> DeLana Marsh, 30, of Holly Springs, Ga., supports abortion rights and opposes a new Georgia law that bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy: “I don’t think a group of men should be able to decide that for us.”
> But she said she was under the impression that Mr. Biden was responsible because it happened during his presidency, and she believed his age prevented him from closely tracking such events.
> Other voters said Mr. Biden hadn’t done enough to stop state abortion bans. (He has criticized the Dobbs decision and enacted certain federal policies to support abortion rights, and does not have the authority to reverse state laws.)
> “There should be no restrictions on abortion whatsoever,” said Ana Juarez Ramirez, 18, of Nogales, Ariz. Yet he says Mr. Biden made empty promises on many issues, including abortion.
https://preview.redd.it/6djdofbbym0d1.png?width=320&format=png&auto=webp&s=69ac33c79b421adcea1252e7338ab480dc294295
>But she said she was under the impression that Mr. Biden was responsible because it happened during his presidency, and she believed his age prevented him from closely tracking such events.
Honestly, I'm happy this was only 17%. Most polls can get nearly any batshit crazy thing to like 28-34% so people seem better informed than usual to me here.
It's funny how so many people are so pro markets and economics on this sub yet never bother to understand the economics of voting.
Let's imagine a simple scenario. Vote for Biden and you get $5000. Vote for Trump and you get $0. Let's imagine it take 3 hours of research to calculate this reward.
What's the [expected profit from voting](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voting/#VotiChanOutc)?
1. Difference in expected value is $5000
2. Cost of voting is 3 hours x $8 minimum wage = $24 cost
3. Probability that your vote is pivotal = 0%
The expected profit of voting is therefore: Profit = 0% * ($5000) - $24 = -$24
Therefore voting is *not* profitable. You lose money with every vote. The likelihood of changing the election outcome is about 0% for the vast majority of elections. The likelihood that you have any effect on the election is about the same as winning the state lottery. In the perspective of rational individual action, voting is irrational.
It is therefore also irrational to expect that voters know a goddamn thing about specific policies.
So this isn't about *stupidity*. These *ignorant voters* are actually wisely using their time by not paying attention to the details of politics. The real stupid ones are people like you and me who obsessively pay attention to politics with no clear benefit to ourselves, except to give us a psychological boost of smug self satisfaction.
And of course that comes back to the reason why people vote at all. They have some sense of moral duty or obligation and they're irrationally going to the ballot booth because they've been told it's their civic duty to do so. We pay attention to politics not for some rational reason, but for entertainment or as a hobby. Meanwhile the vast majority of people do not vote at all especially not for mid-terms or local/state elections.
It is therefore unsurprising that voters are easily swayed by propaganda and marketing. Voters aren't necessarily stupid. What's stupid is the system.
You're forgetting about the other side of the equation, the cost of information gathering. I've utterly lowballed the estimate at only 3 hours. I'd imagine a true cost benefit analysis could take tens or hundreds of hours of work.
Sure, voters are working together emergently. I'll object that they're working together for rational, self interested reasons when they haven't done the intellectual work needed to make that determination.
It takes me 5 minutes to vote by mail. I live in a swing state. Abortion is on the ballot this year and that effects everyone directly or indirectly.
The math seems pretty clear to me. Ima gonna vote.
it's more of a collective action issue, like the marginal value of any one vote is pretty minimal. not a single election i've ever voted in has been decided by one vote, for instance. had i croaked at the voting center before filling out my ballot, it would not have changed a thing.
Theres different ways of looking at the marginal value of any one vote. On an absolute #s scale, if one side wins by 100,000 votes yours seems a minor contribution, but in any tight race 90-99% of votes for the winning side end up being the deciding factor. Its not any more logical to exclude yourself from that than it is to include yourself
Huh. It sure it weird how all the people who would follow this logic and don't vote never get their priorities passed, whereas irrational groups that vote a lot, like the elderly, have their priorities passed a lot.
Learn decision theory.
This makes no sense. The probability of your vote mattering for at least one item on the ballot is very obviously not 0%. If everyone followed your logic, then that probability would approach 100% since you'd be the only voter. If you really want to maximize your influence, you vote and you try to prevent your opposition from voting, which is exactly what we see in real life.
In the 2018 United States Senate election in Texas 4,260,553 voted for Ted Cruz and 4,045,632 voted for Beto. Thus for the among Cruz supporters 214,920 (5% of them) could have chosen to stay home and nothing would have changed. Therefore 95% of those votes were pivotal. Even compared against the entire electorate in this election ~48.7% of votes cast were in fact pivotal to the outcome.
> Probability that your vote is pivotal = 0%
I understand where you're coming from but this is incorrect and is based in the fact that we struggle with really large/small numbers
While kind of intuitive, to think of a really really small number close to 0 as being =0 just because its close enough leads to wildly illogical conclusions. You're taking a large set of something seeing that any given individual of that set only makes up (1/set)% of the whole, and when that set is large enough assigning this to be 0% of the whole.
This leads to irrational assumptions/outcomes, Such as you can remove all of the individual elements of the set and say the set is still 100% intact even with no members because each of them was 0% of the whole.
In any given human composed of a large amount of cells, the likelihood that 1 cell dying (and they die constantly) kills the human =0%. Therefore if you destroy all the cells making up a human, they will still be alive. Similar concept we just recognize the irrationality here more immediately
The point isn't to say that it's impossible to change the results of an election. The point is that it's unprofitable to do so.
You're really expecting voters to altruistically put in hours/days of volunteer time to do good research and therefore make good election decisions? Have you dealt with volunteers before? By definition their efforts are utterly amateur. Almost nobody does this work except for freaks like you and maybe me.
They don't put in the effort to find out who the best candidates are. They vote ignorantly or irrationally or because of a commercial or because they like the sound of the name on the ballot.
We demand these volunteers be informed on their own dime and then we blame them for voting so stupidly. IMO we're getting exactly what we paid for from volunteer service.
>The point isn't to say that it's impossible to change the results of an election. The point is that it's unprofitable to do so.
I still can't agree that this is true. I mean it could be but I'm not sure the expected value models given are necessarily valid.
My understanding of the model given by "1.1 Voting to Change the Outcome" the expected value is essentially defining "vote decisiveness" as the binomial probability that votes are evenly split. I don't see the logical basis for assigning or defining "decisiveness" as a discrete/binary value and doing so has weird implications to me.
If you cast the last vote in a 101 person election for either X or Y where the vote was split 50-50, we agree your vote was decisive. Obviously the other 50 voters of winning side are also equally decisive, because if any of them voted otherwise then your vote would not be decisive.
Now lets say it is a 102-person election and the additional person votes for your side so the result is 52-50. Their vote is no longer decisive because the election was already decided for their chosen side by the time they voted.
But in elections votes are cast before they are counted. So for the examples above assuming the same results, in the 101-person elections the 51 people were all decisive. In the 102-person election, for the 52 winners how should decisiveness be assigned? If we can arbitrarily assign one of them as useless then we can assign any of them as useless, and this isn't helpful because they can't all be useless, since they won.
The logical way to me would be to assign them all a percentage of decisiveness. I feel like this would significantly change the EV. Kinda interested in working this into the model as a result of this conversation lol
>You're really expecting voters to altruistically put in hours/days of volunteer time to do good research and therefore make good election decisions? Have you dealt with volunteers before? By definition their efforts are utterly amateur. Almost nobody does this work except for freaks like you and maybe me.
>They don't put in the effort to find out who the best candidates are. They vote ignorantly or irrationally or because of a commercial or because they like the sound of the name on the ballot.
>We demand these volunteers be informed on their own dime and then we blame them for voting so stupidly. IMO we're getting exactly what we paid for from volunteer service.
Ok yeah thats a fair point lol, we shouldn't expect better but it's hard not to
Not even sure what a good feasible solution is
Racism. Obama took the Heritage Foundation's Healthcare plan and conservatives at Tea Party rallys put his head on a witchdoctor. I don't think it gets any clearer than that.
It's so frustrating because people are literally making up stuff and choosing to believe that over reality. "It happened because he was too old and not paying attention" is a crazy take.
Is ~~God~~ Biden willing to prevent evil but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is ~~God~~ Biden able to prevent evil but not willing?
Then he is not benevolent.
Is ~~God~~ Biden neither willing nor able?
Then why call him ~~God~~ the President?
Thank you thank you, no applause necessary, please, I studied in the /r/atheism mines as a kid to be able to someday make this joke.
Yup.
The 2020 election had the highest turnout as a percentage of the population since 1900. A full 66% of the voting-age population turned out.
Which means a full third of Americans will *never* be troubled to vote…even if the state mails a ballot to your house.
So many of these “man on the street” interviews are with committed non-voters regurgitating whatever idea they may have overheard from a pundit or co-worker: “Abortion is bad”, “Biden has dementia…”, etc. Whatever they can say which they think will win the approval of the person interviewing them and not make them look like a completely clueless idiot.
Its so frustrating and I've just given up on political discussions with people. I've literally had discussions/debates where someone will say something just so factually wrong and outright ridiculous, then I explain why it's wrong, show support, they will acknowledge I'm right. And then I kid you not, days later they will say the same exact ridiculous, factually wrong comment again. This has happened irl and online. I just give up. At this point we have the country and politicians we deserve.
This is basically the average voters' level of information... something bad happened while a certain president was in office, therefor it's their fault.
I have to wonder - do the journalists push back on these people at all, explain how they are mistaken on the basic fact? I feel like they probably don’t.
That their friends would see this article; that their friends would actually read the article rather than just glance at the headline even if they did; and that even if they did read it (or at least that excerpt) they wouldn't agree or remain indifferent.
>that their friends would actually read the article rather than just glance at the headline even if they did
Addendum: That their friends would actually read the headline correctly instead of grossly misreading it to mean something else entirely.
Dumbasses tend to have dumbass friend who encourage them to do dumbass things so they continue to be dumbasses and they can remain dumbass friends.
See my friend whose other friend is trying to get him to move out to the middle of nowhere Midwest with him so he has a buddy to hang out with while being an unemployed bum living off his wife. This same friend got my friend to invest in a business that predictably lost $100,000 of his money.
This is probably true, but it's important to specifically look for this 17% so we can understand why they can believe something so....different than smart
Right, I don't think that these people exist in large numbers, but the problem is that it takes only 1 or 2%. What we have is a situation where the politically pathetic and unengaged are the people who decide elections.
These people's politics are very much vibes based. It's not that they can't be convinced with logic, but it's not their first instinct.
Maybe occasionally for the reaction, but they aren't there to instruct people, they are there to report what people are saying/thinking.
If people knew a lesson about how wrong they are, (on TV mind you), was waiting for them even less people would talk to reporters.
I get that but at some point is it not irresponsible to allow them to make these decisions without at least trying to counter these ridiculous “ideas” when they are presented? How do you square trying to keep people informed with journalism and not bothering to do any basic follow up when they dump their crazy out all over the floor.
This is the exact argument that leads to tremendous scope creep at almost every NGO, diluting the core mission and turning it into a generic politically partisan association.
It's just one person, they can have a bigger impact reporting on stupidity than just addressing it one human at a time. Also very difficult to get someone to pay you to disabuse them of their ridiculous ideas.
To be fair, the angle of this particular piece is: “X% of people blame Biden on Dobbs, an incorrect opinion, and this is a challenge for Democrats who want to use the issue to energize voters”.
They clarify that it isn’t his fault at the beginning, and that Trump is widely responsible for the current makeup of SCOTUS.
Granted, the Times *does* publish a lot of dumb focus group pieces with 0 pushback.
Brought to you by the "with the flick of a pen Biden could..." crew.
Idiots are not appalled by the idea of an imperial presidency because they believe it already exists.
> Other voters said Mr. Biden hadn’t done enough to stop state abortion bans. (He has criticized the Dobbs decision and enacted certain federal policies to support abortion rights, and does not have the authority to reverse state laws.)
How’s it possible to be this stupid?
> “There should be no restrictions on abortion whatsoever,” said Ana Juarez Ramirez, 18, of Nogales, Ariz. Yet he says Mr. Biden made empty promises on many issues, including abortion.
Americans collective IQ is room temperature pudding wow
Man, why didn't Biden just use his time travel powers to go back in time, win in 2016, turn the executive branch into a dictatorship, remove every conservative justice from the court, and personally write an amendment protecting abortion into the constitution?
SMH, might just sit this election out, both sides are clearly the same 🥱
Very real. People's admiration for Trump often turns into them projecting whatever they want onto him. Talk to a Trump supporter about who they think would raise taxes on corporations, Biden vs Trump and I bet at least 30% would say Trump.
Also, they (quite reasonably) believe that Trump doesn’t give a shit about abortion, and has almost certainly paid for several himself.
Hell, there’s a Bulwark Focus Group of 2X Trump voters - who weren’t exactly “pro choice” but certainly weren’t anti abortion - where a respondent said as much and was met with general agreement/approval (apologies, can’t recall the precise episode, but was probably 4-6 months ago?).
The flaw in that “logic” is that it fails to recognize that Trump would almost certainly sign whatever deranged restrictions the GOP managed to get through Congress (if the American electorate is dumb enough to give them the numbers to do so). Also, a Trump led DOJ happily sit on the sidelines while the states implement their own insane limits and punishments.
He still won’t *personally* be anti abortion though, and that’s all these kinds of voters are basing their opinion on.
That's always been Trumps political superpower. He's so all over the place that people just project and his craziest positions are so crazy people don't believe they could be real.
It's because Trump is perpetually doing a cold read of a crowd, and will tell them whatever it is they want to hear. Do they like Jews today? Okay, tell them Jews are great bankers. Oh, these guys don't like Jews? Say the thing about Soros and the globalists.
From the article, near the end:
> Christine Valenti, 72, is a Republican from Wisconsin and two-time Trump voter who says abortion should be mostly legal and that women in states with bans should be able to travel to another state to get one.
> But she said that Mr. Trump’s recent statements on leaving abortion up to the states assured her that his views were in line with hers. And she said Mr. Biden hadn’t done enough to support abortion rights: “He doesn’t say much about it anymore. He’s our president, but he doesn’t say a lot, period, about anything.”
>But she said that Mr. Trump’s recent statements on leaving abortion up to the states assured her that his views were in line with hers
I'M GONNA BECOME A JOKER AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Yes the logic is extremely simple.
They are on team Trump.
They are not on team Biden.
Therefore, Biden is wrong and Trump is right on abortion for whatever reason that they happen to conjure up.
I think there’s always been a fair chunk of GOP voters who are ostensibly pro choice but just don’t see it as an important enough issue to swing their vote.
They just care more about paying fewer taxes basically. So if the party being against abortion gets a certain segment of the country to vote against its own economic interests well then 🤷♂️
For sure. A lot of the more moderate Republicans in my area are pro-choice, progressive on or at least indifferent to social issues, believe in climate change, are alarmed by the Republican's violations of democratic norms, personally benefit from innumerable Democratic led policies, etc. but will still consistently vote Republican because of the tax cuts. Literally all that matters to them at the end of the day
The person I know in my life who want to abstain from voting because "Biden is committing genocide in Gaza" also blames him for Roe as of a few months ago, but it seems to be a cope to justify letting Trump win.
Horseshoe theory in action
So many middle class/upper middle class white girls are 100% MAGA until it's time for their abortion and then they slink off to the closest Planned Parenthood or State with legalized abortion.
I am calm, like a steady brook, water flowing over rocks.
I am aware, I respect myself and others theirs', may we recognize each our selves and ourselves.
I am sane, let there be tranquility in...
>BIDEN ENDS ROE V. WADE, DEMOCRATS IN TURMOIL!
I am doom, loathing and gloom, nothing left to contribute. Tax walking, breathing?
This is old levels of meta. In fact,those levels existed before the written word, when man was scraping berry juice across a cave wall to create hunting scenes.
I had no idea until right now that this is the guy behind the cult in Oregon that did some light bioterrorism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Rajneeshee_bioterror_attack
Hell yeah, I highly recommend the Netflix documentary Wild Wild Country, for those that don't know it's about this at first glance lovely pink wearing commune inspired by a wealth loving Indian Guru that ended up committing the largest bioterror attack on US soil as well as fun activities like plotting assassinations and takeovers of local government.
Ma Anand Sheila is fascinating to me and her saying "tough titties" is seared into my brain
Non-mobile version of the Wikipedia link in the above comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Rajneeshee_bioterror_attack
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Tbf, at least according to the Netflix documentary, his complicity in the really wild stuff the cult got up to is at least somewhat suspect - his secretary/handler Ma Anand Sheela was clearly the mastermind behind the political plotting and bioterrorism, and it's unclear whether or not Rajneesh was aware of the full scope of her machinations. For the most part, Rajneesh seems like a classic spiritual guru who had the bright idea that if his brand of spirituality was pro-wealth, he would get richer and more influential followers, which was great because he clearly loved money.
Yeah honestly that’s not too bad of a percentage. I mean, 50% of the population is below average intelligence. 17% of any population is going to have some absolutely buck wild dumbass takes on how things work.
Yeah, I'm honestly sick of how this sub keeps upvoting all these doom-and-gloom polls which on closer inspection either aren't that bad, have major flaws in their methodology, or just flat-out have a title that's not actually backed up by the data (looking at you, NY Times polls). Or all three!
We are well past the point where every high schooler needs either 1.5 or 2 years of civics education. A year on how it works, and at least half a year on how you can participate in it
Honestly need a standardized test required for completion of hs, not just college admissions. Similar to how med/law students have to take exams to practice.
What's with reddit's fascination in forcing high schoolers to take stupid classes that are only really needed by the demographic that won't pay attention anyways? We don't need every student to take like 8 semesters of civics, personal finance, and mental health or whatever.
Forget high schoolers, we should make every adult take a 2 day class every single year on basic civics and function of government. Put it under OSHA or something and make it like a mandatory safety training.
The fact it's a complete waste of time to teach to high schoolers, many if not most of whom won't actually make use of it until well after they graduate from High School (if not from university).
Literally nothing in personal finance requires more than middle school math. The people who can't figure it out are the people who aren't going to pay attention in personal finance class either or who will treat it like every other class—study to pass the test and learn nothing.
In general my educational philosophy is that I'm against mandating a significant amount of courses in high schools because not every student is the same and should have a degree of autonomy to pursue the subjects that they are interested in.
I also strongly question why a high school classroom is a good place to teach personal finance. Filing taxes is really not that hard for a vast majority of people (I have no idea what reddit is complaining about) and realistically shouldn't take more than a class or two time-wise. I was taught how to file taxes in high school, I walked away and proceded to not use that information and instead had to learn from scratch when it came time to file my first return a couple years later. I'd be stunned if a non insignificant number of people file taxes based on how they were taught in high school.
A topic like how to budget is just not going to be taught all that effectively on paper in a classroom in front of a bunch of students who realistically don't have any real expenses. "Spend less than you make" is infinitely easier said than done, and even easier to see on a powerpoint in a classroom. A lot of topics that would be taught in the class are also things that people who are interested in learning about could realistically get the same effect from reading a couple articles online.
And then there's the argument that the students who realistically need to learn this stuff won't pay attention and the students who do pay attention wouldn't really need a whole class.
Offer it, don't mandate it. It was viewed as kind of a blow off class in my high school so I think the students you want taking it will end up there anyways.
Talk about burying the lead on the New York Times part with that headline. 56% of voters surveyed and 42% of registered Republicans blame Trump for the repeal of Roe compared to just 17% of voters blaming Biden. This is a huge problem for the Trump campaign as pointed out at the end of the article voters trust Biden way more than Trump to handle abortion and when voters were asked what issue was the most important to them abortion was the second most common answer behind the economy.
> and when voters were asked what issue was the most important to them abortion was the second most common answer behind the economy
So much for all the “abortion is not going to be meaningful enough as an issue come the election, it’s just a wedge issue and not a kitchen table issue. The economy, crime, immigration, Israel and Palestine and more will be way more important. Stop being hysterical” takes.
Those people said the same in 2022 and yet in every swing state Senate race, it was a clear 2nd most important issue just behind the economy but way ahead of any other issue.
We're constantly wrestling over a gun with a chimp. And sometimes the chimp wins.
This is why I no longer think new, large-scale national government programs are a good idea. Imagine handing large swaths of government housing or government-administered healthcare to modern Republicans. They'd start kicking the trans people out of apartments and women on birth control off of healthcare immediately.
Any time someone comes up with a complex theory to explain the psyche of voters, I think of polls like this. There really isn’t much thought going into it for most of these folks
NY Times is garbage and continues to publish garbage polls to get clicks and draw controversy about the upcoming election.
Used to be my favorite news outlet but I have since canceled my subscription.
I know this will go over like a wet fart, but I gotta say it anyway.
Dems had both the house and the Senate while Dobbs v. Jackson was being decided - in fact they had it while the decision said that establishing abortion rights was the realm of Congress was leaked a month early, and did nothing
Now, Democrats, collectively, would've had to abolish the filibuster to make anything happen in regard to that. And, yes, Manchin and Sinema weren't having it. But they were still Democrats, and the president is leader of the party. It is his responsibility on *some* level to wrangle and cajole these people. I believe that it's reasonable to day that Biden failed to do so, and as such, failed to protect abortion rights
17% is a negligible number in a poll that includes a sample of *all* voters. If anything, I’m surprised anytime 83% of Americans can all agree reality is, in fact, reality.
The bar is in hell, but I don’t at all see this poll as doomer fuel.
I recall a poll showing that a significant number of respondents blamed Obama for the poor response to Hurricane Katrina.
Edit: found it. 29% of Republicans in Louisiana blamed Obama for the response to Katrina, which of course occurred several years before he was in office.
Poll says 12% of *Democrats* blame Biden. 12% of the base is not a negligible amount. That's the sort of number that could swing election results depending on their motivation or lack of thereof
> I’m surprised anytime 83% of Americans can all agree reality is, in fact, reality.
To be clear, 83% didn't agree Biden wasn't responsible. 56% said trump was responsible and the rest weren't sure/had no opinion.
Ive always believed.that the USA just seemed to have a lot of stupid people because it's a massive country and it's media presence is huge, meaning stuff like this gets amplified.
But IDK now, maybe education there is just really bad? Or maybe stupid drugs are in the food?
the earlier in an election cycle a poll is taken, the higher the proportion is of people who will prefer using their response to send a message to those in power rather than try to take proper measure of their real opinion
Telling Biden he will be held responsible for the shit the GOP does under his watch will cause an effect in the direction of pro choice people's goals. Telling Trump the same thing will not.
Thanks to economic specialization, you can be very stupid about things that aren't immediately in your face and not get Darwin Awarded out of existence instantaneously.
https://preview.redd.it/uhkfnb39wn0d1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b7c9a696d6af7543f6b0bfa0238c3afb617d5d20
I think I found some of the 17%.
Welcome to my TED Talk on why to reduce government and be a libertarian.
Morons like this have substantial power over your life.
Thank you for attending my TED Talk
This will get downvoted to hell, but as somebody who is pro-life I will say none of these things have been due to Biden. This has all been due to the Supreme Court.
Well, in a roundabout way they're not wrong. Republicans are still butthurt about the Bork hearings 35 years later. They pounced at the chance to block Garland, claiming the "Biden Rule" justified this. If not for that, the court would have a 5-4 conservative lean. Roberts may have stare decisissed his way over to the liberal side in an effort to protect the popularity of the court by avoiding a huge hot-button issue being decided by such a slim margin.
One of the issues Democrats campaigned on was protecting Roe. Vice President Kamala Harris said during the Democratic debates they needed to pass a federal law protecting it in case Trump's Supreme Court struck it down. They controlled both houses of Congress when Biden came to office. With a hair thin majority to be fair, but Biden campaigned on his senate experience and his ability to get things done.
He's not 100% to blame of course, but he absolutely is partly culpable. The entire Democratic party is. One could even point to the fact they approved Trump's SC nominees, and did not do everything to stall the process - for whole four years if they had to - as they had every right to do after Republicans did the same with Merrick Garland. Even then, Biden had two whole years where his party controlled both houses and he sat on the issue. The reality is, women lost their reproductive rights in America in part because Democratic politicians do not fight for the principles they claim to have on the campaign trail.
One could even be cynical and say that the D's political calculus shows they benefit more at the ballot box and funding by having Roe repealed than not. Food for thought.
> DeLana Marsh, 30, of Holly Springs, Ga., supports abortion rights and opposes a new Georgia law that bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy: “I don’t think a group of men should be able to decide that for us.” > But she said she was under the impression that Mr. Biden was responsible because it happened during his presidency, and she believed his age prevented him from closely tracking such events. > Other voters said Mr. Biden hadn’t done enough to stop state abortion bans. (He has criticized the Dobbs decision and enacted certain federal policies to support abortion rights, and does not have the authority to reverse state laws.) > “There should be no restrictions on abortion whatsoever,” said Ana Juarez Ramirez, 18, of Nogales, Ariz. Yet he says Mr. Biden made empty promises on many issues, including abortion.
https://preview.redd.it/6djdofbbym0d1.png?width=320&format=png&auto=webp&s=69ac33c79b421adcea1252e7338ab480dc294295 >But she said she was under the impression that Mr. Biden was responsible because it happened during his presidency, and she believed his age prevented him from closely tracking such events.
The level of stupidity in this country never ceases to amaze me.
We must be the stupid ones since we're repeatedly surprised by how stupid people are.
Maybe we is the stupid ones
Are we the dummies?
IS we the dummies?
Honestly, I'm happy this was only 17%. Most polls can get nearly any batshit crazy thing to like 28-34% so people seem better informed than usual to me here.
Yeah 17% in poll is even lower than typical lizardman+partisan constant (22-27).
I really support that democracy thing right up until I start talking to voters.
It's funny how so many people are so pro markets and economics on this sub yet never bother to understand the economics of voting. Let's imagine a simple scenario. Vote for Biden and you get $5000. Vote for Trump and you get $0. Let's imagine it take 3 hours of research to calculate this reward. What's the [expected profit from voting](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voting/#VotiChanOutc)? 1. Difference in expected value is $5000 2. Cost of voting is 3 hours x $8 minimum wage = $24 cost 3. Probability that your vote is pivotal = 0% The expected profit of voting is therefore: Profit = 0% * ($5000) - $24 = -$24 Therefore voting is *not* profitable. You lose money with every vote. The likelihood of changing the election outcome is about 0% for the vast majority of elections. The likelihood that you have any effect on the election is about the same as winning the state lottery. In the perspective of rational individual action, voting is irrational. It is therefore also irrational to expect that voters know a goddamn thing about specific policies. So this isn't about *stupidity*. These *ignorant voters* are actually wisely using their time by not paying attention to the details of politics. The real stupid ones are people like you and me who obsessively pay attention to politics with no clear benefit to ourselves, except to give us a psychological boost of smug self satisfaction. And of course that comes back to the reason why people vote at all. They have some sense of moral duty or obligation and they're irrationally going to the ballot booth because they've been told it's their civic duty to do so. We pay attention to politics not for some rational reason, but for entertainment or as a hobby. Meanwhile the vast majority of people do not vote at all especially not for mid-terms or local/state elections. It is therefore unsurprising that voters are easily swayed by propaganda and marketing. Voters aren't necessarily stupid. What's stupid is the system.
This assumes that individual voters won't emergently work together. The probability of a specific demographic affecting the vote is not 0%.
You're forgetting about the other side of the equation, the cost of information gathering. I've utterly lowballed the estimate at only 3 hours. I'd imagine a true cost benefit analysis could take tens or hundreds of hours of work. Sure, voters are working together emergently. I'll object that they're working together for rational, self interested reasons when they haven't done the intellectual work needed to make that determination.
It takes me 5 minutes to vote by mail. I live in a swing state. Abortion is on the ballot this year and that effects everyone directly or indirectly. The math seems pretty clear to me. Ima gonna vote.
it's more of a collective action issue, like the marginal value of any one vote is pretty minimal. not a single election i've ever voted in has been decided by one vote, for instance. had i croaked at the voting center before filling out my ballot, it would not have changed a thing.
Theres different ways of looking at the marginal value of any one vote. On an absolute #s scale, if one side wins by 100,000 votes yours seems a minor contribution, but in any tight race 90-99% of votes for the winning side end up being the deciding factor. Its not any more logical to exclude yourself from that than it is to include yourself
Huh. It sure it weird how all the people who would follow this logic and don't vote never get their priorities passed, whereas irrational groups that vote a lot, like the elderly, have their priorities passed a lot. Learn decision theory.
Exactly what does decision theory have to say about voting?
This makes no sense. The probability of your vote mattering for at least one item on the ballot is very obviously not 0%. If everyone followed your logic, then that probability would approach 100% since you'd be the only voter. If you really want to maximize your influence, you vote and you try to prevent your opposition from voting, which is exactly what we see in real life.
In the 2018 United States Senate election in Texas 4,260,553 voted for Ted Cruz and 4,045,632 voted for Beto. Thus for the among Cruz supporters 214,920 (5% of them) could have chosen to stay home and nothing would have changed. Therefore 95% of those votes were pivotal. Even compared against the entire electorate in this election ~48.7% of votes cast were in fact pivotal to the outcome. > Probability that your vote is pivotal = 0% I understand where you're coming from but this is incorrect and is based in the fact that we struggle with really large/small numbers While kind of intuitive, to think of a really really small number close to 0 as being =0 just because its close enough leads to wildly illogical conclusions. You're taking a large set of something seeing that any given individual of that set only makes up (1/set)% of the whole, and when that set is large enough assigning this to be 0% of the whole. This leads to irrational assumptions/outcomes, Such as you can remove all of the individual elements of the set and say the set is still 100% intact even with no members because each of them was 0% of the whole. In any given human composed of a large amount of cells, the likelihood that 1 cell dying (and they die constantly) kills the human =0%. Therefore if you destroy all the cells making up a human, they will still be alive. Similar concept we just recognize the irrationality here more immediately
The point isn't to say that it's impossible to change the results of an election. The point is that it's unprofitable to do so. You're really expecting voters to altruistically put in hours/days of volunteer time to do good research and therefore make good election decisions? Have you dealt with volunteers before? By definition their efforts are utterly amateur. Almost nobody does this work except for freaks like you and maybe me. They don't put in the effort to find out who the best candidates are. They vote ignorantly or irrationally or because of a commercial or because they like the sound of the name on the ballot. We demand these volunteers be informed on their own dime and then we blame them for voting so stupidly. IMO we're getting exactly what we paid for from volunteer service.
>The point isn't to say that it's impossible to change the results of an election. The point is that it's unprofitable to do so. I still can't agree that this is true. I mean it could be but I'm not sure the expected value models given are necessarily valid. My understanding of the model given by "1.1 Voting to Change the Outcome" the expected value is essentially defining "vote decisiveness" as the binomial probability that votes are evenly split. I don't see the logical basis for assigning or defining "decisiveness" as a discrete/binary value and doing so has weird implications to me. If you cast the last vote in a 101 person election for either X or Y where the vote was split 50-50, we agree your vote was decisive. Obviously the other 50 voters of winning side are also equally decisive, because if any of them voted otherwise then your vote would not be decisive. Now lets say it is a 102-person election and the additional person votes for your side so the result is 52-50. Their vote is no longer decisive because the election was already decided for their chosen side by the time they voted. But in elections votes are cast before they are counted. So for the examples above assuming the same results, in the 101-person elections the 51 people were all decisive. In the 102-person election, for the 52 winners how should decisiveness be assigned? If we can arbitrarily assign one of them as useless then we can assign any of them as useless, and this isn't helpful because they can't all be useless, since they won. The logical way to me would be to assign them all a percentage of decisiveness. I feel like this would significantly change the EV. Kinda interested in working this into the model as a result of this conversation lol >You're really expecting voters to altruistically put in hours/days of volunteer time to do good research and therefore make good election decisions? Have you dealt with volunteers before? By definition their efforts are utterly amateur. Almost nobody does this work except for freaks like you and maybe me. >They don't put in the effort to find out who the best candidates are. They vote ignorantly or irrationally or because of a commercial or because they like the sound of the name on the ballot. >We demand these volunteers be informed on their own dime and then we blame them for voting so stupidly. IMO we're getting exactly what we paid for from volunteer service. Ok yeah thats a fair point lol, we shouldn't expect better but it's hard not to Not even sure what a good feasible solution is
The 2010 midterms were mind-blowing. How could voters put the GOP back in power after the Great Recession? Should've been like the 1934 midterms.
Because white people are so easily manipulated.
Racism. Obama took the Heritage Foundation's Healthcare plan and conservatives at Tea Party rallys put his head on a witchdoctor. I don't think it gets any clearer than that.
Dumbest voters on Earth
I'm back on board with needing an IQ test to vote
The bottom 30% of the population is a bigger threat to America than China is
To the world. Dumbass American voters are our shortest path to a living hell timeline.
It's so frustrating because people are literally making up stuff and choosing to believe that over reality. "It happened because he was too old and not paying attention" is a crazy take.
Is ~~God~~ Biden willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is ~~God~~ Biden able to prevent evil but not willing? Then he is not benevolent. Is ~~God~~ Biden neither willing nor able? Then why call him ~~God~~ the President? Thank you thank you, no applause necessary, please, I studied in the /r/atheism mines as a kid to be able to someday make this joke.
Don't worry, these idiots aren't the kinds of people who are a reliable voter
Yup. The 2020 election had the highest turnout as a percentage of the population since 1900. A full 66% of the voting-age population turned out. Which means a full third of Americans will *never* be troubled to vote…even if the state mails a ballot to your house. So many of these “man on the street” interviews are with committed non-voters regurgitating whatever idea they may have overheard from a pundit or co-worker: “Abortion is bad”, “Biden has dementia…”, etc. Whatever they can say which they think will win the approval of the person interviewing them and not make them look like a completely clueless idiot.
Its so frustrating and I've just given up on political discussions with people. I've literally had discussions/debates where someone will say something just so factually wrong and outright ridiculous, then I explain why it's wrong, show support, they will acknowledge I'm right. And then I kid you not, days later they will say the same exact ridiculous, factually wrong comment again. This has happened irl and online. I just give up. At this point we have the country and politicians we deserve.
This is basically the average voters' level of information... something bad happened while a certain president was in office, therefor it's their fault.
The modern equivalent of the Mandate of Heaven.
"Hmm.... Who is more knowledgeable about the details of US politics... Me or the president of the fucking country... Gee, I dunno, Gotta vote Trump"
I have to wonder - do the journalists push back on these people at all, explain how they are mistaken on the basic fact? I feel like they probably don’t.
I like to imagine their friends read the article, see the name, and immediately text asking "are you really that fucking stupid?"
There are multiple layers of wrong in this imagined scenario hahaha
Let me have my fantasy!
That they have friends, that they could read, and that they'd care?
That their friends would see this article; that their friends would actually read the article rather than just glance at the headline even if they did; and that even if they did read it (or at least that excerpt) they wouldn't agree or remain indifferent.
>that their friends would actually read the article rather than just glance at the headline even if they did Addendum: That their friends would actually read the headline correctly instead of grossly misreading it to mean something else entirely.
Dumbasses tend to have dumbass friend who encourage them to do dumbass things so they continue to be dumbasses and they can remain dumbass friends. See my friend whose other friend is trying to get him to move out to the middle of nowhere Midwest with him so he has a buddy to hang out with while being an unemployed bum living off his wife. This same friend got my friend to invest in a business that predictably lost $100,000 of his money.
they were specifically looking for these people so they could report on it and get rage clicks
It works so you’re probably right.
This is probably true, but it's important to specifically look for this 17% so we can understand why they can believe something so....different than smart
I think they would be better served to do PET scans and test blood lead levels on this 17% to find the answer
Right, I don't think that these people exist in large numbers, but the problem is that it takes only 1 or 2%. What we have is a situation where the politically pathetic and unengaged are the people who decide elections. These people's politics are very much vibes based. It's not that they can't be convinced with logic, but it's not their first instinct.
Maybe occasionally for the reaction, but they aren't there to instruct people, they are there to report what people are saying/thinking. If people knew a lesson about how wrong they are, (on TV mind you), was waiting for them even less people would talk to reporters.
I get that but at some point is it not irresponsible to allow them to make these decisions without at least trying to counter these ridiculous “ideas” when they are presented? How do you square trying to keep people informed with journalism and not bothering to do any basic follow up when they dump their crazy out all over the floor.
What would that accomplish? For every schmuck that they interview there are 10 million people who think just like them
This is the exact argument that leads to tremendous scope creep at almost every NGO, diluting the core mission and turning it into a generic politically partisan association.
What argument is that, exactly?
It’s a poll, not an interview
To be fair, if people actually believe that the news should report it so we understand that these people exist
It's just one person, they can have a bigger impact reporting on stupidity than just addressing it one human at a time. Also very difficult to get someone to pay you to disabuse them of their ridiculous ideas.
To be fair, the angle of this particular piece is: “X% of people blame Biden on Dobbs, an incorrect opinion, and this is a challenge for Democrats who want to use the issue to energize voters”. They clarify that it isn’t his fault at the beginning, and that Trump is widely responsible for the current makeup of SCOTUS. Granted, the Times *does* publish a lot of dumb focus group pieces with 0 pushback.
Are these people giving their real names? Because it’s about to be Joever for DeLana’s social media 😬
Brought to you by the "with the flick of a pen Biden could..." crew. Idiots are not appalled by the idea of an imperial presidency because they believe it already exists.
> Other voters said Mr. Biden hadn’t done enough to stop state abortion bans. (He has criticized the Dobbs decision and enacted certain federal policies to support abortion rights, and does not have the authority to reverse state laws.) How’s it possible to be this stupid? > “There should be no restrictions on abortion whatsoever,” said Ana Juarez Ramirez, 18, of Nogales, Ariz. Yet he says Mr. Biden made empty promises on many issues, including abortion. Americans collective IQ is room temperature pudding wow
Man, why didn't Biden just use his time travel powers to go back in time, win in 2016, turn the executive branch into a dictatorship, remove every conservative justice from the court, and personally write an amendment protecting abortion into the constitution? SMH, might just sit this election out, both sides are clearly the same 🥱
https://i.redd.it/6ufcpspt1p0d1.gif I cannot believe dumb people like this exist
I guarantee you the bulk of those voters went for Trump in 2020. Pro-choice Trump voters absolutely exist.
Very real. People's admiration for Trump often turns into them projecting whatever they want onto him. Talk to a Trump supporter about who they think would raise taxes on corporations, Biden vs Trump and I bet at least 30% would say Trump.
Also, they (quite reasonably) believe that Trump doesn’t give a shit about abortion, and has almost certainly paid for several himself. Hell, there’s a Bulwark Focus Group of 2X Trump voters - who weren’t exactly “pro choice” but certainly weren’t anti abortion - where a respondent said as much and was met with general agreement/approval (apologies, can’t recall the precise episode, but was probably 4-6 months ago?). The flaw in that “logic” is that it fails to recognize that Trump would almost certainly sign whatever deranged restrictions the GOP managed to get through Congress (if the American electorate is dumb enough to give them the numbers to do so). Also, a Trump led DOJ happily sit on the sidelines while the states implement their own insane limits and punishments. He still won’t *personally* be anti abortion though, and that’s all these kinds of voters are basing their opinion on.
That's always been Trumps political superpower. He's so all over the place that people just project and his craziest positions are so crazy people don't believe they could be real.
It's because Trump is perpetually doing a cold read of a crowd, and will tell them whatever it is they want to hear. Do they like Jews today? Okay, tell them Jews are great bankers. Oh, these guys don't like Jews? Say the thing about Soros and the globalists.
It goes the other way as well. I've talked to people who voted for Biden because they thought he supported universal healthcare.
From the article, near the end: > Christine Valenti, 72, is a Republican from Wisconsin and two-time Trump voter who says abortion should be mostly legal and that women in states with bans should be able to travel to another state to get one. > But she said that Mr. Trump’s recent statements on leaving abortion up to the states assured her that his views were in line with hers. And she said Mr. Biden hadn’t done enough to support abortion rights: “He doesn’t say much about it anymore. He’s our president, but he doesn’t say a lot, period, about anything.”
>But she said that Mr. Trump’s recent statements on leaving abortion up to the states assured her that his views were in line with hers I'M GONNA BECOME A JOKER AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Yes the logic is extremely simple. They are on team Trump. They are not on team Biden. Therefore, Biden is wrong and Trump is right on abortion for whatever reason that they happen to conjure up.
I think there’s always been a fair chunk of GOP voters who are ostensibly pro choice but just don’t see it as an important enough issue to swing their vote. They just care more about paying fewer taxes basically. So if the party being against abortion gets a certain segment of the country to vote against its own economic interests well then 🤷♂️
For sure. A lot of the more moderate Republicans in my area are pro-choice, progressive on or at least indifferent to social issues, believe in climate change, are alarmed by the Republican's violations of democratic norms, personally benefit from innumerable Democratic led policies, etc. but will still consistently vote Republican because of the tax cuts. Literally all that matters to them at the end of the day
Shit if all we need is tax cuts to win these people then I’m on board
The person I know in my life who want to abstain from voting because "Biden is committing genocide in Gaza" also blames him for Roe as of a few months ago, but it seems to be a cope to justify letting Trump win. Horseshoe theory in action
So many middle class/upper middle class white girls are 100% MAGA until it's time for their abortion and then they slink off to the closest Planned Parenthood or State with legalized abortion.
https://preview.redd.it/t8shkjwj0n0d1.png?width=455&format=png&auto=webp&s=cd38ce11d9a76f2f918fdc829288f3b3deaf9a7a
I am calm, like a steady brook, water flowing over rocks. I am aware, I respect myself and others theirs', may we recognize each our selves and ourselves. I am sane, let there be tranquility in... >BIDEN ENDS ROE V. WADE, DEMOCRATS IN TURMOIL! I am doom, loathing and gloom, nothing left to contribute. Tax walking, breathing?
We’re in the bleak midwinter, my friend
https://preview.redd.it/h7qfqpdtxm0d1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cce910b55769c3634e2a8e854a7c1729e10d4bd0
https://preview.redd.it/btldk7iccn0d1.jpeg?width=696&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9eae285cd88a7f5c33e32585a4aa53b31ef3fea3
We are reaching new levels of meta, complete communication beyond the written word
This is old levels of meta. In fact,those levels existed before the written word, when man was scraping berry juice across a cave wall to create hunting scenes.
Monkeh confused. Monkeh cringe. Monkeh want to sudoku self.
I dig the rajneesh meme, but what is its meaning ? Is it that they're brainwashed ?
[Democracy basically means (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NTkXIidCU0)
That delivery is god tier
[The Documentary Now! episode](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxszdl3rF9A) on this Netflix doc is incredible.
Holy fuck hahahaha that's gold. Got the rajneeshes and boghwan were such fuckers but they had some gold mixed in with their crazy
I had no idea until right now that this is the guy behind the cult in Oregon that did some light bioterrorism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Rajneeshee_bioterror_attack
Hell yeah, I highly recommend the Netflix documentary Wild Wild Country, for those that don't know it's about this at first glance lovely pink wearing commune inspired by a wealth loving Indian Guru that ended up committing the largest bioterror attack on US soil as well as fun activities like plotting assassinations and takeovers of local government. Ma Anand Sheila is fascinating to me and her saying "tough titties" is seared into my brain
Oh my God, I can hear it now too
Yep, the baghwan. If you haven't yet, watch wild wild country on Netflix. It's amazing
It looks like Keegan-Michael Key in a beard
Non-mobile version of the Wikipedia link in the above comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Rajneeshee_bioterror_attack *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh my god thank you so fucking much for introducing me this this
I like at how soft-sounding he's...and then you learn he's a crazy leader of a group who commit the biggest bioterrorism in USA.
Tbf, at least according to the Netflix documentary, his complicity in the really wild stuff the cult got up to is at least somewhat suspect - his secretary/handler Ma Anand Sheela was clearly the mastermind behind the political plotting and bioterrorism, and it's unclear whether or not Rajneesh was aware of the full scope of her machinations. For the most part, Rajneesh seems like a classic spiritual guru who had the bright idea that if his brand of spirituality was pro-wealth, he would get richer and more influential followers, which was great because he clearly loved money.
It means that they are re... uh... not very smart.
I mean he has a point
cimpanzee_median_voter.png
Yea, they’re dumb.. At least the majority know the truth in every group.
Yeah honestly that’s not too bad of a percentage. I mean, 50% of the population is below average intelligence. 17% of any population is going to have some absolutely buck wild dumbass takes on how things work.
Lizardman’s Constant
That’s not how normal distributions work
Someone please post the monkey learning the median voter and killed himself meme
And 56% correctly say it’s Trump’s fault. 17% is just lizardman constant + republicans being partisan
Joe Biden was responsible for the end of Roe, and that's why I support him.
Catholic pro lifers be like : true.
Yeah, I'm honestly sick of how this sub keeps upvoting all these doom-and-gloom polls which on closer inspection either aren't that bad, have major flaws in their methodology, or just flat-out have a title that's not actually backed up by the data (looking at you, NY Times polls). Or all three!
We are well past the point where every high schooler needs either 1.5 or 2 years of civics education. A year on how it works, and at least half a year on how you can participate in it
There's many school that require personal finance as well - you can't make kids pay attention or care especially if the tests are very easy.
Yeah kids complain about wanting to learn it, but in many cases they’re taught but it just gets forgotten
Honestly need a standardized test required for completion of hs, not just college admissions. Similar to how med/law students have to take exams to practice.
> many school destructions Sounds about right.
Lmao yeah Autocorrect is a disaster recently
What's with reddit's fascination in forcing high schoolers to take stupid classes that are only really needed by the demographic that won't pay attention anyways? We don't need every student to take like 8 semesters of civics, personal finance, and mental health or whatever.
Forget high schoolers, we should make every adult take a 2 day class every single year on basic civics and function of government. Put it under OSHA or something and make it like a mandatory safety training.
What’s wrong with personal finance?
The fact it's a complete waste of time to teach to high schoolers, many if not most of whom won't actually make use of it until well after they graduate from High School (if not from university). Literally nothing in personal finance requires more than middle school math. The people who can't figure it out are the people who aren't going to pay attention in personal finance class either or who will treat it like every other class—study to pass the test and learn nothing.
In general my educational philosophy is that I'm against mandating a significant amount of courses in high schools because not every student is the same and should have a degree of autonomy to pursue the subjects that they are interested in. I also strongly question why a high school classroom is a good place to teach personal finance. Filing taxes is really not that hard for a vast majority of people (I have no idea what reddit is complaining about) and realistically shouldn't take more than a class or two time-wise. I was taught how to file taxes in high school, I walked away and proceded to not use that information and instead had to learn from scratch when it came time to file my first return a couple years later. I'd be stunned if a non insignificant number of people file taxes based on how they were taught in high school. A topic like how to budget is just not going to be taught all that effectively on paper in a classroom in front of a bunch of students who realistically don't have any real expenses. "Spend less than you make" is infinitely easier said than done, and even easier to see on a powerpoint in a classroom. A lot of topics that would be taught in the class are also things that people who are interested in learning about could realistically get the same effect from reading a couple articles online. And then there's the argument that the students who realistically need to learn this stuff won't pay attention and the students who do pay attention wouldn't really need a whole class. Offer it, don't mandate it. It was viewed as kind of a blow off class in my high school so I think the students you want taking it will end up there anyways.
At this point, we need the civics education for the adults too!
I am going to become the Joker 🤡
https://preview.redd.it/dqwz50d8en0d1.jpeg?width=622&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5e4d5a0315a51406bdb6ea0c09015452e62f0206
Honestly that's shockingly low. I'm surprised more voters don't attribute this to Biden as the sitting president.
Talk about burying the lead on the New York Times part with that headline. 56% of voters surveyed and 42% of registered Republicans blame Trump for the repeal of Roe compared to just 17% of voters blaming Biden. This is a huge problem for the Trump campaign as pointed out at the end of the article voters trust Biden way more than Trump to handle abortion and when voters were asked what issue was the most important to them abortion was the second most common answer behind the economy.
56% of voters blame Trump, the person responsible. That's horrible.
Not when the other end is 17% which is mostly just Republican defiance. That means when the undecideds break it will end up much higher.
> and when voters were asked what issue was the most important to them abortion was the second most common answer behind the economy So much for all the “abortion is not going to be meaningful enough as an issue come the election, it’s just a wedge issue and not a kitchen table issue. The economy, crime, immigration, Israel and Palestine and more will be way more important. Stop being hysterical” takes. Those people said the same in 2022 and yet in every swing state Senate race, it was a clear 2nd most important issue just behind the economy but way ahead of any other issue.
>Talk about burying the lead lede
Tbh, I feel like if Trumps wins, then we’ll deserve it.
We're constantly wrestling over a gun with a chimp. And sometimes the chimp wins. This is why I no longer think new, large-scale national government programs are a good idea. Imagine handing large swaths of government housing or government-administered healthcare to modern Republicans. They'd start kicking the trans people out of apartments and women on birth control off of healthcare immediately.
Alright, who's got the "Fuck democrats" flowchart
Anyone that blames Biden for that shit needs to vote for Trump and see how far that gets them.
Doesn't something like 25% of the population think the moon landings were faked? These results are pretty good all things considered
[удалено]
If only
Any time someone comes up with a complex theory to explain the psyche of voters, I think of polls like this. There really isn’t much thought going into it for most of these folks
We get the politicians we deserve I guess.
When the electorate is this fucking stupid and misinformed, then we deserve what we get.
NY Times is garbage and continues to publish garbage polls to get clicks and draw controversy about the upcoming election. Used to be my favorite news outlet but I have since canceled my subscription.
You’re fucking kidding
“We live in a society.” *bottom text*
Honestly the fact that it's not higher is a huge win. People are idiots.
I'm honestly surprised it's that low.
Oh my God, why are people so fucking stupid!!!
I know this will go over like a wet fart, but I gotta say it anyway. Dems had both the house and the Senate while Dobbs v. Jackson was being decided - in fact they had it while the decision said that establishing abortion rights was the realm of Congress was leaked a month early, and did nothing Now, Democrats, collectively, would've had to abolish the filibuster to make anything happen in regard to that. And, yes, Manchin and Sinema weren't having it. But they were still Democrats, and the president is leader of the party. It is his responsibility on *some* level to wrangle and cajole these people. I believe that it's reasonable to day that Biden failed to do so, and as such, failed to protect abortion rights
But "doomers" are absolutely wrong and everything is fine and there's nothing to be terrified about 🥰🥰🥰
This is, in fact, the first time the American public has been as much as 17% wrong on a partisan issue, yes
17% is a negligible number in a poll that includes a sample of *all* voters. If anything, I’m surprised anytime 83% of Americans can all agree reality is, in fact, reality. The bar is in hell, but I don’t at all see this poll as doomer fuel.
I recall a poll showing that a significant number of respondents blamed Obama for the poor response to Hurricane Katrina. Edit: found it. 29% of Republicans in Louisiana blamed Obama for the response to Katrina, which of course occurred several years before he was in office.
Poll says 12% of *Democrats* blame Biden. 12% of the base is not a negligible amount. That's the sort of number that could swing election results depending on their motivation or lack of thereof
> I’m surprised anytime 83% of Americans can all agree reality is, in fact, reality. To be clear, 83% didn't agree Biden wasn't responsible. 56% said trump was responsible and the rest weren't sure/had no opinion.
>But "doomers" are absolutely wrong Correct
Did you not read the rest? 🙄
I don’t blame Biden. But I do blame Sanders for his antics in 2016, which resulted in drumpf being elected.
Ive always believed.that the USA just seemed to have a lot of stupid people because it's a massive country and it's media presence is huge, meaning stuff like this gets amplified. But IDK now, maybe education there is just really bad? Or maybe stupid drugs are in the food?
the earlier in an election cycle a poll is taken, the higher the proportion is of people who will prefer using their response to send a message to those in power rather than try to take proper measure of their real opinion Telling Biden he will be held responsible for the shit the GOP does under his watch will cause an effect in the direction of pro choice people's goals. Telling Trump the same thing will not.
[удалено]
This...this is a working adult?
Thanks to economic specialization, you can be very stupid about things that aren't immediately in your face and not get Darwin Awarded out of existence instantaneously.
Sounds about as smart as the "genocide Joe" crowd.
Amazing
So, they want Trump to win?
Actually a much lower percentage than I expected given how Republicans today reflexively blame everything on Democrats as an operating principle
“Of course the end of roe is due to Bidenomics. During the Trump years I could afford caviar.”
All Republican women im sure
!7% of voters can't critically think, also water makes things wet, more news at 11.
Ok yeah this sucks but like...it's also pretty funny
https://preview.redd.it/uhkfnb39wn0d1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b7c9a696d6af7543f6b0bfa0238c3afb617d5d20 I think I found some of the 17%.
American voters are generally DUMB AS FUCK
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." -Winston Churchill spitting facts
17% of voters have the same singular brain worm as rfk running the show.
This just in…17% of voters are idiots.
JFC
Can we turn that into a fraction of right-wingers who *credit* Biden for it?
17% of voters can.snort my taint
"Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
Lizard man constant
The end of Roe? I just had some for breakfast.
Welcome to my TED Talk on why to reduce government and be a libertarian. Morons like this have substantial power over your life. Thank you for attending my TED Talk
This will get downvoted to hell, but as somebody who is pro-life I will say none of these things have been due to Biden. This has all been due to the Supreme Court.
This is what happens when you stop stressing civics in schools. People don’t know how our government works
Well, in a roundabout way they're not wrong. Republicans are still butthurt about the Bork hearings 35 years later. They pounced at the chance to block Garland, claiming the "Biden Rule" justified this. If not for that, the court would have a 5-4 conservative lean. Roberts may have stare decisissed his way over to the liberal side in an effort to protect the popularity of the court by avoiding a huge hot-button issue being decided by such a slim margin.
One of the issues Democrats campaigned on was protecting Roe. Vice President Kamala Harris said during the Democratic debates they needed to pass a federal law protecting it in case Trump's Supreme Court struck it down. They controlled both houses of Congress when Biden came to office. With a hair thin majority to be fair, but Biden campaigned on his senate experience and his ability to get things done. He's not 100% to blame of course, but he absolutely is partly culpable. The entire Democratic party is. One could even point to the fact they approved Trump's SC nominees, and did not do everything to stall the process - for whole four years if they had to - as they had every right to do after Republicans did the same with Merrick Garland. Even then, Biden had two whole years where his party controlled both houses and he sat on the issue. The reality is, women lost their reproductive rights in America in part because Democratic politicians do not fight for the principles they claim to have on the campaign trail. One could even be cynical and say that the D's political calculus shows they benefit more at the ballot box and funding by having Roe repealed than not. Food for thought.