Trump seems to be front page and front stage on everything he says right up to the times he farts per day. Even though I am not a supporter of his, kind of hard up here in Canadia anyway, it gets frustrating trying to figure out what the fuck he means when he leaves ambigious statements from time to time.



Biden is certainly interesting. Nothing more fun than slapping his supporter with a #BidenLikesMinors when they are avid trump haters. The mixed cocktail of emotional distress gets me off.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-2-key-gop-votes-say-they-support-filling-scotus-vacancy?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dwbrand


Sounds promising.

Truth.

Yeah theres the evidence that sentence was indeed loaded. Like I predicted, it frames one as a winner, one as a loser. It frames it as whether the winner of an election should have a mandate, even though thats equally true for Trump winning his last election, as per the first question. Thats tickling something just inherent to human prejudices where we have a reflexive habit of dividing the world into good/bad labeling, drawing superficial associations between pejorative labels and between positive labels. People asked that question arent reflecting on legal authority or precedent or details of how this situation compares to previous norms. They're asked whether the winner deserves positive thing and if he loser deserves negative thing. People are going to be heavily biased by such framing

I think most phone polling gets skewed quite badly like this in general, its just a human defect and on display in conversations with normal people

Do you need a trigger warning or something? Why is that loaded? One IS the winner and one IS the loser. The things you're talking about don't matter to people because they aren't familiar with norms, precedent, etc. All they care about is a perceived fairness verses pushing an agenda.

At what point does the mandate expire? The election? The inauguration? The midterms? The year of the election? I've always felt that Obama didn't push the Garland issue hard enough but the Dems gambled and lost. That's on them. It's the constitutional duty for the President to fill vacancies and for the Senate to advise and consent. The will of the people, as far as I'm concerned, is irrelevant. If the people are genuinely bothered by this, they can punish Senators by voting them out.

You'll get very different responses to that question depending on how you template it
I'm not making a point about the politics of it, only that it should be apparent that when you phrase a question as 'winner good man deserve good' and 'loser bad man deserve bad', the polling will be skewed.
If you asked "Does the winner of the presidential election deserve to have the powers of the presidency to nominate judges for their full 4 year term", you're going to get different responses
I'm bothered by the polling not the politics

That's literally the whole point of democracy? Personally, I think this gets to crux of the issue more than the way you phrased it. The latter requires people to think more than 1 step and they clearly can't do that.

The point of democracy is to attempt to insure that an informed populace has a modicum of control over their own lives.

If people are polled a question, "Should a black man be shot by police and left in the middle of the street for hours?" There's going to be a 99.999% response of "No" and severe horror at the very question.

If people are polled a question, "If a violent criminal with a long rap sheet robs a liquor store, then proceeds to severely beat an officer and attempt to take the officer's gun away to murder them, is the officer firing on the criminal a justified defense of their life, and law and order?" Then suddenly the answers shift in the other way. Same case, wildly varying responses, all based around the level of information provided to the voter.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Sep 22 2020 12:01am

You don't need to explain very basic things like polling bias. I guarantee all the regulars here know more about it than you do.

We got over that basic definition stuff like 7 years ago.

Then why do you lefties ignore polling bias in your useless posts while constantly quoting those polls as some magical reason everyone should do everything your way?

You say, "Don't explain bias to me, I know better" then simply point to bias in any poll you don't like, and claim the bias doesn't matter in any poll you do.

Your lack of consistency is itself consistently amusing.