J.D. Vance Blames 'Fake Polls' for Harris' Lead
2 years ago by MicroWave to c/politics
Without evidence, the Republican vice presidential candidate tried to cast doubt on his opponent's obvious momentum: "If you talk to insiders in the Kamala Harris campaign, they're very worried about where they are"
You’ve heard Donald Trump cry “fakenews” too many times to count, and now his running mate is claiming — without evidence — that the media is using “fake polls” to show Vice President Kamala Harris is in the lead in the presidential race.
In an interview on Fox News Sunday, Sen. J.D. Vance alleged that “The media uses fake polls to drive down Republican turnout and to create dissension and conflict with Republican voters.”
DJ Trump comin' in your ears
I bet Replace Bureaucracy is a banger
Bureaucracy isn't something inherently good. I don't think you're going to get a lot of people jumping to defendant. It can exist for reasons. I think it would be better put that they want to end democracy rather than bureaucracy. Democracy absolutely tends to lead to some bureaucracies. Whether or not they're Justified is another question.
- a quick edit since so many are failing reading comprehension*
Bureaucracy is a tool it is neither inherently good or bad. Me implying that it wasn't inherently good. Did not imply that it was inherently bad. It is inherently necessary. But also not something you're going to get people to Rally around unfortunately. I understand that I seem to have found five or six bureaucrats. Who visit Lemmy and are very upset that people don't love bureaucrats. There's nothing I can do about it. Just quit with your straw man.
Yeah, that should be rephrased somehow. While I’m not sure exactly what was intended for that, part of the platform is to replace the meritocracy (people hired for ability to do their job) with loyalists (people hired solely for loyalty to whoever won) ….. for as many as 50,000 positions.
Generally thenn be policy heads are loyalists and the people who make it happen know what they’re doing
I never implied that it could or should. It's more that bureaucracy isn't something that people are fond of and want to protect. And therefore is bad propaganda wise to around people around. This is all something that you all are misunderstanding and reading into it.
Bureaucracy is necessary in a modern, functioning society.
"Move fast and break things" doesn't work on the government level (it arguably doesn't work for tech bros either). We need things like permits and building codes.
I agree 100%, that's why I didn't say any of the things you are pretending I said. I simply said bureaucracy isn't something that people like and are going to feel motivated to defend. Even if it is necessary
Keep on denying everything. Love to see it.
Sadly this led to January 6th as the MAGAts “couldn’t believe” that Trump lost. I’d like people to start accepting reality ASAP, ideally, before our next insurrection election.
This is a part of the plan to delegitimize and undermine any election result that doesn't go their way. "The election results are fake. We've been telling you for months that the polls are crooked so the election must have been crooked."
Don't trust polls.
There's always an element of society who pretend they don't know who they're voting for yet. They're voting for bad things, they know they're bad, and they are embarrassed to tell pollsters.
Vote.
Not to mention the incredibly questionable ways of gathering data.
Like calling people in the day, on their PHONES, asking how they might consider voting. Like MF, I'm working in the day and I'm not picking up a random phone call to tell you about my political alignment.
Yeah, I don't know if it's still even possible to do an accurate poll these days, what with how hard it is to get accurate representation of the following groups: people who ignore all unrecognised calls, people who hang up as soon as they can tell it's a mass call rather than something for them specifically, and people who don't want others to have accurate information. It's even difficult to accurately measure the size of each of those groups, let alone figure out what they think.
Don’t trust polls.
High quality pollings (Gallup, Ipsos, various university polling groups) are consistently reliable within the margin of error. There's no point in being afraid or dismissive of them.
There’s always an element of society who pretend they don’t know who they’re voting for yet. They’re voting for bad things
There are plenty of people who are disinterested or uninformed. They aren't naturally malicious simply because they don't religiously follow political news. Lots of them don't even know if they're going to vote until early voting starts, and even then only vote as part of their family or social group rather than because they have an emotional attachment to one of the parties.
The regional nature of voting tends to mean that if you're too shy to express your views, you aren't in the majority anyway. Its the guy who answers the phone in a MAGA hat and shouts "Hell yeah I'm voting fer Trump!" that you have to worry about, not the one who is too shy to whisper support for RFK Jr down the line.
don't trust polls.
This isn't telling you to not be confident or to be scared, this is telling you to not assume victory is assured. Vote regardless of polling. Polling can be accurate or not. If the polling is accurate, and a majority would vote for A, but A is so far ahead of B that A-voters sit out the race, B can still win if enough voters choose to stay home.
this is telling you to not assume victory is assured
Who looks at a 50/48 polling split and thinks victory is assured? That's still within the margin of error and it doesn't even include battleground swings.
But if it was 60/40? Yeah, I'd feel pretty assured. You'd be a fool not to.
If the polling is accurate, and a majority would vote for A, but A is so far ahead of B that A-voters sit out the race
People keep talking about this like it ever actually happens? Name one candidate that lost an election because the polling was too favorable.
Dear MAGAs Please believe your vice Führer. You will win. No need to go vote.
So what I'm not understanding, is what happens when they aren't elected and they remain unable to do basic math.
They seem to really putting all their eggs into the basket of "numbers are fake, do our bidding" but somehow fail to realize without the numbers they won't have support?
Like they really think they have enough weird dudes with too many guns to out gun and out fight the military that is currently under Biden's control?
Also, have they accounted for the fact that the number of armed crazies gets even smaller when the crazies realize they don't get paid for fighting?
Like they really think they have enough weird dudes with too many guns to out gun and out fight the military that is currently under Biden’s control?
That is debatable. Yes, Biden is the CiC. But assuming that the military--which skews conservative (and enlisted people skew very conservative)--is going to follow orders across the board if there's a genuine civil war is perhaps a bit naive. The US Civil war saw a number of generals and higher-level officers defect to the CAS, and I would expect that we'd see the same kind of thing now.
My point is, it needs to be an undeniable win for Dems, something so overwhelming that there can't be any reasonable questions.
The military is more liberal than you think. Yeah their area shit heads in every org and a 18 year old private is always going to be stupid and buy that charger and say stupid shit. But the NCO rank and file are not the same old guard from the 80s and the army is making changes to appeal to GenZ to help with recruitment. E.G base name changes and leave requests for family planning, etc. But also Vets that have been down range got to know groups liked the Kurds and are very pissed what Trump did to them.
I just visited my ex-FiL at the VA hospital and he’s telling people that now that he’s sitting around watching TV, he realizeshr can no longer think of himself as Conservative because he’s liberal as hell relative to MAGAts
While I would hope so, I've known more than a few vets. A few are fairly moderate to liberal, but a whole bunch are MAGAts. Maybe that's just because I do as many 2-gun competitions as I can, and the MAGAt vet-bros are self-selecting to be there because they didn't do enough run-and-gun when they were in the military, IDK.
yeah I can see that self selecting is to blame. Most of the Vets I know after I got out that are more liberal you can't even tell they are a Vet. It the people that make the military their core identity. Like the idiots that wear tactical gear and special forces t-shirts. Like the last thing I ever want to see is a plate carrier or ruck again lol. Those combat ball caps they sell at the VA are so cringe it's worse when they are under the age of 70 wearing them.
They're already laying the groundwork for claiming the election was stolen
The Harris Walz campaign needs to call them lists liars in public. Constantly. I don't see how there isn't intent and capacity here.
I believe they meant to write "liars" and autocorrect stepped in
Omg that was pretty bad. Liar what they said, call them lists
He always looks so confused in his photos.
Such performative masculinity, you can never be the underdog or have nuance.
Harris is up by a point or two nationally, and that's not necessarily enough to win. Battleground states are all too close to call. The RCP electoral map is still giving Trump the win granted they tend to be R-biased in their poll aggregation but that is the path to claiming Trump is in the lead.
I like how the Republican playbook is "grow a beard if you want to look manly" and it just makes them look shlubby more than anything. Vance and Cruz are prime examples.
This guy would look baby faced if he shaved. I have the same problem where if I shave I look 10 years younger than I am.
I'm not claming this guy (or myself) are the pinnacle of attractiveness by any stretch of the imagination. Just saying what I know from a similar genetic background and age.
He's going full Baghdad Bob. You never go full Baghdad Bob.
Trump: See, the polls were wrong! Particularly in the places where my supporters controled the counting process AND refuse to release the final count! Oh, you got those electoral votes thrown out? Too bad the consitution gives the presidency to Republicans if no one reaches 270 electoral votes (one state, one vote)
If Trump were still leading, we'd hear how its going to be a Red Wave and he's going to do 10-pts better than advertised.
If he's losing, its cause he's secretly winning.
If he's losing bad, its cause there's a vast deep state conspiracy and don't trust the elections its just like Vuvuzela.
Rolling Stone - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Rolling Stone:
MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
Search topics on Ground.News
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/unscripted-trump-broken-teleprompters-stiff-contractors-1235036263/
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-maga-allies-freak-out-biden-race-harris-1235064883/
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/jd-vance-fake-polls-harris-lead-1235082483/
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/donald-trump-hannibal-lecter-timeline-1235070008/
He sounds like Lemmy's reaction to every poll until Biden dropped out.
@lemmy.world
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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
save