this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
200 points (82.1% liked)

politics

19033 readers
2424 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

It has been said a gazillion times over the last few months, but is it getting through to those who need to hear it?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Your own data proves you wrong:

The remaining 3.5% is therefore the percentage of voters who disapprove of Trump who are not Democrats.

I then showed that there are a full 8.5% of voters who are Republicans that dissapprove of Trump

The only possible conclusion from your own data is that every non-Democrat voter who disapproves of Trump is three Republicans who disapprove of Trump.

Like I said, your math isn't mathing and you don't seem to understand that you contradicted yourself.

I still patiently await any amount of data that proves me wrong

You'll be waiting forever, because your confirmation bias is so strong that you can't see it even when you're told it multiple times.

[–] voiceofchris@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

The only possible conclusion from your own data is that every non-Democrat voter who disapproves of Trump is three Republicans who disapprove of Trump.

And? Do you think that there is a flaw in the data? Do you distrust the source? Do you interpret it another way that you'd care to share. Do you think that 538 is an unreliable source? Do you have any polls, data, sources .. literally anything that shows a different understanding of the situation? 

Are you dismissing my entire stance outright because two different meta-analysis polls don't perfectly total to 100%? Because, that's not how polling works. 

Here's another all-voter unfavorability poll with similar results.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/650774/favorable-ratings-harris-trump-remain.aspx

Here's one that shows only 9% of Republicans (4.3% of all voters) with an unfavorable view of Trump. That's a tighter margin for me to work with to try to state that Republicans account for more than 2% of the 3.5% of all voters who view Trump disfavorably, but still mathematically sound. In fact, since you are insisting that the percentages add up perfectly across two separate meta-analysis polls this smaller percentage of unfavorably voting Republicans actually helps my case.

But guess what? None of that really matters because this same poll shows that a significantly higher percentage of independents favor Trump over Harris (44% vs 35%). Which is a direct measure of the question at hand. 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/650774/favorable-ratings-harris-trump-remain.aspx