politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Frank Luntz is a Republican “best known for developing talking points and other messaging for Republican causes.”
This is heavily biased. There are other articles out saying groups of independents lean more Biden after the debate.
Stop with the doomer takes on this one early debate.
Edit: Where are these magical other groups of independents leaning Biden after the debate? Here's another via Reuters:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-presidential-debate-some-undecided-voters-see-disastrous-biden-night-2024-06-28/
In this instance, I would actually trust a Republican statistician over a Democrat to convey some semblance of reality given the damage-control within the Democratic party. But these are simply pollsters; and pollsters don't lie; and these are undecided voters in battleground states, specifically. So unless you can actually identify what is wrong with his methodology, I think you should consider this as a hard-truth... And it doesn't take much imagination to see how people could come away from that debate and lean toward Trump, considering universally everyone agrees Biden lost that debate in one of the worst performances in history.
Finally, why the fuck would Luntz show these data when it actually reveals a key issue with Democrats? If he was that biased, shouldn't he be fudging the numbers and giving false-data that swing-voters love Biden? Think this through.
Axios is reporting this, after all.
Nothing doomer about what has been a slow and steady decline in Biden's polling for months and months on end. This is more the final straw that broke the camel's back.
Pro-tip: When "internal polling shows something different" is said by the White House but they won't reveal the data, it means they're lying for damage-control.
Edit: I take it many of you didn't actually watch the debate, did you?