Trump still would have won in 2024 even if everyone had turned out to vote, Pew finds

This is why it will take decades to undo the damage to the reputation of the United States on the world stage.
The world cannot count on Americans to vote for sanity.
- Considered how many countries was couped or bombed by the united snakes, the reputation ahould have been so low for decades
- I think it was pretty perceptive of people that they can notice us being trapped in a slow decline and voting for chaos to get us off this path for better or worse.
  Same thing happened in 2016. When people are disillusioned they vote for change, when the Democrats don't offer positive change then they vote for the Republicans who always cause negative change.
  
  From the outside looking in, I'm waiting for evidence that Americans want to scrub fascism out of their politics.
  I'm not optimistic.

This study is conducted using the Pew research American Trends Panel which is roughly 10,000 people around the US. Invitation is sent by mail. From this pool they randomly select participants for the study. While this panel is meant to be representative we must ask ourselves what kind of person is signing up for the Pew research American Trends Panel. Especially because invitation sent through physical mail. Full info in case I misread something
- Thank you, I was questioning the results too, and your info perfectly illustrates why. I’d bet dollars to doughnuts that the most difficult eligible voters to predict are the kind of people who don’t check their mail, don’t sign up for research surveys, and don’t want to tell you who they’d vote for. Eligible non-voters didn’t care enough to vote, so why would they cast a ballot with Pew research?

Pretty sure most poling data has been "adjusted" to fit the narrative of the oligarchy at this point. Think for yourselves kids.
- Idk. I want to agree, but that's how we got Qanon. Thinking for yourself without data is just inviting biases to control what you believe to be true.
  I want it to be true that America would not have actually chosen Trump, but the older I get the more I see, the more I realize we're surrounded by severely under informed, misinformed, disinformed, igorant, selfish, people. The moment nuance is required to actually understand a situation, you can bet it won't be. :(
  
  I want it to be true that America would not have actually chosen Trump, but the older I get the more I see, the more I realize we're surrounded by severely under informed, misinformed, disinformed, igorant, selfish, people. The moment nuance is required to actually understand a situation, you can bet it won't be. :(
  By design, unfortunately :(
  
  Reminder, QANON started on the internet as a joke making fun of Republicans.
  
  There is lots of data though. Trump had absolutely nothing and got laughed out of courts by judges he appointed.
  https://electiontruthalliance.org/2024-us-election-analysis
  
  There is a difference between attesting that people wouldn’t have voted for Trump and attesting that this survey does not prove anything. The latter seems to be the only thing we can deduce here.
- This was the Pew Research Center, the most credible polling organization in the US, and in the article it explains how they compensate for potential biases.
  They even surveyed 9 times the usual sample size to make sure this was a legitimate trend.
  The article is from NPR, the most credible news outlet in the US.
  People need to snap out of this denial that the US didn't willingly vote in a fascist because we were sick of stagnation
  
  But what if the data itself is the problem? The Rockland county tampering case may show that the voting machines did not report the actual vote. In that case, we have very good analysis of incorrect data.
  
  the most credible news outlet in the US
  The most credible corporate-funded media outlet in the US.
  
  The article is from NPR, the most credible news outlet in the US.
  No.
  This was the Pew Research Center, the most credible polling organization in the US
  The most credible car wash is still just a car wash. It’s not magic. Polls get it wrong all the time. 9,000 chosen respondents is as many people as there were in the local grocery store between 8am-5pm. It’s nothing. Yeah they fixed it with math, sure. Because they have all the variables and every one is dead-on. No.
  People need to snap out of this denial that the US didn't willingly vote in a fascist because we were sick of stagnation
  What
  
  Polling is not the result, and doesn’t explain the discrepancies in the data.
  
  “Most credible polling organization in the US” means just about nothing these days, in my opinion.
  
  Data is all fine and dandy, but these datasets are created from a very small control group. When is the last time you picked up the phone from a random unknown or unlisted phone? I haven't gotten one of these calls in well over 20 years. The only people answering these are those who still have landlines or don't care to screen out these mubers. These are the same people that are constantly falling for phone scams and losing their savings.
  Polling data may as well be the bible. While it is all fine and dandy on the outside, someone in the back room has carefully adjusted content to fit their own needs and goals.

Fucking NPR goddammit.
The survey of almost 9,000 voters was conducted in the weeks after the 2024 presidential election.
You don’t see any problems with that?

Just remember information can be manipulated to say anything you want.
- Just a reminder that it is, in fact, possible for the claim to be true as well.
- Information... And people.
  A lot of people that voted for Trump probably wouldn't actually want what he actually brought to the table, but through decades of neo-lib propaganda and ignorance to non economical issues and general right wing media extreme bias thought it was "the right choice"
- If find it's a bigger problem when people are presented with valid credible data and then still refuse to accept reality.
  This thread consists of people in denyal about a survey that was conducted by the most credible organization that could have done it.

Most people vote on vibes - that’s what the data always shows. They follow their peers, community, maybe a trusted authority figure. They are not, and have never been informed on issues, and they aren’t interested in learning more about them. I think those of us who do try to stay informed fall into the trap of thinking “if these folks were only better educated about this issue they would vote differently”. But that has never been and will never be true. Gotta project better vibes, baby!
- The more charismatic candidate wins almost every time. The parties and candidates already analyzed which issues will get them the votes, they have whole teams breaking down which positions poll the best in which county.
  The actual result is based on which candidate voters would rather have a beer with. The elections are mostly decided by swing voters. Swing voters don't have strong opinions on the issues which is why they are swing voters
  
  Swing voters are not really the sole political deciders. They matter extra because they effectively count as two votes, but base turnout is often a larger effect than the actual swing voters.
  About 15% of Biden's voters did not vote, 5% switched to Trump and 1% voted for someone else. That's compared to 11% of 2020 Trump voters, who sat it out, 3% who switched to Harris and 1% who went for someone else.
  So of 2020 voters, Harris lost a net 4% to the couch and 2% to switching. You can count the switchers twice because they were a lost vote for Harris, so that's basically a wash. Trump then won a net 1% of people who didn't vote in 2020 (which coincidentally is roughly the same size as an individual candidate's 2020 voters). So doing better with any of those groups could have swung the election.
  
  Exactly - this is a pretty good overview of the idea and the research behind it. We’ve always wanted to believe that people are fundamentally rational beings but it just isn’t true lol.

“The only correct study pew has ever done.” - Trump

I do wonder whether the story here is that the non-voting population largely mirrors the popular vote. This was the first time in their survey the Republican won the popular vote and the first time their non-voting respondents went toward the Republican candidate.
Which isn't entirely surprising, as both that's probably driving the vibes and many non-voters are not apolitical, but just don't vote because their elections are not competitive.

Maybe they saw trump as the lesser evil.

How could they have gotten this information without literally asking everyone in the country?
- Statistics is hard.
  
  I’m just saying that a good chunk of nonvoters have never voted, so there is no preexisting pattern to predict what they would do. For the last 4 elections, the polls have been largely incorrect. It just seems like a massive assumption to say if every single person voted, he still would have won, particularly when you consider the statistical anomalies in the swing states this last election.
  
  Statistics is barely applicable.
  That doesn’t stop everyone from doing it 100% quantitatively though.
- You really don't need to survey many people to get statistically significant results, assuming your sample is truly random. For a population of 340 million, you only need to randomly sample ~2500 people to get a 95% confidence interval with a 2% margin of error.
  A sample of 9000 people would get you closer to a 99%+ confidence interval.
  
  Does a pre-cleared set of volunteers who willingly gave their demographic information in order to participate in online polls count as a random sample?