- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Jon Stewart examines the choice undecided voters are facing in the 2024 election: Kamala Harris, who has an impressive résumé and specific policy plans, versus Donald Trump, whose vision, consistency on issues, anti-labor ethos, and militaristic posturing are at odds with the caricature his followers have created for him.
“Sure, you all call Heaven’s Gate a cult, but everyone in Heaven’s Gate says they’re not a cult. How am I, an outside observer, supposed to know who is right? Clearly everyone but me must be morons.”
“Everyone says those 100 people are a cult” is different from “Half of the population of a country call the other half a cult and vise-versa”.
You might feel like it’s “everyone”, because you never hear anything the other side has to say. But I’m reminding you, from a statistical perspective, the weight is really about 50/50. A 60/40 split in your favor is currently outside of a 3-sigma confidence interval.
It’s really not. Republicans have less support from less than 40% of the population, MAGAts are less than 20%. The Electoral College, Gerrymandering, and voter disenfranchisement are the only reason the election is around 50/50.
If the US election was done by a straight popular vote there would have only been a single Republican president since 1990, and it would have been 20 years ago.
You love misinterpreting facts into your favor, don’t you?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/us/elections/polls-president.html
That’s talking about the Electoral College and chances of winning the election. I was talking about the popular vote, and specifically mentioned that without the Electoral College Republicans wouldn’t have a chance.
Please, point out to me, in the methodology of the poll, which is provided at the bottom of the page, where is it stated that 46/49 numbers are some arbitrary chances of winning the election?
My reading is that they’re averages of other polls that are polling popular vote, e.g. simply asking “which candidate would you vote for if the elections were tomorrow?”.
But, please, I’m happy to be proven wrong.
Au contraire mon frere. I would posit that nobody that gives even a single iota of a shit about politics in this country hasn’t been exposed to what “the other side has to say”. I’d also venture to guess that the number of people who don’t give a single iota of shit about politics in this country that have also heard what “the other side has to say” is far above zero. There have even been studies (since you occasionally pretend to give a fuck about objectivity) confirming that Republicans who watch Fox News know less about Democrats than Democrats know about Republicans.
It’s kind of difficult to not “hear what the other side has to say” when half of your news media spends its time interviewing people on both sides of divisive issues such as “the vaccine question” or “is the earth round”, and the other half of your news media openly roots for and argues for Republican candidates.
Dunno, gimme a name of your reputable news sources. I’ma take a look.
Cuz the video in question is as biased as fox news. Just into the opposite direction.
It’s hard for me, personally, to watch it, even though I do believe it’s insane to vote for Trump. And yet the video is just repeatable cringe. It ads nothing to the political debate, and given that this particular show does pretty much the same material every week I’m not sure how isn’t everyone yet bored of watching it?