1y ago

You'd Have to Be On Mushrooms to Believe Trump Is Beating Biden By 20 Points Among Young Voters

www.esquire.com You'd Have to Be On Mushrooms to Believe Trump Is Beating Biden By 20 Points Among Young Voters

If the polling is this wacky, why bother publishing it at all?

Over the weekend, ABC and the Washington Post published the results of a poll that made both operations look like its results were the product of a month-long exercise with a Magic 8-Ball. The way you know it was an embarrassment is the Post story about the poll began by telling us all we should probably ignore it completely.

The Post-ABC poll shows Biden trailing Trump by 10 percentage points at this early stage in the election cycle, although the sizable margin of Trump’s lead in this survey is significantly at odds with other public polls that show the general election contest a virtual dead heat. The difference between this poll and others, as well as the unusual makeup of Trump’s and Biden’s coalitions in this survey, suggest it is probably an outlier.

113 comments

It was done entirely by phone. What person under, say, 60 answers an unknown call on their phone at this point? And if they left a voicemail to call them back, who would trust it? Basically, they're getting extremely gullible people (i.e. mostly Trump voters) to respond to the poll.
I think the only way you can do successful polling at this point is focus groups with carefully selected demographics, and I would even be dubious there.
- I participated in a few polls in 2020 and…yeah. I would pick them up because I was waiting for important calls. Why tf else would I pick up. I still get these calls sometimes, usually while waiting for a call back for a job.
  
  Even if I did pick up the phone, which I doubt I would, I would think it was a scam.
  
  I was waiting to hear back about a job then and answered a poll call about gambling. I very, very rarely gamble. And when I do it's like $50 on blackjack or something cuz my friends want to go to the casino here. That was a fun call cuz my answers were like "never", *rarely", "no". Lol
  Dunno why I felt the need to share. I'm still drunk from my friends birthday party last night I think lol
- It should also be said that polls are only responded to by people who a) have the time, and b) have something to say.
  B alone is enough to make the respondents select for far more extreme than the average person. A also selects for… people who’ve got nothing else going on.
- After watching The Telemarketers, I'm even less inclined to pick up the phone than ever. And it was already at the "almost never" point.
- or you know mass texting
  
  Maybe. I'd still wonder if that was a scam and probably not reply.
- Serious: why wouldnt you answer a unknown number?
  
  Because it's very likely a scam or someone trying to sell me something. What is the advantage of answering one?

Shrooms have nothing to do with mass delusions. In fact, they may help cure them.
- The more relevant drug is probably “huffing sister’s farts while engaging in incest in back woods like perfect GOP voter”
- “You’d have to be out of your goddamned mind” got poo-poohed by the editorbot.
- Yeah mushrooms don't deserve to be brought into this

- Specifically you need to vote for Biden to avoid a Trump presidency. If you don't give a shit about who is president, then I don't know what to tell you. The realistic choice though is Trump or Biden and no one else is going to come close to having enough votes to get the Presidency, they'll only play spoiler at this point and split the vote one way or the other.
  
  Commenting to emphasize this for the people who weren't paying attention in 2016. If you vote for an alternative to what would normally be your candidate, it's pretty much the same as voting for their competitor. That is, if you vote for a third party alternative to Biden, you're basically voting for Trump (and if you vote for a third party alternative to Trump, assuming he wins the primary, it's like voting for Biden).
  If there are no candidates running who you are happy with, but there is a candidate that you think would be especially destructive, you should vote for that candidates main competitor. Otherwise you're contributing to the destructive candidate winning.
  
  Before I launch into a diatribe, I have a simple question that often works to separate rational arguments from articles of faith: What could someone say, what evidence could they give, to convince you that your assumption of the left as the problem in American electoral outcomes, is incorrect? Is there anything?
  I live in NY. We’re unlikely to go red, and if we do, by some awful magic, there are bigger problems than my vote. I’m going to vote my conscience. And if I lived in a swing state, I’d vote for Biden. Though I will say, it’s getting harder to take people seriously when they keep blaming the left for their losses and not actually paying attention to their policy preferences. (I hope you realize Dem partisans have used this argument in every election of my lifetime…I’m 38.)
  No party is owed one’s vote. It has to be earned with policies. The Dems couldn’t protect women (and other people with uteruses); I had to get my tubes removed to sleep at night when I visit family in the shittier states. When a mutual-defense pact fails to protect one of its largest and most powerful constituent groups, it naturally starts a slow collapse. Imagine where NATO would be if Russia bombed a German city and NATO “allies” did nothing. I used to make arguments like yours; I was a left-leaning Dem until my mid-20s. But in addition to the Dems’ repeated disappointments (repeatedly bringing policy papers to gunfights), climate change has made clear that there are times where selecting better or worse doesn’t matter, because both are inadequate.
  
  At this point Biden is the spoiler

Underestimating this discarded foreskin is what got us here in the first place.
Don't get complacent.

This is deeply insulting to mushroom users, particularly given that people tend to be more empathetic because of those experiences, not less.
- Shrooms specifically were a weird choice for the headline for sure. But it's just another variation on "drugs make you stupid and only teetotallers have an accurate perception of the world". It's really no less offensive than if they'd gone with "only a woman would believe..." or "you'd have to be a middle-school dropout to believe...". Like why? Why target some random group and call them out as idiots incapable of seeing what's right in front of their faces, when it has absolutely 0 to do with the content of the article? You'd have to be on PCP to believe this is a good way to write a headline :D
  
  You're reading way too much into it. The point is that you'd have to have a warped sense of reality, which is something mushrooms are known to do. No random groups were targeted.

Don't get complacent. That's the most important takeaway. We need to not only beat Republicans, but to give them massive losses. We want them to lose by double digit margins so they realize fascism has no place in the US, and MAGA can ma-get the fuck out of here.
I'm really curious to read more about the poll itself later, just with how unusual this is. What in the methodology screwed it up? Or do they just have an incredibly wide confidence interval?
It's also worth remembering I think, polling was very wrong in the midterms. They suggested at best that Republicans would win by a little bit, and at worst the "red tidal wave". And we know now it was a trickle, that they can't even claim as a total victory. Dems gained a Senate seat, and a lot of important state government positions in swing states.
There's a few causes for this mismatch I believe:
There's a lot of shitty Republicans pollsters these days that provide a lot of low quality data.
Analysts overcorrected their models after 2020 and it undercounts Democrats.
The huge backlash for overturning Roe isn't being captured in polls for some reason. Abortion continues to be a huge issue that's benefitting Democrats. The economy and inflation were thought to be the largest drivers for the midterms, but if they were, people saw Democrats as the solution for that.
- We want them to lose by double digit margins so they realize fascism has no place in the US, and MAGA can ma-get the fuck out of here.
  These fascists aren't going to suddenly become sane democratic loving colleagues if MAGA falls out of fashion. Even if they put their masks back on, they're still going to be fascists.
  The republican party needs to die. Scorched earth, razed to the ground. Democrats need a super majority, and then subsequently split into 2 or more parties to become the new 2 party system, or preferably ranked choice and have to work as a coalition.
  Edit - and there needs to be a public education attempt at making the cultists masses understand the dangers of fascism, and that it's wrong. We currently have a culture war trying to rebrand the civil war and nazism as misunderstood. The parallels on nazi Germany are not hyperbole. We need public accountability and public education to aggressive stave this off before its too late.
  
  I completely agree with everything you've said. My view is that if the Republicans lose big, they'll abandon the fascist wing and see it as a liability to winning elections. If they get absolutely crushed, their turn towards fascism and Trump becomes completely repudiated, and they're going to try and distance themselves from it. These dregs will always exist, we just need to teach conservatives what happens when you ally with them -- you lose, big time.
  I think the party would be likely to fragment on a loss. You'll have the fascist freedom caucus on one end, and the more moderate Republicans on the other. Neither however will be large enough to win elections, especially as they'll compete for the same voters. My prediction is the Republicans die in all but name, and those closer to the middle join Democrats.
- There’s a few causes for this mismatch I believe:
  Also keep in mind the sampling bias of only including people willing to take part in polls.
  Unknown number? Stranger knocking at my door? I'm not answering.
  
  Yeah this is the Achilles heel of polling. You need a sample as close to random as possible, but that's hard if 75% of those people don't respond.
- Don’t get complacent.
  This was a good start. But then you finished by giving loads of reasons to remain complacent.
  Polticial polls have to adjust for turnout and that is extremely difficult to get right. But it is a nailed on guarantee that Trump fans will turn out. Dems should be worried that the polls (in general, not just this one) are very close. Biden's presidency has been somewhat better than expected from a progressive perspective but is still too beholden to the kind of Dem that lost it in 2016 by appealing solely to rich people instead of the tens of millions of voters with no one to vote for. They will struggle to enthuse the people they need to enthuse and that is showing up in the polls.
  Don't get complacent. Don't push narratives that encourage complacency.
  
  The second part of my comment is more of an academic exercise in trying to determine why the polls might be off. I'm curious as to what's throwing them off.
  That's why I opened by saying we shouldn't get complacent. It's worthwhile to figure out why this isn't going right, but irrespective of the answer, we can't let our guard down.
- Because young people aren't fucking idiots?
  They know Biden tried to have more forgiven and deferred, but the supreme court stopped him. The same supreme court which overturned roe. Abortion in itself is enough really.
  Oh, and young people fucking loathe Republicans, so there's that too!
  
  Didn't they stop payments on student loans and try to forgive them completely?

Who the hell thought this headline idea is good wtf
- It's kind of slanderous to mushrooms
  
  Libelous. Slander is spoken. Libel is written.
- People that haven't ever actually done any drugs before.
- It seems to be part of a series called "Politics With Charles P. Pierce", which from the looks of it attempts to take a relaxed, informal take on an op-ed.
  So the title seems fine for the context I think.
  
  If anyone here is just joining the party, Charles Peirce was one of the few corporate news voices (all of whom were op-ed, very purposefully) who was allowed to say what we were actually seeing.
  For a few years it was a crushing torrent of gaslighting and insanity and the corporate news just went with it. Jeff Tiedrich on twitter and Charles Pierce in Esquire were two loud voices saying wtf everytime some new batshit thing would happen. It was very helpful.
  Those of you upset about the poor take on mushrooms, take five. The gist is that polls this bad shouldn’t be blowtorched onto the news cycle. Which us exactly what many of us were saying yesterday.
  Because bullshit like this poll is how republiQans fool enough of the people to crack open the electoral college. It’s the 2016 playbook, being run again right in front of us like we didn’t just go through that hell. F that.

Shrooms make you more perceptive, not less.
- They also can make people hallucinate, which was the point.

I just want to make it clear to everyone that being on mushrooms would not in any way make you think that. In fact, it’s pretty stupid to think that any drugs would do that. Anyone who believes in Trump probably needs some drugs
- All the drugs. They need them all.
  
  All the drugs, all at once. 😈

Putting aside a LOT of other issues, the reason we’re seeing more polls that are very clearly nonsense is twofold:
spam calls have proliferated to an absolutely absurd degree, to the extent that most people refuse to pick up the phone unless it’s a known contact - and even that’s not necessarily a sure bet, because caller id can be trivially spoofed.
the mainstream media “outrage narrative”, which drives engagement/addictive consumer behavior/ad views - it behooves media networks who sell ads to present as many situations as possible as a toss-up, regardless of whether or not that’s an accurate representation, simply in the interest of profit.
- My phone literally doesn't ring unless it's a known contact. I don't even see the call coming in to answer if I wanted to.
  Everyone else can leave a message and get a call back if it's something I care about.

Trump might not be 20 points ahead of Biden, but you'd better fucking turn out at the poll like he is.

Don't insult mushrooms like this, lmao, what did they ever do to hurt you?

I don't disagree, but those young voters still have to show up to vote or the result is the same. They didn't show up in the last election and my state anded up with a Republican supermajority.
- Turnout among young voters in 2022 was the second highest for a midterm in the past 30 years.
  
  That's encouraging, and also discouraging since it wasn't enough
  
  At a whopping 27%.

"You'd have to be on mushrooms to think Trump will become president" an annoying lot of people pre-2016.
If the young people that actually go out to vote happen to be the ones that like Trump, Tate, Musk and the like, then yeah, he can pull 100% ahead of Biden.

Love the casual stigma around drugs that aren't alcohol or tobacco
- Get shitfaced and cause a punch-up, everyone understands. Take a few mushrooms and watch a nature documentary, everyone loses their minds.

Polling is vote manipulative.

Don't knock mushrooms. They actually help you clear your mind and make good decisions.

They publish it to try and suppress voters to make them feel like there's no chance. Then when they lose they can claim election fraud because the bogus polling had them winning. It's a common tactic Conservatives use now to suppress votes. People need to show up no matter what the polling or news is saying.

that show the general election contest a virtual dead heat.
Jfc the US is such a dumpster fire.
- you are not wrong

Good for them for publishing an outlier poll while framing it appropriately. It happens, and releasing anyway shows integrity.

I have absolutely no intention of voting for Trump, but if you ask me on a poll about it, I might tell the pollster that I plan to vote for Trump. I don’t want people getting too comfortable with an assumed outcome ever again.

Pffft.. I've been microdosing for years and I would never believe that shit!

Mid 20s gen z here. I'll be sure to vote for Biden. All in all he's pretty alright in my book. Sure things could be better, but that's going to take a bit more time, hopefully his successors will be better.

Can we have politicians that are at least 20 years younger than moscow mitch?
- Only if like 15 million more young voters show up to primaries. Fat chance, mate.

Here's a writeup by FiveThirtyEight that happens to now be a part of ABC but didn't participate in this pill: How outlier polls happen — and what to do with them
- These polls also don't sample people who use call screening (Google Voice for me) to ask unknown callers to say their name, because this breaks most robodialers.
  There are dozens of us!!
- That's a good write-up. I generally agree with 538's philosophy on outliers, include them in the data but weigh them less heavily.

Polling has fallen into the same problem as everything else, they just skew the methods to make the numbers fit a narrative, be that the person paying them or some misguided ideas. Polling has been shit for years now, just ignore it

Now let’s watch how quickly that piece of shit coward uses these polls to validate his tyrannical campaign to rule America. And remember: these are the “fake news networks.”
Honesty don’t understand how his dipshit supported can’t see how it’s always fake new when it’s negative, but when the most “untrustworthy” and hated news sources suddenly post things that are positive towards him- they magically become accurate.
You’ve got to be braindead to make any logical sense from that.

Msuhrooms sound real good, guess that's a plan for the weekend.

You'd have to be a fox "news" watcher.

More bullshit from our bullshit media "Can't understand how a high plains grifter got elected!?"

Depends on what exactly each poll is asking or saying.
If you go by popular vote, Biden could be well ahead in that demographic.
But 1) Not all young people vote, andas a whole they lag far behind compared to other age groups, particularly ages 45+
https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/number-of-individuals-who-voted-in-thousands-and-individuals-who-voted-as-a-share-of-the-voter-population-by-age/
And 2) The popular vote is greatly negated by the electoral college.
So If you want to become President, one way is to appeal to what old people in Red states can be persuaded to believe.

113 comments