exhaustion or depression), while 40% picked at least one of the positive feelings (optimism, excitement or delight).

 

Quote

 

The survey of 1,636 U.S. adults, which was conducted from March 8-11, offered respondents seven emotions — three positive, three negative, one neutral — and asked them to select any and all that describe their attitude toward the 2024 campaign.

 

 

Dread, the most negative option, topped the list (40%), with exhaustion (29%) and depression (21%) making strong showings as well. Delight (8%) was in last place.

 

In total, a majority of Americans (53%) chose at least one of the negative feelings (dread, exhaustion or depression), while just 40% picked at least one of the positive feelings (optimism, excitement or delight).

 

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Who isn’t fucking dreading, or exhausted, or depressed thinking that fat orange fuck stands a good chance of winning his way out of consequences, again, and plunging us into an Orbanist Republic of sorts and all many who are supposedly an ally think that voting for Joe is an affirmative vote for genocide

[Jason]

4 hours ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

The problem is that the participants in those elections are typically high-information voters who by and large will skew Democratic while the general election will attract a larger proportion of low-information voters whose level of engagement simply won't be as high so there probably isn't a "significant" correlation between those results and the general election.

 

Unfortunately, I'm with @Signifyin(g)Monkey on this one and genuinely do think that the polling isn't necessarily all that "broken" at all.  We really, really need to start mentally preparing ourselves as best we can for what genuinely looks like will be an unthinkable, but all-too-probable outcome.  That's not "doomerism" - that's recognition of a reality that it's probably best to make some degree of "peace" with starting right now.

 

The 2022 midterms didn't have the off-season special election skew problem, and Trump making the midterms a referendum on himself when he wasn't even on the ballot majorly tanked the GOP's performance.

[Uaarkson]

I don’t know. Regardless of what the polls might say, my totally uneducated gut feeling is that Trump is not as popular as he was in 2016.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

12 minutes ago, Uaarkson said:

I don’t know. Regardless of what the polls might say, my totally uneducated gut feeling is that Trump is not as popular as he was in 2016.

 

He doesn't need to be "as popular" as he was in 2016.

 

He just needs to be "popular enough" to reverse Biden's pretty damned narrow 2020 margins in the swing states.

The fact of the matter is that this election is going to be between two historically "unpopular" candidates with an electorate that's largely exhausted by the entire political process.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

19 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

The 2022 midterms didn't have the off-season special election skew problem, and Trump making the midterms a referendum on himself when he wasn't even on the ballot majorly tanked the GOP's performance.

 

The 2022 midterms might as well have been a lifetime ago at this stage.

[outsida]

5 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

He doesn't need to be "as popular" as he was in 2016.

 

He just needs to be "popular enough" to reverse Biden's pretty damned narrow 2020 margins in the swing states.

The fact of the matter is that this election is going to be between two historically "unpopular" candidates with an electorate that's largely exhausted by the entire political process.

By design. 
 

it’s not a coincidence every time Trump runs words like “historically unpopular candidates” get thrown around. It’s a voter suppression tactic design to specifically exhaust the electorate. It worked the first, it failed the second time and will likely fail again. 

[Ominous]

The 2024 presidential election is like ordering a streak and being forced to have it covered in mayo or ranch. 

[Massdriver]

1 hour ago, Jason said:

 

The 2022 midterms didn't have the off-season special election skew problem, and Trump making the midterms a referendum on himself when he wasn't even on the ballot majorly tanked the GOP's performance.

If you’re explaining you’re losing. 

[SaysWho?]

25 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

If you’re explaining you’re losing. 

Republicans have been explaining to me why there was a perfectly reasonable explanation for losing just about every election year since 2017.