lol. The crypto thing is weird. Black men are disproportionately investing in crypto because they feel disenfranchised. The Democrats need to focus on the core issues of why they (like a lot of other demographics) feel left out and left behind. This is an insane party at times

    i think the 'losing black men' narrative will turn out to be just that, a narrative. there is an element of red pill types online who are chirping alot, but represent a demogrpahic that historically don't actually turn out at the polls. most of the top pollsters have her support among black voters at the same level as Bidens 2020 numbers, around 87%.

      Gazza M i think the 'losing black men' narrative will turn out to be just that, a narrative. there is an element of red pill types online who are chirping alot, but represent a demogrpahic that historically don't actually turn out at the polls. most of the top pollsters have her support among black voters at the same level as Bidens 2020 numbers, around 87%.

      Your probably right but this tweet by her campaign and Obama specifically mentioning it indicates they think they need to solidify this demographic. Maybe internally their polling has worried them?

      Claudius lol. The crypto thing is weird. Black men are disproportionately investing in crypto because they feel disenfranchised. The Democrats need to focus on the core issues of why they (like a lot of other demographics) feel left out and left behind. This is an insane party at times

      That statement comes across as quite patronising I thought, why do black men need to be reassured their investments are safe there? Like you say really weird statement.

          One thing about US elections nowadays is that the polling numbers can be way off the mark. Must admit at this distance I have no gut feeling whatsoever about the "real" sentiments of turnout and preference.

            Burnwinter i dont think polling is inherently bad, i think people just do not understand the basics of polling, and more specifically, probability and things like margin of error. a poll that has a margin of error of 5% that shows trump +1 could be anything from trump +6 to harris +4. thats a really broad range of outcomes. too many people only look at the top line number and dont understand the specifics. polling also is not really "scientific" when the core of your sample is derived from people answering a phone call from an unknown number in the year 2024

                mdgoonah41 Sure people are illiterate concerning estimation, but I think polling is also generally less accurate since the advent of the internet and especially social media. Sentiment is more volatile and less uniform than it was once.

                  Actually (at least in the US) sentiment has hardened. 49% of the vote will be democratic. 45% of the vote will be republican. So pollsters are trying to figure out what that remaining 6% will do. And these people are not "centrists." They're low information, low engagement, low probability voters. Who don't answer the phone and who don't tell the truth. But everyone else's mind was made up a long time ago.

                    RowJimmy agree with this. people are only undecided in the sense that they havent decided whether or not they are actually going to vote.

                      Obsessively trying to understand how my country can be about to reelect a sociopath whose fascism is only tempered by his short attention span.
                      I read a lot of "how to understand the polling" stuff. I like Nate Cohn in the NYT. It's not my field, and my technical abilities in statistics are weak. But I think I've developed a better sense than most people of the fact that a 60% probability only differs from a coin flip if you get to repeat the exercise fifty times.

                        hoegan just ends up agreeing with his guests.

                        RowJimmy Fair enough. Of course polling numbers (eg "57 to 43 with a 5% margin of error") can't be transformed without further modelling into reliable election victory odds at all, and especially not in the US due to the madness that is the college system.

                          Qwiss yep. peter thiel was on his show recently and he just nodded along with everything
                          , despite thiel being a conspiracy-tards wet dream. no questions about palantir or its CIA connections, nothing about his connections to JD Vance. he nibbled at Epstein stuff but seemed to back off once thiels sweat levels spiked. he doesn't really hammer his guests often

                              Gazza M why would Joe Rogan hammer a right wing nut job like Thiel.

                                JazzG this woman made a career of putting black men in prison for life for peddling weed now she wants to encourage it. No wonder her family has disowned her.