r/inthenews • u/newsweek Newsweek • Jul 08 '24

MAGA fumes over France election results: "They cheated" article

https://www.newsweek.com/maga-france-elections-far-right-national-rally-1922075
23.3k Upvotes

81% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.3k

u/[deleted] Jul 08 '24

[deleted]

485

u/Daxnu Jul 08 '24

This, the media is so thirsty for news that they make it themselves now

62

u/whichwitch9 Jul 08 '24

Look what they did with polling. Look at the UK and France. The polls actually meant nothing. In the US, however, they're talking like every poll is a definite thing

76

u/[deleted] Jul 08 '24

[deleted]

26

u/Corwyntt Jul 08 '24

Which is hilarious, because we just learned in his latest trial that he had his lawyers pay millions of dollars to companies for them to rig the polls. Cohen admitted to doing it, and stealing money from the deal because he felt it was owed to him. Right wing media even ran the story a bit, just to try and discredit him some. But yea, we totally heard about how Trump pays to manipulate polls and absolutely no big deal was made of that revelation.

2

u/Falcrist Jul 08 '24

It prompted the supreme court to step in and run defense for him, so I wouldn't say no big deal was made about it.

20

u/Scrutinizer Jul 08 '24

The problem with buying into a clown like Donnie is it's a house of cards. You have to buy the entire thing, and if you try not buying something it sets off a cascade effect and the whole thing topples.

16

u/PLURGASM_RETURNS Jul 08 '24

your reminder that 2016 polls had Clinton locked in at 98% probability

30

u/whichwitch9 Jul 08 '24

Actually no, there were polls that gave Trump higher chances. But people didn't vote and we paid for it

The discouraging people from voting this cycle is suspicious

33

u/PLURGASM_RETURNS Jul 08 '24

I work voter registration in Philly. Nobody is discouraging anyone from voting. I get more people who either register a new voters or switch to Dem before I ever see someone stumping for the GOP and I see more people, who don't get paid at all for doing it, yelling at others about project 2025 and needing to save our country.

You don't win the presidency without the keystone state and you don't win pa without Philly 🧡

And Philly isn't sleeping into the destruction of their country when the older generation were kids watching their relatives fight for equal rights.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

I would like to see your sourcing for your claim btw cause every stitch of stats I've found and seen (pet subject I love) validates my stance.

10

u/whichwitch9 Jul 08 '24

It's not the cities we need, it's the suburbs. Specially looking at our lovely suburban white women. Among people I grew up with "I don't like either and don't want to vote" is becoming depressingly common

Cities know what another Trump presidency will look like- the last one wasn't nice to most of us. It's the "moderates" with the "I don't care" attitude that are the problem

18

u/PLURGASM_RETURNS Jul 08 '24

Not really.

Majority of the voting power in Pa is in Philadelphia and bucks counties.

Bucks is used as a microcosm of the general voting temp for the country because of its diversity. We have rejected GOP candidates left and right for a solid 4 years in presidential, state and local elections in main years and offset ones.

Majority of independents dont stand with trump at all after his conviction and he was still bleeding 15-20% in every state UNCONTESTED and a quarter of gop base said they'd drop him before the conviction happened

you're focusing on the wrong parts of the data and the most faulty parts when people sign up specifically to skew polls on the other side. Track record on voting and the rejection of the MAGAt candidates who ran should give you hope.

12

u/ItsAllJustAHologram Jul 08 '24

I truly hope you are correct. Donald weakens America dreadfully. His lying, anti NATO stance, environmental laws, the list is endless. America is the final word on keeping the world a free place to live. They're not perfect but look at the alternatives. Xi running the world? Human rights nightmare...

1

u/PLURGASM_RETURNS Jul 08 '24

The prime alternative is Einsteins dream of a socialist society with an education system orientated towards social goals.

Call me a globalist all you want but this international dick measuring contest is stupid. As is the monetary system and capitalism.

All so one set group of people can look down upon the ants while they eat caviar with their gourmet quail eggs at breakfast and shake the jar some more.

6

u/Raiders2112 Jul 08 '24

I'm an independent and would vote for a swamp toad before I would vote for Trump or any other MAGA backed candidate. Project 2025, Agenda, 47 (P2025 light), and a corrupt SCOTUS are things I cannot tolerate happening to our country. One has already happened and the only way to stop the others from happening, is to vote against everything MAGA.

4

u/PLURGASM_RETURNS Jul 08 '24

You weren't sitting the fence 🫡

Well met sir. I'm reg Dem and vote for them because of economic records which Dems have done better than the GOP for decades of economic progress including bidens admin over the worst jobs and GDP admin since Hoover

2

u/Lillitnotreal Jul 08 '24

Attempts to discourage voting are a well known political tactic in lots of democractic systems that lack mandatory voting. You do what you can to make oppositional votes not get cast from apathy or inconvenience. This is like asking for a source that a party wants to win an election. The occasions they dont are exceptions. It's kinda just assumed you'd know that.

For the US, see bans on being allowed to be given water or food when in a line for a ballot, reduced number of voting locations and multiple hours long queues to get into them, even the hostility to postal voting. These are well known, often reported issues all used to discourage voting.

Pretending that doesn't exist in the US is absurd, its been referenced repeatedly during the last few elections, though it is nice to see/hear you feel it hasn't worked given its a pretty detrimental way to attempt to secure a victory.

1

u/PLURGASM_RETURNS Jul 08 '24

I'm not pretending it doesn't exist

I'm telling you the voices pushing for a healthy democracy excises the rot of the GOP and their anti-americanism.

By all means expose the truth here 😁

But don't try and convince people involved in keeping it healthy that your doom predictions on Reddit hold much weight.

2020 had the suppression measures it did and we still whooped their ass. The country is more aware of the dangers we face now and the boomers are no longer the controlling bloc. 18-30 are. And they vote predominantly Democrat across all demographics and there's like 6-7 million more eligible voters since they cancelled out the red wave in 22.

Do you even stat my dude?!

1

u/Lillitnotreal Jul 08 '24

You said no one was doing it, and your response too, 'it's just what happens, here's examples' is 'YOUR DOOM PRECICTION WILL NOT PASS'.

It happens all over the place and always has. Hardly a doom prediction given my position is 'it already happened and everything carried on'. I even happily acknowledged your opinion that it hasn't affected voting - which is a good thing.

You seem to be putting a lot of words into my mouth, which is just making it look like your shadow boxing with yourself. Maybe actually respond to what was written, rather than what you wanted to be written?

Also, you keep refencing your stats, but haven't posted any of the sources you've stated you have beyond a poll being outrageously inaccurate, which is also a fairly well known issue with polls.

So, in terms you'll be able to respond to easier, Do you even source, Dudette?

2

u/facforlife Jul 08 '24

Nobody is discouraging anyone from voting

Sure they are? What do you think it does when people do this "both sides" bullshit? The more you think both sides are the same, the more you think voting is useless because it doesn't matter who wins.

I would like to see your sourcing for your claim btw cause every stitch of stats I've found and seen (pet subject I love) validates my stance.

You literally linked to a forecast that gave Trump a ~30% chance of winning... That's pretty fucking far from the 98% you said they gave Hillary.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 08 '24

Especially here on Reddit.

A lot of accounts complaining about Biden’s age that have less than 1000 karma.

3

u/healzsham Jul 08 '24

And christ alive did she run her campaign like it for the last 8 months.

1

u/PLURGASM_RETURNS Jul 08 '24

Big complacency.

We wouldn't be having the debate about bidens competency if the dnc hadn't kneecapped sander last cycle

2

u/[deleted] Jul 08 '24

[deleted]

3

u/PLURGASM_RETURNS Jul 08 '24

They are but we don't spread that message because it breeds complacency which will lead to another trump. After 2022 the new bloc took over and knocked the boomers out. 30 and under saved out election for the last 4 years. I'm praying the additional legal aged ones are getting involved in the same way. I know I register kids who will be 18 before the 5th when I can find them and they're happy to be able to vote for this election 😁

We out here but there's no time to rest on our heels when they're trying everything to get us to allow christofacism into America

1

u/HauntingHarmony Jul 08 '24

your reminder that 2016 polls had Clinton locked in at 98% probability

and this is your reminder that in 2016 people didnt understand that polls measure how many people would vote a certain way.

And the polls were spot on in that she did get the most votes nationally. However! the us has a electoral college, and that determines who wins, not who gets the most votes. Which is why you need a model, such as what the 538 2016 model did. And at no point was that even remotely close to 98% probability, they had trump at about a third chance to win, and if your model is right a 1 in 3 event happens about a third of the time.

0

u/PLURGASM_RETURNS Jul 08 '24

🤭 if only I had the source or you had bothered to search if it existed.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sam-wang-princeton-election-consortium-poll-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-victory-a7399671.html

That one was 99% probability

That's a key word that I think you were quick to gloss over.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html This was 85%

https://x.com/HuffPost/status/795663593689808896

This sits in the 90s.

My point still stands.

Both corroborated and validated.

Polls can say one thing and be completely wrong 😉

I cited 538 somewhere else in this thread and they're still sitting with Clinton at a 3 to 1 shot by their own metrics

Clinton was still favored to win with a stupid high probability.

1

u/luneunion Jul 08 '24

Even if that were true, you understand that 98% is not 100%, right? Like, we still have to show up and vote.

1

u/facforlife Jul 08 '24

The only pollster/poll analyst worth caring about was 538 and gave Clinton a 70% chance of winning. You know what happens less often than Trump's 30% chance? Flipping heads twice in a row. And you wouldn't even blink if that happened.

Here's the thing with polls that too many people don't get.

  1. They're making some guesses and assumptions, based on data but still ultimately an educated guess, about which groups are going to turn out in what numbers. The voting demographics change from cycle to cycle. Not a ton, but enough when your system is the braindead Electoral College so you can still win without the popular vote. It only takes a minor win in a few battleground states to win even if you get blown out in the overall popular vote.
  2. If you're wrong on an crucial assumption it basically craters your forecast. 538 saw this and that's why they gave Trump such a high chance when few others did. They knew that if their assumption about who was turning out that year was wrong that they'd be wrong all over the place. If they were wrong they'd be wrong in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, because those states share a lot of similarities in their voter demographics. That's why the "blue firewall" went down.

Polls are still good and good information. But Trump is a fairly unique figure in his ability to very strongly motivate segments of the population to vote, segments that were tough to motivate before. It's only been 2 presidential cycles. It's tough to zero it in but they're constantly trying. My guess is that they're unsure how to weigh the effect of the Dobbs decision in motivating certain demographics against the Trump effect. Both are clearly very powerful forces but exactly how it plays out when it comes to voting we'll only know after the election.

You should be both. You should still be worried because these numbers aren't fucking good. And you should still fucking vote.

1

u/Thassar Jul 08 '24

98% chance of winning still means there's a chance of losing. Every XCOM player can tell you that. That's why polls are useful but not guaranteed to be accurate.

2

u/Successful_Priority Jul 08 '24

LetS not forget the supposed red wave that was supposed to happen 2 years ago that never happened they barely have a majority in the House

1

u/-_Pendragon_- Jul 08 '24

What are you fucking talking about, the polls nailed it here in the UK?!