- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/45237868
“He’s doing a good job,” Trump saidabout the Israeli leader. “Biden is trying to hold him back, just so you understand, Biden is more superior to the VP. He’s trying to hold him back, and he probably should be doing the opposite, actually. I’m glad that Netanyahu decided to do what he had to do, but it’s moving along pretty good.”
Far from it. Trump has never gotten the votes of more than 18% of the population.
258m adults in the US in 2020 about 255m in 2016
74 223 975 votes in 2020, 62 984 828 in 2016
That’s both more than 18% and there’s no reason to believe that all people under 18 would vote against Trump.
And that’s only based on the people that bothered voting, there’s supporters that didn’t vote that should get added to that as well.
Fun fact: the population consists of people younger than 18 as well. Half of everyone ≠ half of adults
True, but there’s also no reason to believe that an overwhelming majority wouldn’t.
Way to victim blame the disenfranchised 🤦
How come the polls presented on TV show them neck to neck?
The person you’re replying to is pointing out the distinction between voters and actual population.
Because the media has a profit incentive to portray it as such. The closer it is, the more people watch their coverage and the more money they can charge advertisers.
Which is bad enough in itself, but them portraying it as close and the lies of fascists as valid arguments worthy of consideration MAKES it closer than it would otherwise be, in a classic case of the tail wagging the dog.
Bottom line is that, even with the sensationalist media helping them be more competitive, they would lose every major election in 40-45 states if not for massive voter suppression.
They do NOT have the support of half of the population, or even half of that. They’re viable in spite of 80% of the population not supporting them because the system is broken in their favor.
Utter bullshit. The polling companies are often separate from the media companies. Some are even academic institutions. And they are incentivised to be accurate. Imagine being the one polling organisation that can call elections!
What y’all are misunderstanding, however, is the difference between poll numbers and probability of winning. Harris definitely polls better but due to the electoral college the probability that she wins in lower than poll numbers suggests.
Thanks for the summation of your reply. Headlines are usually bolded and in bigger type than the body text, though…
And there sre hundreds if not thousands from which to choose. The media choose the ones that best fit the narrative they’ve already written.
Nope. They are incentivized to deliver the results that their customers want, regardless of accuracy.
Even if doing so consistently was possible (which it isn’t), that wouldn’t be the most profitable thing to do. See above on incentive.
Nope, I understand full well the difference between the popular vote, which is what’s polled, and the electoral vote which is a big part of the aforementioned system being broken in favor of the American Fascist Party AKA the GOP.
What a garbage response. “There is a profit motive, checkmate” is all you’ve said.