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
So let’s recap
Biden BOMBED the debate
NYT printed a bunch of stories (like, more than they have and more frequently than on any other single topic for years including the insurrection) about how this was an objective disaster for Biden and there was no possible way he could win now
Polls came out, showing anywhere from 0 to 2 points of loss of support even after an absolutely historic fuckup
Polls investigating why that is, for some reason, are kind of hard to find, our media preferring to run weird slanted polls where they ask more or less “Why did Biden fuck up so bad and do you really want to continue to support him now?”. But the few of them that can be found investigating the more data driven issue report voters saying, more or less, that sure Biden is old but his opponent is an angry malicious liar who is an objective catastrophe for the country and that’s more important to me
So then after all that, the NYT runs a story today saying here’s what the Democrats don’t understand, the voters are influenced by style, not substance. If the Democrats want to stop being wrong about everything and losing they need to understand that.
Do I have my summary correct?
Not to mention fucking CNN now run by Trump supporters has been doing the same.
Really? CNN and USA Today, of all papers, seemed to me like they’d been doing this weirdly high level of actual journalism recently. Was CNN doing all fuck-Biden all the time in the same way and I just didn’t notice?
CNN flipped owners in 2022 and has been shifting. That's why so many people were telling Biden not to agree to CNN hosted debates. It was literally a trap. Even if he had done well they would have ignored it and talked about something else.
Moderator straight up told Trump he could ignore the questions and spout whatever horseshit he felt like.
They sent me a push notification today that Marco Rubio is not the VP. Then another about some other guy that is also not a VP. Wtf. I uninstalled it.
Not to mention the authors thesis is Democratic politicians have "west wing brain" and then proceeds forward with his own WWB idea; a frankly ridiculous assumption that Democratic politicians consider politics "a higher calling that flawed but idealistic people engage in from a place of civic pride."
The idea that the Democratic party is just "a bunch of feckless dreamers" getting tricked by rascally fascists they need to get tough on is the most childish example of political understanding I've had the pleasure of laughing at this morning (and i got up early today).
Yeah, there’s that, too. It is just standard narrative-comes-first NYT horseshit
That is why the Democratic leadership kneecapped Bernie Sanders and DGAF that Biden is reducing income inequality and are trying to push him out now because of a vastly overblown panic about his image which far exceeds the degree to which the electorate seems to care about his image
They’re just a bunch of impractical hopeless dreamers who aren’t even aware of the seamy realpolitik of Washington DC, those DNC folk. If only someone could get them to be more cynical and corrupt, that might save us.
You missed the part where news organizations are not a singular monolith but rather composed of numerous individuals that don't all feel/think the same way let alone hold the same opinions in an op-ed.
You're not wrong. It is however notable that the NYT's editorial stance on Biden's performance and place in the Democratic strategy was a monolith, and one that was misaligned with both the voters' opinions and the objective reality, up until a couple of days ago possibly in my opinion because word of some level of lost subscribers started reaching back up to the monolith's office.
That's all fine and well, but this is a contributing writer. She's not even an employee of the NYT.
That would only matter to the IRS. Or someone really really into the details of journalism. If you are one of those seven people, kudos.
The NYT regularly publishes opinion columns from wildly different perspectives. Only a week ago Matthew Walter, who could arguably be described as a conservative Christian nationalist, wrote a contributing opinion column discouraging people from voting.
It doesn't "only matter to the IRS." Not understanding what an opinion column and a contributing writer are and how they function within a news organization is simply media illiteracy.
Kudos.
Haha
I really agree with both of you here. While there was an article or two posted with the opposite narrative, the NYT used their editorial discretion in a fairly flagrant way on this issue. It stood in stark contrast to other issues that they have gone out of their way to keep a neutral stance on as an overall paper (which I applaud). I'm not opposed to the newsroom, editorial team, or contributing writers having a stance unlike mine. I'm not the type to say "fuck all the media" all the time and think they're generally diverse groups of professionals trying their best and sometimes failing. The fact that the NYT op-ed page and front page were just plastered in a single perspective though, without an opposing narrative, was just really blatant on this issue.
I was one of those canceled subs. I canceled WaPo after their disastrous leadership developments too. I'm basically running on cables and international outlets now, which is a real shame because I like to read other perspectives presented well, which the op-ed teams at those agencies are capable of doing.
Yeah. It's a shame. I feel like the vast majority of the staff in both places are competent professionals laboring away in a profession that's badly badly needed, and badly badly under attack, in this country, and it feels unfair to shit on their work product when as far as I can tell the bulk of the problems are coming down from above them and they probably dislike them a lot more intensely than I do.
At the same time, you can't just ignore it, if some organization is trying to support the fascist winning the election. Fuck the NYT until further notice is my feeling. WaPo has been writing a couple of weird as hell stories too (e.g. Trump is going to save NATO), but I still have my subscription to them.
Yeah, they must have lied and made us all remember Biden's perfect debate performance was actually awful.
Remind me again how many local news stations are owned by ClearChannel again? Do you not remember the video showing local morning broadcasts from around the country and them all being the exact same script repeated verbatim?
No, no we don't have a wide swath of sources. We have many disguised as independent, but the sad fact is, few are.
No, the New York Times has a personal vendetta against Biden for some reason Biden stans are never able to identify because they can't pretend the Times is Russian.
NYT is right though. Voters are generally influenced by style over substance. There's a reason Bush and Obama went out of their way to get photographed having a beer with normal people. Campaigns aren't about a test of ideologies. They're high school popularity contests. And out of these two candidates I know who the student body will elect.
The polls I see put it at about 50-50 ( from Fivethirtyeight.com ).
Your summary is wrong. They put out an opinion piece arguing that the DNC underestimates the threat from the GOP. I agree, they're running a pathetically weak campaign against someone who will probably end democracy and might have them all killed.
538 puts a heavy weight on time. Their model will say 50/50 until after both conventions.
Yeah, it's basically a dead heat in national polls; it is pointless given the incredible number of issues that make it more complex to look at than just "which number in the national polling is higher" to get any level of heated about swings up or down by single percentage points in the national poll, much less "should Biden drop out?" or similar questions.
None of this is to say there is no problem. 538's overall bottom line estimate which takes into account factors way more complex than I have dug into, arrives at an ultimate output of Biden having about a 25% chance of winning the election. That's probably the closest thing we have to an overall "what's the likely election outcome" polling barometer. I'm just sort of talking about poking holes in the lazy and partisan way it tends to be analyzed when the media talks about polling.
Edit: Wait WHAT THE SHIT
I went looking for the summary model to send that said 25%, and found this - Nate Silver gives Biden overall a 52% chance to win. WHEN THE FUCK DID THIS HAPPEN
Was I just looking at the 2020 model before and not realizing it, or something? Have I become so dyslexic that I read 52 as 25 even when there was a whole chart and everything?
My world is upended and my morning is somewhat happier now. @Ensign_crab@lemmy.world hey dude I love polls again
The national poll isn't going to decide this election though. It really is about a 100,000 people in 3 states.
Nate Silver is not at 538 any more. I believe his model has gives Biden 35% or so, but it's paywalled so I'm not entirely sure
Got it. That makes it make sense. This is Nate Silver’s, and I am almost sure that it predicts 25%. I think it was un paywalled at one point and that’s when I saw it.
Thanks fur the link