politics
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 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I've been wondering this for a while, wouldn't you want your candidate to poll poorly so more people who otherwise wouldn't vote and also prefer your candidate go out and vote? Wouldn't higher polling numbers cause people to rest assured their candidate will win and then not worry about voting? Obviously polls mean nothing, go out and vote
They want to invent higher polling numbers so that when/if Trump loses, they can point at the polls as proof the election is rigged against him.
I also suspect that they want to avoid a complete narcissistic collapse of Trump.
A loss, coupled with his recent exhaustion, will for sure lead to narcissistic collapse. It's going to be wild.
Good point, I didn't think about that
Another thing is that people like to be on a winning team. People will avoid voting for someone they expect to lose. It's not going to affect the bulk of people, but anything that reduces low turnout voters actually voting is a win for the other side.
That definitely makes sense
Human variation...
You're assuming everyone thinks like you, but they don't.
Some just like to be "winners".
They wouldn't want to vote for trump if he loses, but if they think he'll win they'll jump on the bandwagon and vote.
You make a good point
Yeah, there's fundamental brain differences that allow someone with literally a few minutes of training to predict political leaning like >70% (maybe it was even >80%) of the time from nothing but a brain scan...
Which might not sound that high, but it's fucking huge.
It's why the things that motivate conservatives (fear of the unknown) isn't what motivates progressives (empathy and solid plans for the future).
Republicans know their voters, they give them what they want: a Boogeyman to label as the enemy.
Dems however keep ignoring their base because "who else will they vote for?" and trying to court Republican voters using strategies that either piss of the base (being pro border wall) or just not be effective on conservative voters (talking about how trump will hurt others).
If you understand basic sociology/psychology, it's clearly the wrong path for the Dem party. Unfortunately the DNC only prioritizes how much donations someone can bring in when picking people for DNC leadership positions. And the people who prioritize money, rarely go into either sociology or psychology.
It legitimately shouldn't be this hard to beat fucking trump
The unelected people in charge of the only other option just don't know what the fuck they're doing. They just keep appealing to the wealthy to increase their donation amount because it's literally the only metric people are judged on at the DNC.
We desperately need to fix things before 2028, but if Kamala wins she appoints the head of the DNC, and if she loses Biden's pick stays.
Yea,I know very little about phycology and nothing about sociology, so this was very enlightening.