2024 Political Polls

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 2K
  • Views: 55K
  • Politics 
Sixty-six percent of eligible voters actually voted in 2020.

In 2020, 168.31 million Americans were registered to vote; 158.43 million Americans voted. Ninety-four percent of registered voters voted.

In 2016, 136.67 million voters voted; we had 157.6 million registered voters; turn-out was 86.7%.

In 2012, 84.3% of registered voters voted.

The Redfield poll has 86% of REGISTERED voters with an opinion at this point. That doesn’t seem to be an outlier. That said, Redfield isn’t the best polling outfit.
 
nycfan said:
“… While far short of majorities, significant shares of Americans accept several false claims made by Trump.

32% say it is true that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.

33% believe that "Trump recommended that 10,000 national guard troops be sent to the Capitol on January 6, 2021, but Nancy Pelosi turned this suggestion down."

21% believe that "in certain states, it is legal for a doctor to perform an abortion after birth." And 20% believe "immigrants are abducting and eating dogs and cats in Springfield, Ohio."

These assertions divide Trump supporters and that division varies from claim to claim.

75% of Trump supporters believe that Pelosi turned down Trump's request for National Guard troops on January 6, 9% do not, and 16% are unsure.

67% of Trump supporters believe the 2020 election was stolen from him, 12% do not, and 22% are unsure.

Just 36% of Trump supporters believe doctors can perform abortions after birth in certain states, 26% do not, and 38% are unsure.

And just 43% of Trump supporters believe immigrants are abducting and eating dogs and cats in Ohio, while 16% do not, and 40% are unsure.

today.yougov.com

Kamala Harris' debate win hasn't yet won her new voters, but more like her and see her as qualified | YouGov

Harris was the clear winner of the debate but her narrow lead over Trump in the election was the same after the debate as before it.
today.yougov.com today.yougov.com
Click to expand...
But we’re not supposed to say anything disrespectful about their intelligence, because that is the sort of attitude that has alienated them from mainstream America, right?

I’m done with that horseshit. They can either accept reality or fuck right off.
 
nycfan said:
More from the Annenberg Civics poll:

"... Less than half of Americans can name most of the rights protected under the First Amendment and under two-thirds can name the three branches of government, according to the Annenberg Constitution Day Civics Survey, released annually since 2014. ...

  • Nearly two-thirds of Americans (65%) can name all three branches of government.
  • Asked what specific rights are guaranteed by the First Amendment, nearly three-quarters of respondents (74%) name freedom of speech. The other four rights are recalled by far fewer people: the second most-often cited, freedom of religion, is named by just 39%.
  • A little over half of U.S. adults know which party controls the Senate and which controls the House of Representatives.
  • Over 80% of Americans support prohibiting Supreme Court justices from participating in cases in which they have “personal or financial interests.” Nearly as many people support creation of a formal ethics code for the court. ..."
Click to expand...
Amy Coney Barrett couldn't name all of the rights protected by the First Amendment at her congressional hearing, so I'm willing to cut Americans some slack.
 
BlooVooDoo said:
But we’re not supposed to say anything disrespectful about their intelligence, because that is the sort of attitude that has alienated them from mainstream America, right?

I’m done with that horseshit. They can either accept reality or fuck right off.
Click to expand...
It's like this, though: is it really their intelligence?

If the MAGAs were as dumb in real life as they are about politics, nothing would get done. I had an electrician at my house yesterday. He definitely looked, talked and had a car outfitted like a Trumper, without any specific references of course. I'd put good money on him being a Trumper (for one thing, white working class men are overwhelmingly likely to be MAGA, especially in my state, even if we ignore all the other stuff). He did his job. My new breaker was installed, and as far as I know, it was done correctly.

We've also talked about all the indisputably smart people who are MAGA. My dad was a surgeon, and a good one too judging by his clientele (which included a couple of Saudi emirs). And he's MAGA to the core. He believes all the bullshit. If Trump was his patient, my dad wouldn't take what he says at face value. He'd order tests to see what was really going on, which is to say he would look for the facts. But if Trump is his presidential candidate, it's all different.

See, I think that there are multiple meanings of the word "stupid," and only one of them is a strict antonym for intelligence. When we say MAGA is stupid, we're not necessarily saying they lack intelligence. We are talking about the way they are using their intelligence, which is, shall we say, highly suboptimal.
 
Paine said:
My dental hygienist always spouts off about some conspiracy theory or another while she’s cleaning my teeth. Normally I’d argue against someone doing that, but I find myself reticent to do so when there are sharp instruments in and around my face lol
Click to expand...
I am on my wife's dental insurance and they changed carriers this school year so I found a new dentist who is in their network. I recently went there for the first time, and the hygienist was deaf. It was among the best experiences in a dental chair ever. No one was trying to carry on an unnecessary conversation which sped up the process. She read lips and I could mostly understand what she was saying to me. She was very practiced at communicating with hearing patients and did a fine job. And yes, the dentist is a UNC Dental School grad, but a Wake Forest undergrad.
 
superrific said:
It's like this, though: is it really their intelligence?

If the MAGAs were as dumb in real life as they are about politics, nothing would get done. I had an electrician at my house yesterday. He definitely looked, talked and had a car outfitted like a Trumper, without any specific references of course. I'd put good money on him being a Trumper (for one thing, white working class men are overwhelmingly likely to be MAGA, especially in my state, even if we ignore all the other stuff). He did his job. My new breaker was installed, and as far as I know, it was done correctly.

We've also talked about all the indisputably smart people who are MAGA. My dad was a surgeon, and a good one too judging by his clientele (which included a couple of Saudi emirs). And he's MAGA to the core. He believes all the bullshit. If Trump was his patient, my dad wouldn't take what he says at face value. He'd order tests to see what was really going on, which is to say he would look for the facts. But if Trump is his presidential candidate, it's all different.

See, I think that there are multiple meanings of the word "stupid," and only one of them is a strict antonym for intelligence. When we say MAGA is stupid, we're not necessarily saying they lack intelligence. We are talking about the way they are using their intelligence, which is, shall we say, highly suboptimal.
Click to expand...
In his 1913 work the Psychology of Revolution, Le Bon lays this out in gory detail..

Among the most important factors of history one was preponderant—the factor of beliefs. How are these beliefs born, and are they really rational and voluntary, as was long taught? Are they not rather unconscious and independent of all reason? A difficult question, which I dealt with in my last book, Opinions and Beliefs.

So long as psychology regards beliefs as voluntary and rational they will remain inexplicable. Having proved that they are usually irrational and always involuntary, I was able to propound the solution of this important problem; how it was that beliefs which no reason could justify were admitted without difficulty by the most enlightened spirits of all ages.

The solution of the historical difficulties which had so long been sought was thenceforth obvious. I arrived at the conclusion that beside the rational logic which conditions thought, and was formerly regarded as our sole guide, there exist very different forms of logic: affective logic, collective logic, and mystic logic, which usually overrule the reason and engender the generative impulses of our conduct.

This fact well established, it seemed to me evident that if a great number of historical events are often uncomprehended, it is because we seek to interpret them in the light of a logic which in reality has very little influence upon their genesis.
...
The historians who have judged the events of the French Revolution in the name of rational logic could not comprehend them, since this form of logic did not dictate them. As the actors of these events themselves understood them but ill, we shall not be far from the truth in saying that our Revolution was a phenomenon equally misunderstood by those who caused it and by those who have described it. At no period of history did men so little grasp the present, so greatly ignore the past, and so poorly divine the future.
...

The mind of the true Jacobin, at the time of the Revolution as now, was composed of elements which we must analyse if we are to understand its function.

This analysis will show in the first place that the Jacobin is not a rationalist, but a believer. Far from building his belief on reason, he moulds reason to his belief, and although his speeches are steeped in rationalism he employs it very little in his thoughts and his conduct.

A Jacobin who reasoned as much as he is accused of reasoning would be sometimes accessible to the voice of reason. Now, observation proves, from the time of the Revolution to our own days, that the Jacobin is never influenced by reasoning, however just, and it is precisely here that his strength resides.

And why is he not accessible to reason? Simply because his vision of things, always extremely limited, does not permit of his resisting the powerful and passionate impulses which guide him.

These two elements, feeble reason and strong passions, would not of themselves constitute the Jacobin mind. There is another.

Passion supports convictions, but hardly ever creates them. Now, the true Jacobin has forcible convictions. What is to sustain them? Here the mystic elements whose action we have already studied come into play. The Jacobin is a mystic who has replaced the old divinities by new gods. Imbued with the power of words and formulae, he attributes to these a mysterious power. To serve these exigent divinities he does not shrink from the most violent measures. The laws voted by our modern Jacobins furnish a proof of this fact.

The Jacobin mentality is found especially in narrow and passionate characters. It implies, in fact, a narrow and rigid mind, inaccessible to all criticism and to all considerations but those of faith.

The mystic and affective elements which dominate the mind of the Jacobin condemn him to an extreme simplicity. Grasping only the superficial relations of things, nothing prevents him from taking for realities the chimerical images which are born of his imagination. The sequence of phenomena and their results escape him. He never raises his eyes from his dream.

As we may see, it is not by the development of his logical reason that the Jacobin exceeds. He possesses very little logic of this kind, and therefore he often becomes dangerous. Where a superior man would hesitate or halt the Jacobin, who has placed his feeble reason at the service of his impulses, goes forward with certainty.

So that although the Jacobin is a great reasoner, this does not mean that he is in the least guided by reason. When he imagines he is being led by reason it is really his passions and his mysticism that lead him. Like all those who are convinced and hemmed in by the walls of faith, he can never escape therefrom.

So if you're looking for a "Rosetta Stone: that might help you understand what we're seeing in America today, LeBon's The Psychology of Revolution is maybe not a bad place to start.

(And here I'll credit the Anonymous $.99 Amazon E-book on Hypnosis author as the one who turned me on to Le Bon - What precisely was up with that guy is a mystery I have yet to crack).
 
Last edited:
Ddseddse said:
In his 1913 work the Psychology of Revolution, Le Bon lays this out in gory detail..

Among the most important factors of history one was preponderant—the factor of beliefs. How are these beliefs born, and are they really rational and voluntary, as was long taught? Are they not rather unconscious and independent of all reason? A difficult question, which I dealt with in my last book, Opinions and Beliefs.

So long as psychology regards beliefs as voluntary and rational they will remain inexplicable. Having proved that they are usually irrational and always involuntary, I was able to propound the solution of this important problem; how it was that beliefs which no reason could justify were admitted without difficulty by the most enlightened spirits of all ages.

The solution of the historical difficulties which had so long been sought was thenceforth obvious. I arrived at the conclusion that beside the rational logic which conditions thought, and was formerly regarded as our sole guide, there exist very different forms of logic: affective logic, collective logic, and mystic logic, which usually overrule the reason and engender the generative impulses of our conduct.

This fact well established, it seemed to me evident that if a great number of historical events are often uncomprehended, it is because we seek to interpret them in the light of a logic which in reality has very little influence upon their genesis.
...
The historians who have judged the events of the French Revolution in the name of rational logic could not comprehend them, since this form of logic did not dictate them. As the actors of these events themselves understood them but ill, we shall not be far from the truth in saying that our Revolution was a phenomenon equally misunderstood by those who caused it and by those who have described it. At no period of history did men so little grasp the present, so greatly ignore the past, and so poorly divine the future.
...

The mind of the true Jacobin, at the time of the Revolution as now, was composed of elements which we must analyse if we are to understand its function.

This analysis will show in the first place that the Jacobin is not a rationalist, but a believer. Far from building his belief on reason, he moulds reason to his belief, and although his speeches are steeped in rationalism he employs it very little in his thoughts and his conduct.

A Jacobin who reasoned as much as he is accused of reasoning would be sometimes accessible to the voice of reason. Now, observation proves, from the time of the Revolution to our own days, that the Jacobin is never influenced by reasoning, however just, and it is precisely here that his strength resides.

And why is he not accessible to reason? Simply because his vision of things, always extremely limited, does not permit of his resisting the powerful and passionate impulses which guide him.

These two elements, feeble reason and strong passions, would not of themselves constitute the Jacobin mind. There is another.

Passion supports convictions, but hardly ever creates them. Now, the true Jacobin has forcible convictions. What is to sustain them? Here the mystic elements whose action we have already studied come into play. The Jacobin is a mystic who has replaced the old divinities by new gods. Imbued with the power of words and formulae, he attributes to these a mysterious power. To serve these exigent divinities he does not shrink from the most violent measures. The laws voted by our modern Jacobins furnish a proof of this fact.

The Jacobin mentality is found especially in narrow and passionate characters. It implies, in fact, a narrow and rigid mind, inaccessible to all criticism and to all considerations but those of faith.

The mystic and affective elements which dominate the mind of the Jacobin condemn him to an extreme simplicity. Grasping only the superficial relations of things, nothing prevents him from taking for realities the chimerical images which are born of his imagination. The sequence of phenomena and their results escape him. He never raises his eyes from his dream.

As we may see, it is not by the development of his logical reason that the Jacobin exceeds. He possesses very little logic of this kind, and therefore he often becomes dangerous. Where a superior man would hesitate or halt the Jacobin, who has placed his feeble reason at the service of his impulses, goes forward with certainty.

So that although the Jacobin is a great reasoner, this does not mean that he is in the least guided by reason. When he imagines he is being led by reason it is really his passions and his mysticism that lead him. Like all those who are convinced and hemmed in by the walls of faith, he can never escape therefrom.

So if you're looking for a "Rosetta Stone: that might help you understand what we're seeing in America today, LeBon's The Psychology of Revolution is maybe not a bad place to start.

(And here I'll credit the Anonymous $.99 Amazon E-book on Hypnosis author as the one who turned me on to Le Bon - What precisely was up with that guy is a mystery I have yet to crack).
Click to expand...
I have never been able to get into Le Bon because he was a reactionary and basically the impetus for his work on crowd psychology was prompted more or less by the question (I'm simplifying) "why aren't the masses satisfied with their condition in life." And his answer was that they were just mentally deficient. His description of "Jacobins" is so much like contemporary attitudes toward women that I just can't stomach it. You read this as a condemnation of the MAGA mind, but he would be a MAGA today. He'd be a Claremont Institute dickhead.

Plus, most of his valuable ideas have been refined and incorporated into modern psychological discourse. And if one needs to read a lay account, Eric Hoffer's The True Believer says the same thing and less offensively, though Hoffer also irritates me for some of the same reasons.
 
www.minnpost.com

MinnPost poll: Harris has narrow lead over Trump in Minnesota

But the MinnPost poll results also show she’s behind where Biden was in support among Greater Minnesota and suburban voters.
www.minnpost.com www.minnpost.com

MinnPost poll shows Harris has narrow lead over Trump in Minnesota​


But the results also show she’s behind where Biden was in support among Greater Minnesota and suburban voters.

"Vice President Kamala Harris is narrowly leading former President Donald Trump 49% to 44% in Minnesota, according to a new MinnPost-Embold Research poll.

The poll, conducted before the candidates faced off in a debate Wednesday evening, surveyed 1,616 likely 2024 voters in Minnesota Sept. 4-8 and has a margin of error of +/- 2.8 percentage points. Embold Research pollster Jessica Mason said that could mean it’s an even tighter race, but said “we would still consider Kamala to be leading this race in Minnesota.”

... In a similar poll Embold Research conducted for MinnPost late last year, Biden performed better than Harris in both Greater Minnesota (20 points behind Trump) and the suburbs (eight points ahead of Trump) but worse than Harris in Minneapolis and St. Paul (58% to Trump’s 26%). Statewide, Biden’s lead over Trump was within that poll’s margin of error. ..."
 
nycfan said:
www.minnpost.com

MinnPost poll: Harris has narrow lead over Trump in Minnesota

But the MinnPost poll results also show she’s behind where Biden was in support among Greater Minnesota and suburban voters.
www.minnpost.com www.minnpost.com

MinnPost poll shows Harris has narrow lead over Trump in Minnesota​


But the results also show she’s behind where Biden was in support among Greater Minnesota and suburban voters.

"Vice President Kamala Harris is narrowly leading former President Donald Trump 49% to 44% in Minnesota, according to a new MinnPost-Embold Research poll.

The poll, conducted before the candidates faced off in a debate Wednesday evening, surveyed 1,616 likely 2024 voters in Minnesota Sept. 4-8 and has a margin of error of +/- 2.8 percentage points. Embold Research pollster Jessica Mason said that could mean it’s an even tighter race, but said “we would still consider Kamala to be leading this race in Minnesota.”

... In a similar poll Embold Research conducted for MinnPost late last year, Biden performed better than Harris in both Greater Minnesota (20 points behind Trump) and the suburbs (eight points ahead of Trump) but worse than Harris in Minneapolis and St. Paul (58% to Trump’s 26%). Statewide, Biden’s lead over Trump was within that poll’s margin of error. ..."
Click to expand...
Donald Trump GIF by Election 2016

We all know Minneapolis was burned to the ground and no longer exists, so this is obviously fake.
 
superrific said:
I have never been able to get into Le Bon because he was a reactionary and basically the impetus for his work on crowd psychology was prompted more or less by the question (I'm simplifying) "why aren't the masses satisfied with their condition in life." And his answer was that they were just mentally deficient. His description of "Jacobins" is so much like contemporary attitudes toward women that I just can't stomach it. You read this as a condemnation of the MAGA mind, but he would be a MAGA today. He'd be a Claremont Institute dickhead.

Plus, most of his valuable ideas have been refined and incorporated into modern psychological discourse. And if one needs to read a lay account, Eric Hoffer's The True Believer says the same thing and less offensively, though Hoffer also irritates me for some of the same reasons.
Click to expand...
There are much more problematic passages than that one, but those I'm going to generously chalk up to "he was a product of his time".

I will also agree he's being incredibly pompous with his "The solution of the historical difficulties which had so long been sought was thenceforth obvious..." follow by yeah, well duh, humans are emotional creatures.

You may have read this differently that I did (or may have read other Le Bon works where it's famed differently), but I didn't read The Psychology of Revolution to say "effective and/or mystical logic" are out of bounds, any less a valid human experience, or evolutionary maladaptive that reasoned logic (and if he did say that, I'd think he was full of shit). I read it (the full work, not the quotes I quickly pulled) more as saying here is how these types of logic either get hacked, or otherwise put into a self reaffirming feedback loop, and understanding this is helpful in understanding the inherent illogic we see in revolutions, and the imperviousness to rational logic of the participants in a revolution.

To Le Bon's credit he describes the the crowd psychology (or revolutionary fervor) as a neutral force as easily directed towards heroism and altruism as it is towards fury and destruction. Principally he describes the nature of groups operating under affective logic as taking on the characteristics of the group's leader (for good or ill). Which again has an obvious modern parallel, and though if it doesn't excuse MAGA from it's excesses, at least provides a framework for understanding why otherwise decent people are ok with things we see as monstrous (e.g. child separation policy).

And lastly it's described as a temporary condition which can come and go, one that we are all susceptible to, not ,matter how intelligent. Any one suggesting this phenomenon is an inherent characteristic is patently an asshole (do skip his chapter on races :rolleyes:).

At the end of the day I think all of this supports your original point, these people aren't actually stupid. They are operating in a (hopefully temporary) emotive state state where their rational faculties are largely suppressed when it comes to matters concerning the central beliefs of the group they belong too.

But maybe I'm being too generous to Le Bon? I'll check out Hoffer.
 
nycfan said:
www.minnpost.com

MinnPost poll: Harris has narrow lead over Trump in Minnesota

But the MinnPost poll results also show she’s behind where Biden was in support among Greater Minnesota and suburban voters.
www.minnpost.com www.minnpost.com

MinnPost poll shows Harris has narrow lead over Trump in Minnesota​


But the results also show she’s behind where Biden was in support among Greater Minnesota and suburban voters.

"Vice President Kamala Harris is narrowly leading former President Donald Trump 49% to 44% in Minnesota, according to a new MinnPost-Embold Research poll.

The poll, conducted before the candidates faced off in a debate Wednesday evening, surveyed 1,616 likely 2024 voters in Minnesota Sept. 4-8 and has a margin of error of +/- 2.8 percentage points. Embold Research pollster Jessica Mason said that could mean it’s an even tighter race, but said “we would still consider Kamala to be leading this race in Minnesota.”

... In a similar poll Embold Research conducted for MinnPost late last year, Biden performed better than Harris in both Greater Minnesota (20 points behind Trump) and the suburbs (eight points ahead of Trump) but worse than Harris in Minneapolis and St. Paul (58% to Trump’s 26%). Statewide, Biden’s lead over Trump was within that poll’s margin of error. ..."
Click to expand...
I’m not sweating Minnesota.
 
Ddseddse said:
There are much more problematic passages than that one, but those I'm going to generously chalk up to "he was a product of his time".

I will also agree he's being incredibly pompous with his "The solution of the historical difficulties which had so long been sought was thenceforth obvious..." follow by yeah, well duh, humans are emotional creatures.

You may have read this differently that I did (or may have read other Le Bon works where it's famed differently), but I didn't read The Psychology of Revolution to say "effective and/or mystical logic" are out of bounds, any less a valid human experience, or evolutionary maladaptive that reasoned logic (and if he did say that, I'd think he was full of shit). I read it (the full work, not the quotes I quickly pulled) more as saying here is how these types of logic either get hacked, or otherwise put into a self reaffirming feedback loop, and understanding this is helpful in understanding the inherent illogic we see in revolutions, and the imperviousness to rational logic of the participants in a revolution.

To Le Bon's credit he describes the the crowd psychology (or revolutionary fervor) as a neutral force as easily directed towards heroism and altruism as it is towards fury and destruction. Principally he describes the nature of groups operating under affective logic as taking on the characteristics of the group's leader (for good or ill). Which again has an obvious modern parallel, and though if it doesn't excuse MAGA from it's excesses, at least provides a framework for understanding why otherwise decent people are ok with things we see as monstrous (e.g. child separation policy).

And lastly it's described as a temporary condition which can come and go, one that we are all susceptible to, not ,matter how intelligent. Any one suggesting this phenomenon is an inherent characteristic is patently an asshole (do skip his chapter on races :rolleyes:).

At the end of the day I think all of this supports your original point, these people aren't actually stupid. They are operating in a (hopefully temporary) emotive state state where their rational faculties are largely suppressed when it comes to matters concerning the central beliefs of the group they belong too.

But maybe I'm being too generous to Le Bon? I'll check out Hoffer.
Click to expand...
To each his own, I guess. Note that Hoffer does not get my endorsement. I'm just saying that his work is probably similar to Le Bon without perhaps some of the blatant racism and reactionary fervor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top