By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
firebush03 1 day ago
Edit Thread
RolStoppable said:
firebush03 said:

…so, we’re switching topics? Okay lol. To address this point, my claim that Harris is in a tricky position with Michigan shouldn’t be interpreted as I deny the polls: Yes, Harris is leading in all midwestern states. What you have to keep in mind here is that dismissing the polls altogether is far different than considering potential for MoE. I believe these polls are 95% reliable…not 100%. If 2016/2020 are any indicators, there is legitimate reason to be skeptical of a Harris victory solely according to the polls (especially in a state such as Michigan where the error between poll and actual was around 4pts in favor of Rep both in 2016/2020).

I hope this response will be helpful in you providing a response to my prior msg btw. No point in switching between topics unless concessions are made and agreement (to an extent) is reached.

This was always about Michigan, because it's the only state where we have seen voters make a statement in the primaries. Everywhere else the suffering of Gaza is not going to change voters' opinions on who they'll vote to a degree that could potentially matter.

I answered your question about what my evidence is, so what else do you want? I even mentioned the margin of error myself.

The evidence for Biden reaching a ceasefire agreement in Israel is the behavior of Netanyahu who wants war, not peace; he has kept turning down ceasefire proposals several times and is now in the process of expanding his war. Biden would have to make such big moves that the Democrats' pro-Israel voters would be at risk, and make no mistake, the pro-Israel group is much bigger than the pro-Gaza group in the USA. Any big change in Biden's policies right now would be used against Harris's candidacy.

"I answered your question about what my evidence is, so what else do you want?"

I'm seeing it now: "Ryuu's post with the most recent swing state polls is the evidence. Harris leads in Michigan in all polls; within the margin of error, but it's a lead nonetheless. You made the claim that Michigan is lost for the Democrats and you have yet to provide any evidence; a nationwide poll doesn't qualify as evidence." Misunderstanding on my part: It read as though you were trying to say that actually *I'm* the one who denies polls b/c if you look at them, Harris is winning...yet I said it was "joever" (though it should be noted this response I added afterwards).

We're on the same page again...and I think my response here may explain why I even got confused in the first place: Why would we be looking at election polling data to determine the popularity of enforcing a ceasefire in the Middle East, as opposed to the polls which literally ask a series of point-blank questions solely focused on it? If you're skeptical of the poll I linked, you can (a.) pull up other polls from non-partisan organizations, or (b.) examine the techniques they utilized as a means to reduce extraneous variables and thereby avoid incorrect solutions. I know you specifically mentioned wording-of-the-question bias, but it should be noted the explicit questions which were asked are what I explicitly quoted: "is providing too much aid to Israel", and "support putting restrictions on US military aid to Israel". The poll asks many questions, so if you are looking for different answers, here's a link to the poll again.

Additionally, the results of the poll I'm fixated on are specifically from the non-Republican participants. Those people are not coming to Harris in any situation: It only makes sense to focus on legitimate people who may vote for or against in Harris in response to a ceasefire agreement, not hardliners who are adament in their opposition of Harris.