It isn’t going to matter: The genocide in Israel became simultaneously an issue large enough to decide an election and yet small enough to ignore as a political issue.
How ironic considering that the entire argument you continually put forward is that the genocide in Israel is simultaneously an issue large enough to decide an election, yet small enough to evade any responsibility for deciding an election.
Of course, I’m not sure what else should be expected from someone who plays apologist for Ukrainian genocide while pretending to decry Palestinian genocide.
The issue was always large enough to impact the election by causing low turnout and abstention across the electorate.
Yes, which resulted in the fascist victory we are now ‘enjoying’. Thank you for agreeing with the point I was making. I mean, sure, you had to play your usual bullshit games first, but what’s a ZombiFrancis comment without carrying water for literal fascists?
The protest and third party voters, who turned out and did not abstain, were small enough not to decide the election.
Good thing the source I provided was talking largely about abstainers, but that would require actually reading the source instead of projection.
That’s captured in the margin of error. Setting aside the validity of their argument, a few hundred people in an online poll is all you need to make population-wide statements.
Margin of error assumes the sampling is random and representative, which of course is very hard to achieve in practice and especially with a laughably small sample size. Not really some magic number of truth as you’d like to present it.
You can start making statistical conclusions from as few as 3 samples and from around 30 you’re only getting square root improvements in margin of error. 600+ respondents is more than enough if there’s no selection bias, which I’d trust YouGov to be able to handle.
https://www.imeupolicyproject.org/postelection-polling
2020 Biden voters abstaining in 2024 on the Palestine issue alone were larger than the 2024 margin of defeat.
Which swing states is this true for?
It isn’t going to matter: The genocide in Israel became simultaneously an issue large enough to decide an election and yet small enough to ignore as a political issue.
The argumentation swings both ways as needed.
How ironic considering that the entire argument you continually put forward is that the genocide in Israel is simultaneously an issue large enough to decide an election, yet small enough to evade any responsibility for deciding an election.
Of course, I’m not sure what else should be expected from someone who plays apologist for Ukrainian genocide while pretending to decry Palestinian genocide.
The issue was always large enough to impact the election by causing low turnout and abstention across the electorate.
The protest and third party voters, who turned out and did not abstain, were small enough not to decide the election.
This isn’t rocket surgery like hating waffles.
Yes, which resulted in the fascist victory we are now ‘enjoying’. Thank you for agreeing with the point I was making. I mean, sure, you had to play your usual bullshit games first, but what’s a ZombiFrancis comment without carrying water for literal fascists?
Good thing the source I provided was talking largely about abstainers, but that would require actually reading the source instead of projection.
Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Michigan.
Source? Your link doesn’t include this information (or even the absolute numbers of the people it polled).
Literally just click the toplines or crosstabs links at the very top of the page.
That’s a sample of a few hundred people in an online poll. Not the most convincing evidence
That’s captured in the margin of error. Setting aside the validity of their argument, a few hundred people in an online poll is all you need to make population-wide statements.
Margin of error assumes the sampling is random and representative, which of course is very hard to achieve in practice and especially with a laughably small sample size. Not really some magic number of truth as you’d like to present it.
You’re right about keeping an eye on sampling but you don’t know much about stats if you think 600+ respondents isn’t enough to draw any conclusions.
You can start making statistical conclusions from as few as 3 samples and from around 30 you’re only getting square root improvements in margin of error. 600+ respondents is more than enough if there’s no selection bias, which I’d trust YouGov to be able to handle.