I so agree. EVERYONE needs to stop giving poll numbers any credence. Poll numbers have NEVER been accurate. NEVER. Well maybe 50-60 yrs ago but not in modern times. I wish everyone would just cease and desist with talking poll numbers. 🤦♀️
I so agree. EVERYONE needs to stop giving poll numbers any credence. Poll numbers have NEVER been accurate. NEVER. Well maybe 50-60 yrs ago but not in modern times. I wish everyone would just cease and desist with talking poll numbers. 🤦♀️
I thought we learned in 2016. Everybody laughed at how ridiculous the poll numbers were and so many saw right through how it was manipulated for a reason. And what happens….months later….back to the poll numbers as if nothing was revealed about them. 🤦🏼♀️ The sheer stupidity of it all! And the media leads the charge, unsurprisingly. Even Trump touts poll numbers!!! I’m always like…. NOOOOOOO STOP IT!!!
Nowadays you’d have to be nuts 🥜 to answer a pollster’s call ☎️ . Who knows whether they’re from the fake news 🤥 (or worse)? So maybe only dems and their paid operatives answer the polls; the rest of us talk to our friends, family, neighbors, and (hoping...) their elected representatives.
Oh I always answer them and record them, find out who paid for it, and if they are coming from the D side, I send the recording to the R side. It is interesting to see how they slant the question from one side or the other. Few of them are really asking open ended questions, they are designed to elicit a certain response. I also am volunteering with AFP making phone calls, it is an open ended survey on issues, and in an hour of calling, I am lucky to get 3 responses, and almost all are over ~age 50 or so. Most people don't answer or hang up before I can even get the first sentence out.
However, for years I was part of a survey panel, where you got 'points' for answering surveys that you could cash in for money or gift cards, and sometimes included opportunities to participate in panel discussions for cash. I got paid $125 cash to talk about cat food for an hour, for instance. Topics were all over the map, from breakfast cereal to politics. The survey company got bought by Ipsos and they started asking too many personal questions so I bailed, but suspect that a lot of the polling respondents come from such panels.
I am not sure how big the base is, but it started for me about 25 years ago. A local company called 'Delve' would sign up people to be in their database, and they would call me a few times a month to ask questions, and if I qualified, I would go to their offices to be on a focus group panel. Pay ranged from ~$50-$150 for an hour or 2 of providing opinions. In some cases they would send you products to try at home then come in and talk about them. It was a pretty sweet deal, I was working PT as I had young kids at home so a little extra cash was nice. Over time, Delve got bought by a bigger company, and then a bigger company bought them, and everything started just being online. Rare to get an in person cash offer, mostly it was points for online surveys that you could turn into cash, and it only netted a couple of hundred a year or so. But I do survey work from time time in my business, so I stayed plugged in as it was just interesting to me. The latest iteration was called 'Knowledge Panel' (which I still see in some methodology footnotes as the database they used) but that was I think it was either bought or partners with Ipsos. Started feeling uncomfortable with the idea that they asked a lot more personal questions and no longer made responses optional so I bailed, but my hubby still does them. He gets political surveys from time to time and I look over his shoulder at the questions. But I do answer phone surveys that randomly come in, they are mostly for local and state candidates, and they ask demographic info at the end so when it gets to the income part I hang up. None of their business.
Reality checks are better. All one had to do was look at how many people were showing up at campaign events in 2016 and 2020 in order to know who was going to win the election. Trumps got tens of thousands while The Witch and Pedo Pete were lucky to get a few hundred most of the time. Remember all the photos?
Also, look at the polling universe. Sometimes it's 'people', other times it's 'registered voters' and others it's 'likely voters'. I am not clear how they vet these categories, but if it's just asking people about how often they vote, 'likely voters' is suspect to me as people are likely to lie about how often they actually voted as they don't want to look bad. But supposedly, polls of 'likely voters' is supposed to be the most accurate.
In the state databases of voters, it shows how someone is registered and in which elections they voted (but obv. not *how* they voted). Political parties (and, I assume, pollsters; perhaps the general public, for all I know) can get these databases and from them contact people via the contact info in the database (which isn't always accurate, but they'd keep going until they had the sample size they needed for their statistical estimate). I can't remember how 'likely voter' is typically defined, but it may be something like 'voted in 3 out of the last 4 elections' or similar.
Well in MO we don't have party registration, so no way of knowing if voters are R or D. The legislature did add a provision to an election bill in 2022 where you can now register as a party, but it is optional. (Reason - they are trying to push towards party registration is because D's vote for the weak R's in the primaries, so trying to keep the D's from getting R ballots in primaries). However, a lot of my R friends refuse to add their party to their registration as they say they will not get their vote counted. Not true, but a lot of people distrust the elections.
In Colorado, if you are registered as independent you can vote in either primary. As I'll be pretty comfortable with most of the R candidates, my husband and I are seriously considering switching to I, and vote for RFK Jr.
Also Colorado went from a red state to blue the moment mailin votes were ratified in our constitution.
In our transforming state of CO, I believe voters register as either R or D or one of the Listed minority parties--if none of the above then you are UNaffiliated. "independent" is an inaccurate, incorrectly defined term people use euphemistically. Indecisive would be more accurate.
Yes, Republican Party is doomed to near irrelevance in CO just relegated a permanent minority as a backdrop for bipartisanship and to whine occasionally to allow some venting. Independents and weak Republicans like Dick Waddams attack the "Trump Wing" and crazy Pro-Life lunatics who don't trust the Dems and the elections they oversee and tabulate with Dominion. My answer is--then why are you complaining???? LIFE is GOOD with FULL Democratic control so why NOT just applaud the GOP demise register as UnAffiliated and Buzz-off?
I get the frustration with the R party - in MO we have a lot of internal battles between the purists and what I call the 'big tent' Republicans. 2022 primaries were vicious, with a lot of negative campaigning between the NO compromise candidates and those who, at least in our blue county (but red state), had a fighting chance of winning as they were more moderate, and there IS a contingent of D's who are disgusted with their party's left turn. But the no compromise candidates who lost in the primary supporters largely stayed home in November, said they would not vote for a 'RINO', and the D's swept the county offices and picked up some seats in the MO legislature. Things are not looking good for 2024 either, too many discouraged R's who jumped in with both feet when covid happened and got active for the first time have thrown up their hands and disengaged. I keep saying, the left plays the long game, and we have to get smarter and work together, but it mostly falls on deaf ears. There is a big R enthusiasm deficit heading into 2024. Trump is huge in rural red areas but the D rot is spreading due to them fleeing the mess they made of the most populated areas.
Yes, our moderation crowd won out in primaries as we allow UAFs to vote, but general election even they were wiped out by an overreaching Dem party in all areas, we're worse off now and the media and money Reps blame Trump and the passionate wing of the party. The Dems are very progressive, bipartisan as often as they can be, pull back when something seems too radical for the moment, appeal to a moderate middle (that is all really socialist-minded in this ers), They are political professionals and completely funded and incestuous with Big Money Corporations and unions and silently allied with Anti-Trump Republicans and Anti-Right Republicans. The red areas of the state are becoming small islands with massive demographic shifts and a clamor for gvt. services and spending so how does one counter Santa Claus without appearing mean and calloused, uneducated and a do-nothing and partisan? We have no real vision only complaining and nostalgic fondness for what it used to be like so the Dem-Progressive machine gorges and grows and becomes more powerful and any opposition weaker and less effective.
Well a lot of our politicians pay a lot of lip service to Trump to get elected but then become whores to the lobbyists once they win. In contrast, I personally know some of these so-called RINOs and while I am not always happy with how they vote, they are not bought and paid for, and try mightily to be heard when trying to explain their votes - a lot of issues are complicated and people have short attention spans and don't listen. They see a NO vote on an issue they support and fly off the handle on social media and start tossing insults. Some are just bad bills - poorly written with too many loopholes, too vague, or not likely to withstand a legal challenge. So they have to decide to vote Y to satisfy the social media mob or vote N and work for a better bill next session. Despite a super-majority in the legislature, and a weak R governor we get little done. Some of it is just personal. There are senators that literally hate each other and will vote no just out of spite if they don't like the bill sponsor. Politics is a nasty business and too many people who have come to this realization just check out. But Santa Claus is also alive and well, voters passed Medicaid expansion due to an initiative petition process that is way too easy for outside D money to come in and manipulate the system to get stuff on the ballot with a one or 2 sentence summary that totally ignores the fine print and people fall for it every year. The pot legalization bill was an awful socialist scheme with over 25 pages of fine print that no one read and that passed last year. Potheads turned out in force which also helped the D's in purple areas. But the R's are afraid of backlash to do any meaningful initiative petition reform as the Ds and media scream 'subverting democracy' if they try to pass bills to reign this in. It's a year from 2024 primary election, and we already have 120 initiative petitions approved to circulate, 80% of them sponsored and funded by leftist groups from outside the state. They pay $20/hr+ to people to collect signatures. We have a LOT of work to do.
Most people distrust elections in Oregon Donna, an all vote by mail state. Precinct voting fostered a touch of community, even if we only vote every couple years. I would love to have that back.
In Oregon, where I live, the election officials can search for voters that have moved or are deceased but are still on the votor rolls. They then know how many fake mail-in votes are available to send out voted for the candidate "they" want to win. No one is knows it's happening.
Wow, didn't realize OR was ALL mail in?! I wouldn't trust that either. Our mail service, which used to be very good in my area has gone downhill markedly the past couple of years. MO has 6 weeks of in-person early voting with an excuse, 2 weeks of no excuse in person early voting, Have to have a photo ID. Mail in ballots if requested, have to be notarized. We still have issues but did get a no ballot harvesting and no zuckerbucks bill passed last year. I work as an election judge and vast majority of ballots in my area are cast on election day, in person. 10.9% mail in last November. Our SOS finally ditched ERIC after years of pressure, since he is running for governor, guess he thought it was a campaign issue, although a group who provided evidence that voter rolls were corrupt was blown off.
Donna, yes, all mail in voting since 1998. Oregon has not had a Republican governor since. Coincidence? Maybe. But probably not.
There is no chain of custody of your ballot once you drop it in the mail. There is no way of knowing if your ballot was counted, all you will receive (if requested) is confirmation that your ballot envelope was scanned. In the 2022 mid-term, 'special' recycle boxes were set up on college campuses for duplicate ballots that were sent out. In one whistle blower complaint there was a notice put out requesting workers to help fill out extra ballots (see battleground oregon.org for federal court case updates). Yes, Oregon elections are less than honest irregardless of what the recently resigned SoS claims. (That's a dirty story for another time). Oregonians have no confidence in their elections.
Wow that is so corrupt! Got curious and looked it up https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/oregon/ Oregon is not all that different from MO https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/missouri/ where the population centers go blue but the rural counties are red. I am in blue Jackson, and they are exporting their rot as high taxes and crime are leading D's to flee to surrounding counties. 2 of them, Platte and Clay to the north, Trump barely eked a win in 2020. R margin shrinks with every election. And even Jackson is really 2 counties - the KC part is deep blue and had their own (corrupt) election board, while the rest of the county - the suburbs went for Trump (although only 50.5%, while KC was 20%). But can't overcome that the population centers cancel out the rural/suburb/exurb vote. I suppose part of OR's problem is the CA refugees. MO was considered a bellwether state until 2012, state had picked the winner in every election for something like 50 years. But went for Romney in 2012 and Trump won handily in 2016 and 2020. A lot of the rural counties were 'Truman Democrats' who had the common sense to see that the D party had left them. S. MO is called the 'bible belt' and they vote their values, many of those counties went 80%+ for Trump. My hubby is a sales rep and travels the state. Says a lot of places people have never taken down their Trump signs/banners/flags.
They have certainly been politicized, but it's not true that they are inaccurate. The way people interpret them causes issues. Sometimes intentionally. Polls provide a snapshot. They have a margin of error. Yet, people want to read them as if they literally say 49% to this candidate and 47% to that candidate. That's not what they are saying. If you take the margin of error into account it's more like candidate A likely has 44-54% of the vote and candidate B likely has 42-52% of the vote. Candidate A appears to be leading, but it's well within the poll's margin that Candidate B actually wins by a comfortable margin. People would say the poll is inaccurate if Candidate B were to win, but the poll was accurate. The interpretation was inaccurate.
People like Jesse Waters (who let's all remember is on Faux News and therefore is part of the establishment) will use the numbers to tell the story they want people to believe.
All that said, if you look across polls, across multiple polling co's - some with left leans, some with right leans - and average them all out over a 3-month period or so, you can get a pretty good sense of what the mood of the public is and which direction it's heading. It's not 100% accurate, but it's a snapshot that has some value. Way more value than having nothing at all.
I like seeing what my leftie friends say on FB. One is absolutely insane about Trump, but he never posts a single fact, only invective and mockery, which I think about sums up the Dem side generally. In real life, he's a retired historian who still gives lectures about Native Americans and settlers in his area of the country. He's a great guy in that arena, but the spirit that shows through on his political posts is very off-putting.
Same here. One of my lefty fb friends just posted about getting blue hats made that said "Make lying great again". The comments all thought that was hilarious and someone volunteered to get the hats made. I'm thinking that I don't really get it. I mean I get it sarcastically but are they really that oblivious to their own party? Cause the other side of me is saying, yes, go for it, advertise what a lying POS your side is standing for and see how many votes that gets.
Most of time their memes don't make sense and are not funny. Kind of blah.
Yes, this man's FB friends all also chimed in to agree. Once he posted about DeSantis 'banning books' in Florida, and I corrected him with a link to a neutral site listing which books had been assessed by school boards and which retained or tossed. He thanked me, but it appears not to have made a dent in his willingness to do the same thing, over and over, for jollies, it appears.
I had to unfollow my friends on FB who would make lists like this. It really upset me that people I genuinely liked would be this nasty and disrespectful towards people they disagreed with. And also so gullible to repeat the lies of the media taking heads and politicians.
It helps that I don't know this man well, and in fact we've never met in person. We have a mutual interest in the history of a particular place and time. I don't unfollow anyone who expresses those opinions, I find it a fascinating window into people I'm (thankfully) never around in real life.
I think it’s different when it’s someone you don’t have an actual friendship with. All of the people who are my Facebook friends are real friends I know quite well from real life for the most part, with a few “good” acquaintances sprinkled in but I really dislike having random people I’ve barely met in my Facebook friend group, personally. That is just the way I use Facebook. I participate in certain groups but no one is really political at all there. I just found it hurtful on the part of my friends to make statements like that, especially since most knew my opinions and leanings somewhat. Clearly I don’t have your ability to take a step back and look at it dispassionately.
I've been unfriended by a person or two, I think, and perhaps their reason is your reason. One former colleague actually made a post to say that he didn't appreciate politics showing up in his feed because he uses FB as you do. I felt a little badly, as I thought I was one of the people, if not the person, he was talking about, but of late I've noticed him liking some of my posts (which are probably 90% political, the remainder being nature and farm life, with non-political humor bringing up the rear; I too am in nonpolitical interest-based groups, though) and even commenting on some. I use my feed as my little C&C-like warning to others who may not read and hear the sources I do, or have the same fund of knowledge for analysis or comparison. I've had people I know in real life tell me in person how much they appreciate my feed, which they use as a sort of news source, but the vast majority, including those who tell me that, neither like nor comment. I'm an introvert with no desire to share details of my life online with anyone, but the conclusion I finally came to, when I started maing political posts, was, "if not now, when; if not me, who?"
I don’t generally unfriend people, just unfollow them. So their posts don’t automatically appear in my feed, I have to specifically go to their page to look at them. While I get your reasoning and love that you’ve been sharing political messages with people and gotten some to listen, I honestly didn’t join Facebook to do that. My purpose was to keep in touch with people I already knew and was friends with, especially those I didn’t see very often because they live far away or their schedules don’t allow us to see each other in person often. I wanted to know what they were doing and stay connected. People use FB in different ways and for different purposes. Reading very politicized posts (most of which at least in the case of my contacts had inflammatory headlines and were extremely slanted) just didn’t fit my purposes and I think FB is a terrible platform to have a decent debate with people. If I’d have seen more thoughtful posts and comments instead of the same old screeds, I’d maybe have been more interested in reading and engaging. But it just looked like an exercise in virtue signaling and self congratulatory preening to be part of a special club. Not insightful and thought provoking at all. I’d rather get my stimulation elsewhere.
Mine are, I hope, calm, rational, and informative . . . okay, occasionally, such as when criticizing my own former professions of medicine and public health, not entirely calm, but still fact-based, with references and links. I think it's fine for people to use it in different ways.
I so agree. EVERYONE needs to stop giving poll numbers any credence. Poll numbers have NEVER been accurate. NEVER. Well maybe 50-60 yrs ago but not in modern times. I wish everyone would just cease and desist with talking poll numbers. 🤦♀️
I thought we learned in 2016. Everybody laughed at how ridiculous the poll numbers were and so many saw right through how it was manipulated for a reason. And what happens….months later….back to the poll numbers as if nothing was revealed about them. 🤦🏼♀️ The sheer stupidity of it all! And the media leads the charge, unsurprisingly. Even Trump touts poll numbers!!! I’m always like…. NOOOOOOO STOP IT!!!
Nowadays you’d have to be nuts 🥜 to answer a pollster’s call ☎️ . Who knows whether they’re from the fake news 🤥 (or worse)? So maybe only dems and their paid operatives answer the polls; the rest of us talk to our friends, family, neighbors, and (hoping...) their elected representatives.
Oh I always answer them and record them, find out who paid for it, and if they are coming from the D side, I send the recording to the R side. It is interesting to see how they slant the question from one side or the other. Few of them are really asking open ended questions, they are designed to elicit a certain response. I also am volunteering with AFP making phone calls, it is an open ended survey on issues, and in an hour of calling, I am lucky to get 3 responses, and almost all are over ~age 50 or so. Most people don't answer or hang up before I can even get the first sentence out.
However, for years I was part of a survey panel, where you got 'points' for answering surveys that you could cash in for money or gift cards, and sometimes included opportunities to participate in panel discussions for cash. I got paid $125 cash to talk about cat food for an hour, for instance. Topics were all over the map, from breakfast cereal to politics. The survey company got bought by Ipsos and they started asking too many personal questions so I bailed, but suspect that a lot of the polling respondents come from such panels.
Wow, this is educational as I never knew about this survey things and that lots of people participate
I am not sure how big the base is, but it started for me about 25 years ago. A local company called 'Delve' would sign up people to be in their database, and they would call me a few times a month to ask questions, and if I qualified, I would go to their offices to be on a focus group panel. Pay ranged from ~$50-$150 for an hour or 2 of providing opinions. In some cases they would send you products to try at home then come in and talk about them. It was a pretty sweet deal, I was working PT as I had young kids at home so a little extra cash was nice. Over time, Delve got bought by a bigger company, and then a bigger company bought them, and everything started just being online. Rare to get an in person cash offer, mostly it was points for online surveys that you could turn into cash, and it only netted a couple of hundred a year or so. But I do survey work from time time in my business, so I stayed plugged in as it was just interesting to me. The latest iteration was called 'Knowledge Panel' (which I still see in some methodology footnotes as the database they used) but that was I think it was either bought or partners with Ipsos. Started feeling uncomfortable with the idea that they asked a lot more personal questions and no longer made responses optional so I bailed, but my hubby still does them. He gets political surveys from time to time and I look over his shoulder at the questions. But I do answer phone surveys that randomly come in, they are mostly for local and state candidates, and they ask demographic info at the end so when it gets to the income part I hang up. None of their business.
I’ve participated in those too, though not recently.
Or worse.....an AI recording your voice for future manipulation of your family or friends!
Do you know how easy it is to make up poll numbers?
These are the amount of people I called: random number
Here's the amount answers I got one way: biased number based on random number
Here's the amount that went the other way: random number - biased number based on random number
You can make all this data up without calling a single person! Just make it look reasonable.
As I recall, the Rasmussen poll told the tale accurately in 2016. No doubt that's been "fixed" since then.
Rasmussen is generally a conservative pollster that tends to get things more accurately. Or at least they were.
Reality checks are better. All one had to do was look at how many people were showing up at campaign events in 2016 and 2020 in order to know who was going to win the election. Trumps got tens of thousands while The Witch and Pedo Pete were lucky to get a few hundred most of the time. Remember all the photos?
Always find the number of people polled. That’s a tell right there.
Also, look at the polling universe. Sometimes it's 'people', other times it's 'registered voters' and others it's 'likely voters'. I am not clear how they vet these categories, but if it's just asking people about how often they vote, 'likely voters' is suspect to me as people are likely to lie about how often they actually voted as they don't want to look bad. But supposedly, polls of 'likely voters' is supposed to be the most accurate.
In the state databases of voters, it shows how someone is registered and in which elections they voted (but obv. not *how* they voted). Political parties (and, I assume, pollsters; perhaps the general public, for all I know) can get these databases and from them contact people via the contact info in the database (which isn't always accurate, but they'd keep going until they had the sample size they needed for their statistical estimate). I can't remember how 'likely voter' is typically defined, but it may be something like 'voted in 3 out of the last 4 elections' or similar.
Well in MO we don't have party registration, so no way of knowing if voters are R or D. The legislature did add a provision to an election bill in 2022 where you can now register as a party, but it is optional. (Reason - they are trying to push towards party registration is because D's vote for the weak R's in the primaries, so trying to keep the D's from getting R ballots in primaries). However, a lot of my R friends refuse to add their party to their registration as they say they will not get their vote counted. Not true, but a lot of people distrust the elections.
In Colorado, if you are registered as independent you can vote in either primary. As I'll be pretty comfortable with most of the R candidates, my husband and I are seriously considering switching to I, and vote for RFK Jr.
Also Colorado went from a red state to blue the moment mailin votes were ratified in our constitution.
In our transforming state of CO, I believe voters register as either R or D or one of the Listed minority parties--if none of the above then you are UNaffiliated. "independent" is an inaccurate, incorrectly defined term people use euphemistically. Indecisive would be more accurate.
Yes, Republican Party is doomed to near irrelevance in CO just relegated a permanent minority as a backdrop for bipartisanship and to whine occasionally to allow some venting. Independents and weak Republicans like Dick Waddams attack the "Trump Wing" and crazy Pro-Life lunatics who don't trust the Dems and the elections they oversee and tabulate with Dominion. My answer is--then why are you complaining???? LIFE is GOOD with FULL Democratic control so why NOT just applaud the GOP demise register as UnAffiliated and Buzz-off?
I get the frustration with the R party - in MO we have a lot of internal battles between the purists and what I call the 'big tent' Republicans. 2022 primaries were vicious, with a lot of negative campaigning between the NO compromise candidates and those who, at least in our blue county (but red state), had a fighting chance of winning as they were more moderate, and there IS a contingent of D's who are disgusted with their party's left turn. But the no compromise candidates who lost in the primary supporters largely stayed home in November, said they would not vote for a 'RINO', and the D's swept the county offices and picked up some seats in the MO legislature. Things are not looking good for 2024 either, too many discouraged R's who jumped in with both feet when covid happened and got active for the first time have thrown up their hands and disengaged. I keep saying, the left plays the long game, and we have to get smarter and work together, but it mostly falls on deaf ears. There is a big R enthusiasm deficit heading into 2024. Trump is huge in rural red areas but the D rot is spreading due to them fleeing the mess they made of the most populated areas.
Yes, our moderation crowd won out in primaries as we allow UAFs to vote, but general election even they were wiped out by an overreaching Dem party in all areas, we're worse off now and the media and money Reps blame Trump and the passionate wing of the party. The Dems are very progressive, bipartisan as often as they can be, pull back when something seems too radical for the moment, appeal to a moderate middle (that is all really socialist-minded in this ers), They are political professionals and completely funded and incestuous with Big Money Corporations and unions and silently allied with Anti-Trump Republicans and Anti-Right Republicans. The red areas of the state are becoming small islands with massive demographic shifts and a clamor for gvt. services and spending so how does one counter Santa Claus without appearing mean and calloused, uneducated and a do-nothing and partisan? We have no real vision only complaining and nostalgic fondness for what it used to be like so the Dem-Progressive machine gorges and grows and becomes more powerful and any opposition weaker and less effective.
Well a lot of our politicians pay a lot of lip service to Trump to get elected but then become whores to the lobbyists once they win. In contrast, I personally know some of these so-called RINOs and while I am not always happy with how they vote, they are not bought and paid for, and try mightily to be heard when trying to explain their votes - a lot of issues are complicated and people have short attention spans and don't listen. They see a NO vote on an issue they support and fly off the handle on social media and start tossing insults. Some are just bad bills - poorly written with too many loopholes, too vague, or not likely to withstand a legal challenge. So they have to decide to vote Y to satisfy the social media mob or vote N and work for a better bill next session. Despite a super-majority in the legislature, and a weak R governor we get little done. Some of it is just personal. There are senators that literally hate each other and will vote no just out of spite if they don't like the bill sponsor. Politics is a nasty business and too many people who have come to this realization just check out. But Santa Claus is also alive and well, voters passed Medicaid expansion due to an initiative petition process that is way too easy for outside D money to come in and manipulate the system to get stuff on the ballot with a one or 2 sentence summary that totally ignores the fine print and people fall for it every year. The pot legalization bill was an awful socialist scheme with over 25 pages of fine print that no one read and that passed last year. Potheads turned out in force which also helped the D's in purple areas. But the R's are afraid of backlash to do any meaningful initiative petition reform as the Ds and media scream 'subverting democracy' if they try to pass bills to reign this in. It's a year from 2024 primary election, and we already have 120 initiative petitions approved to circulate, 80% of them sponsored and funded by leftist groups from outside the state. They pay $20/hr+ to people to collect signatures. We have a LOT of work to do.
Most people distrust elections in Oregon Donna, an all vote by mail state. Precinct voting fostered a touch of community, even if we only vote every couple years. I would love to have that back.
In Oregon, where I live, the election officials can search for voters that have moved or are deceased but are still on the votor rolls. They then know how many fake mail-in votes are available to send out voted for the candidate "they" want to win. No one is knows it's happening.
Wow, didn't realize OR was ALL mail in?! I wouldn't trust that either. Our mail service, which used to be very good in my area has gone downhill markedly the past couple of years. MO has 6 weeks of in-person early voting with an excuse, 2 weeks of no excuse in person early voting, Have to have a photo ID. Mail in ballots if requested, have to be notarized. We still have issues but did get a no ballot harvesting and no zuckerbucks bill passed last year. I work as an election judge and vast majority of ballots in my area are cast on election day, in person. 10.9% mail in last November. Our SOS finally ditched ERIC after years of pressure, since he is running for governor, guess he thought it was a campaign issue, although a group who provided evidence that voter rolls were corrupt was blown off.
Donna, yes, all mail in voting since 1998. Oregon has not had a Republican governor since. Coincidence? Maybe. But probably not.
There is no chain of custody of your ballot once you drop it in the mail. There is no way of knowing if your ballot was counted, all you will receive (if requested) is confirmation that your ballot envelope was scanned. In the 2022 mid-term, 'special' recycle boxes were set up on college campuses for duplicate ballots that were sent out. In one whistle blower complaint there was a notice put out requesting workers to help fill out extra ballots (see battleground oregon.org for federal court case updates). Yes, Oregon elections are less than honest irregardless of what the recently resigned SoS claims. (That's a dirty story for another time). Oregonians have no confidence in their elections.
Wow that is so corrupt! Got curious and looked it up https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/oregon/ Oregon is not all that different from MO https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/missouri/ where the population centers go blue but the rural counties are red. I am in blue Jackson, and they are exporting their rot as high taxes and crime are leading D's to flee to surrounding counties. 2 of them, Platte and Clay to the north, Trump barely eked a win in 2020. R margin shrinks with every election. And even Jackson is really 2 counties - the KC part is deep blue and had their own (corrupt) election board, while the rest of the county - the suburbs went for Trump (although only 50.5%, while KC was 20%). But can't overcome that the population centers cancel out the rural/suburb/exurb vote. I suppose part of OR's problem is the CA refugees. MO was considered a bellwether state until 2012, state had picked the winner in every election for something like 50 years. But went for Romney in 2012 and Trump won handily in 2016 and 2020. A lot of the rural counties were 'Truman Democrats' who had the common sense to see that the D party had left them. S. MO is called the 'bible belt' and they vote their values, many of those counties went 80%+ for Trump. My hubby is a sales rep and travels the state. Says a lot of places people have never taken down their Trump signs/banners/flags.
Rich Baris is pretty accurate with his poll numbers. I haven't been following him lately to see if he has any numbers, I'll have to check up on it.
Rich Baris feels that DeSantis is out of the race.
Then he's probably right.
Poll numbers and polls are here to stay. I just ignore them like white noise.
Polls are just part of the MSM brainwashing, nothing more...
Polls are worse than daily weather forecasts.
They have certainly been politicized, but it's not true that they are inaccurate. The way people interpret them causes issues. Sometimes intentionally. Polls provide a snapshot. They have a margin of error. Yet, people want to read them as if they literally say 49% to this candidate and 47% to that candidate. That's not what they are saying. If you take the margin of error into account it's more like candidate A likely has 44-54% of the vote and candidate B likely has 42-52% of the vote. Candidate A appears to be leading, but it's well within the poll's margin that Candidate B actually wins by a comfortable margin. People would say the poll is inaccurate if Candidate B were to win, but the poll was accurate. The interpretation was inaccurate.
People like Jesse Waters (who let's all remember is on Faux News and therefore is part of the establishment) will use the numbers to tell the story they want people to believe.
All that said, if you look across polls, across multiple polling co's - some with left leans, some with right leans - and average them all out over a 3-month period or so, you can get a pretty good sense of what the mood of the public is and which direction it's heading. It's not 100% accurate, but it's a snapshot that has some value. Way more value than having nothing at all.
I like seeing what my leftie friends say on FB. One is absolutely insane about Trump, but he never posts a single fact, only invective and mockery, which I think about sums up the Dem side generally. In real life, he's a retired historian who still gives lectures about Native Americans and settlers in his area of the country. He's a great guy in that arena, but the spirit that shows through on his political posts is very off-putting.
Same here. One of my lefty fb friends just posted about getting blue hats made that said "Make lying great again". The comments all thought that was hilarious and someone volunteered to get the hats made. I'm thinking that I don't really get it. I mean I get it sarcastically but are they really that oblivious to their own party? Cause the other side of me is saying, yes, go for it, advertise what a lying POS your side is standing for and see how many votes that gets.
Most of time their memes don't make sense and are not funny. Kind of blah.
Yes, this man's FB friends all also chimed in to agree. Once he posted about DeSantis 'banning books' in Florida, and I corrected him with a link to a neutral site listing which books had been assessed by school boards and which retained or tossed. He thanked me, but it appears not to have made a dent in his willingness to do the same thing, over and over, for jollies, it appears.
I had to unfollow my friends on FB who would make lists like this. It really upset me that people I genuinely liked would be this nasty and disrespectful towards people they disagreed with. And also so gullible to repeat the lies of the media taking heads and politicians.
It helps that I don't know this man well, and in fact we've never met in person. We have a mutual interest in the history of a particular place and time. I don't unfollow anyone who expresses those opinions, I find it a fascinating window into people I'm (thankfully) never around in real life.
I think it’s different when it’s someone you don’t have an actual friendship with. All of the people who are my Facebook friends are real friends I know quite well from real life for the most part, with a few “good” acquaintances sprinkled in but I really dislike having random people I’ve barely met in my Facebook friend group, personally. That is just the way I use Facebook. I participate in certain groups but no one is really political at all there. I just found it hurtful on the part of my friends to make statements like that, especially since most knew my opinions and leanings somewhat. Clearly I don’t have your ability to take a step back and look at it dispassionately.
I've been unfriended by a person or two, I think, and perhaps their reason is your reason. One former colleague actually made a post to say that he didn't appreciate politics showing up in his feed because he uses FB as you do. I felt a little badly, as I thought I was one of the people, if not the person, he was talking about, but of late I've noticed him liking some of my posts (which are probably 90% political, the remainder being nature and farm life, with non-political humor bringing up the rear; I too am in nonpolitical interest-based groups, though) and even commenting on some. I use my feed as my little C&C-like warning to others who may not read and hear the sources I do, or have the same fund of knowledge for analysis or comparison. I've had people I know in real life tell me in person how much they appreciate my feed, which they use as a sort of news source, but the vast majority, including those who tell me that, neither like nor comment. I'm an introvert with no desire to share details of my life online with anyone, but the conclusion I finally came to, when I started maing political posts, was, "if not now, when; if not me, who?"
I don’t generally unfriend people, just unfollow them. So their posts don’t automatically appear in my feed, I have to specifically go to their page to look at them. While I get your reasoning and love that you’ve been sharing political messages with people and gotten some to listen, I honestly didn’t join Facebook to do that. My purpose was to keep in touch with people I already knew and was friends with, especially those I didn’t see very often because they live far away or their schedules don’t allow us to see each other in person often. I wanted to know what they were doing and stay connected. People use FB in different ways and for different purposes. Reading very politicized posts (most of which at least in the case of my contacts had inflammatory headlines and were extremely slanted) just didn’t fit my purposes and I think FB is a terrible platform to have a decent debate with people. If I’d have seen more thoughtful posts and comments instead of the same old screeds, I’d maybe have been more interested in reading and engaging. But it just looked like an exercise in virtue signaling and self congratulatory preening to be part of a special club. Not insightful and thought provoking at all. I’d rather get my stimulation elsewhere.
Mine are, I hope, calm, rational, and informative . . . okay, occasionally, such as when criticizing my own former professions of medicine and public health, not entirely calm, but still fact-based, with references and links. I think it's fine for people to use it in different ways.