this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2024
27 points (65.9% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3062 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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  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
top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 39 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Pre-convention, ABC - Wash Post - Ipsos poll had Harris leading Trump 49% - 45% in a two person race.

This one has Harris 52% - 46%.

The gender gap is part of the convention bounce

[–] Chocrates@lemmy.world 21 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Is this the media selling clicks and not facts again?

[–] kn33@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

And r2o is spreading them. Typical day in the lemmyverse.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

GTFO with your nonsensical facts. The numbers didn't go up when they went up!

Edit: /joking of course

[–] whenyellowstonehasitsday@fedia.io 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

isn't a net 2% gain within the margin of error?

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Both pre and post convention polls have MOE.

[–] whenyellowstonehasitsday@fedia.io 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

so if a net change between the two is within the margin of error, you can't state with confidence that it's an increase and not just random noise

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

I suppose that confidence would need to have it's own margin of error. But it seems silly to say we can't say anything from such a significant difference.
I'd say the likelihood is still on the side that Harris is doing better than Trump.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What? I can say with reasonably certainty that if other polls match their results, which they do, then the MOE is meaningless. I can also say that since the same pollster and ABC took both polls, ABC is straight lying when they say there was no bounce. Their own data says otherwise.

[–] whenyellowstonehasitsday@fedia.io 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I can say with reasonably certainty that if other polls match their results, which they do, then the MOE is meaningless

no that isn't how statistics works

Their own data says otherwise.

if you look at only their own data then no, there was a statistically negligible increase

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago

FFS. You don't know how polls work. There are always small increases when you reach 50% The more important issue in these polls is that Trump has a ceiling of ~46%

[–] Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Women don't count?

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago

ABC News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for ABC News:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://abcnews.go.com/Politics/harris-trump-abc-news-ipsos-poll-convention-bounce-widens-gap-women/story?id=113246534
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support