Well, Newsweek. That’s really fucking weird of you to say that, because Activote sure isn’t making that claim at all:
So now I’m REALLY fucking curious as to why this article exists, and the data is wrong. Also, Activote is an app, not a “real” polling platform.
Last couple of things I’ve seen from newsweek went hard right. I don’t know when they became part of the propaganda machine, but it’s severe.
Yes, that’s why I checked. It certainly seems there is a concerted effort in their behalf to be publishing positive news for Trump, that is later pointed out to be incorrect and retracted.
Maybe time for the bot to update these factors on Newsweek then:
Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual
It gets those externally, and it’s not a very good source.
How does this address the swing with a single datapoint?
Look at the numbers.
Newsweek has been busted multiple times in previous elections doing this shit, and had to retract and update multiple times this election. They seem to have a real want for good news about Trump’s polls to be true.
I am looking at the numbers. Your graphic says the same thing the article does. That’s why I was asking for clarification
This is not what that poll says at all
Contact the editors and voice your concerns. If they are posting fake statistics, then call them out on it.
Note how this OP is entirely unconcerned with anything but deflection
I didn’t write the article though, so I can’t speak for the writer of the article.
If you have no relation to this or any article, maybe don’t post them.
I post artices that I find interesting. Do you think that only people who are “related” to the articles are allowed to post?!
I think if you post it, you don’t get to pretend you didn’t do so for a specific reason. As others pointed out, you’ll never say why anything is interesting, so you clearly don’t want to talk about anything.
Here’s another chance – what do you find interesting about it?
I don’t have to explain anything to you. Thank you!
I’m writing you directly as the OP that posting propaganda is the same thing as writing it.
This isn’t propaganda. Thanks!
We all disagree.
You’re just a ruble-fueled propagandist (and not a very good one at that).
Like almost everything you post, it certainly is.
Quit trying to stifle conversation within this thread. People are allowed to discuss this issue amongst themselves beyond simply talking to the publication’s editors.
Suggesting that people can contact editors if they feel information is wrong, isn’t stifling the conversation though. Thank you!
Sure it is. People are fully aware they can contact other parties. They want to have a conversation in here though, and you are recommending they take their complaints elsewhere, when they could be discussing them here.
This is pretty obviously a shallow excuse, technically a recommendation, but really just trying to get under people’s skin.
Nope. Just made a recommendation. But you are free to believe whatever you want to. Thank you! :)
Yes, like I said, technically a recommendation, one that you practically copy/paste with no effort. Also one that serves no useful purpose though. Asides a very possible goal of simply irritating people.
No goal. Just a recommendation. Thank you! :)
If you’re going to post a topic, at least attempt to discuss it.
More like spam articles.
Correct! Thank you!
I’m not obligated to do that. Thank you!
Why did you share a low quality article with poorly sourced information? Do you think spreading lies and misinformation is okay just because it supports your agenda?
Thai account has
3801,560+ posts (Voyager doesn’t list all posts) in just over 2 months. They either aren’t reading their articles or it’s a group of shills sharing an account.I’m prolific. Thank you for the shoutout!
It’s from Newsweek. If you think the numbers are wrong, you can write them and voice your concerns. Thank you!
So you’re endorsing the news source and data as accurate and reliable?
It’s Newsweek and it’s an approved source for this community. Thank you! :)
Did someone say it was against the rules?
Which editors instructed you to post it here?
Are people instructed to post Harris articles here?
Nope, just things they’ve corroborated as true, ideally.
In the sixty-three days since this account was created, it has made five thousand one hundred and seven submissions
That averages out to once every seventeen minutes and forty-five seconds twenty-four hours seven days a week
“They” are actually getting marginally faster over time. I am going to make an educated guess that their post frequency will continue to escalate the closer we get to the election. I’ll leave it open for speculation why that might be so my comment doesn’t get scrubbed…
They are enjoying the chaos they are creating in this community and it will get worse as the election get closer.
I wish they would just be banned until November 6th and see if they come back with the same posting frequency after.
Hard agree.
They’re obviously not being paid. A paid campaign would have metrics and would have already abandoned this dumb shit with zero odds of influencing anyone.
At the start I wouldn’t have been able to tell you if they were a MAGA or a useful idiot. After having everything explained to them over and over, I’m more convinced on them being a MAGA cosplaying as whatever they’re doing here.
Also a peevish child delighting in any attention, even negative.
Monk’s script:
- “I didn’t write the article, I just posted it”, even though posting propaganda is the same thing as writing it
- “I’m just posting articles that I found interesting”, even though they can’t ever explain what they find so interesting and will shut down if asked
- “If you feel that the article is against the rules, let the mods know”, even though no one said Monk was breaking the rules by posting propaganda. They like to post the mod log link after someone brings it up, for seemingly no reason.
- “I’m not voting for Kamala or Trump”, even though a vote for third parties is just going to empower a vote for Trump
- “I’m not voting for [third party candidate], I’m voting for [third party candidate]”
- Something about how they don’t have to explain anything about themselves even though they reply anyway
- Something about a community they created to seem more genuine
- Some form of sarcastic or fake “thank you” even though no one asked for their thanks, all likely to appear nice at a passing glance
- Using “:)” in another failed attempt to seem nice
- Calling you “friend” in yet another misguided attempt to appear nice at the surface
- Demanding proof for otherwise reasonable claims (sealioning).
Nailed it.
A lot of their content are tortured contrivances to be able to respond with “no you,” because they are emotionally a petulant child.
For example, regarding supporting a viable candidate instead of throwing a vote in the trash, they respond with, “every vote for your viable candidate harms the chances of [nonviable third party who isn’t even on the ballots].”
Thanks for your input! :)
You need a fresh prompt, you’re replies are getting stale.
Once again, no one asked (as the script says). You need new material.
“Various organisations in Nazi Germany required their members to swear oaths to Adolf Hitler by name, rather than to the German state”
I’m not sure that’s what this article is about.
It would help greatly if you could read.
Thanks!
I think it is called foreshadowing.
I’m not sure you read any of the “articles” you post, especially since you can never point out what you find so “interesting” about them.
Your next line: “I don’t have to explain anything to you”
Websites that have banned this user:
- https://reddit.com/user/universalmonkartist/
- https://lemmy.ca/u/UniversalMonk@lemmy.world
- https://dubvee.org/u/universalmonk@lemmy.world
It seems likely the reason each one banned him is the same reason their every post and comment is sitting at < -25. People detest the anti-democrat messaging and the way it’s delivered. It’s undeniable that this user rubs enough people the wrong way that they get a lot of attention for that alone.
During an election year especially, I expect better of any social media website than to just let this shit happen.
Reddit bans everyone though, that’s not a good marker. ;)
From a modding perspective, I look at it like this:
“Would this link be allowed if it were anyone OTHER than Monk posting it?”
Yes? It stays. I’m sorry you don’t like it, but it’s a valid link from a valid source.
Yeah, I don’t really understand the idea that a long history of a certain type of toxic behavior doesn’t count for anything. I think it should.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think anyone’s complaining about the articles.
Oh, we get reports on the articles themselves ALL THE TIME.
Right, but is the report about the link/article or the person submitting it? If it’s reported for anything under rules 3 or 4 I’d argue we all know damn well it’s not Newsweek that’s being reported.
The point is that the user themselves is toxic to have here, especially during an election season.
I’m starting to notice a trend with your posts.
ha,
So it looks like they have averaged over 28 downvotes per hour since they joined.
40678/(60*24) = 28.24861111111111111111111111That’s about a downvote every couple of minutes. If they weren’t evil it might almost be impressive.
How do you see that? I’m kinda curious about my score now lol
im running an mbin instance over at https://moist.catsweat.com where that is the standard hover-view for users
Aw I can’t see it i get 404 not found when I click on that.
I’m gonna guess that it’s mostly positive because I’m not a Trump supporter like monk.it looks like lemmy is bastardizing (attempting to make the url localized) my url
try and copy this into an address bar, but remove the pace before the @lemm.ee: “https://moist.catsweat.com/u/@TransplantedSconie @lemm.ee”
I’m actually a socialist party supporter.
I’m not voting for Trump though. Thank you!
You effectively are, though.
They will do so literally as well.
Thank you for the shoutout! :)
Removed by mod
yeah, he is a paid asset
Nah, probably does it for free due to his (very poorly concealed) ideology.
And is almost certainly a cisgender, heterosexual male, and my bet is that they’re actually Mormon.
I’ve never concealed my ideology.
Thanks for sticking up for me!
And I’m a Mormon Satanist, as I’ve said in my username and profile. So you’re partially correct.
Thank you!
Mormon Satanist
Yes and I’m a gay-straight.
Wouldn’t that just be bisexual then 😂
Nonono, see that would make sense. What we must do is claim to be things that don’t actually make sense but are awkward for people to criticize. That way you get to boldly admit to being a fraud in the open, but no one can call you on it. It’s fucking brilliant.
There’s no such thing, and you are not a satanist. I grew up in Utah, and the way you act (with the fake niceness, supporting the right wing by voting third party, and not listening to those outside of your community) comes off as 100% Mormon, and nothing else.
Your next line: “You don’t get to tell me what I believe”
You don’t get to tell me what I believe. I can believe anything I want to. Thank you! :)
Yes, that’s the line!!
How much do you think I get paid!?
Not enough to be believable, apparently.
How much do you think I get paid!?
According to the other person up the chain about 28 downvotes per hour, which I can only assume is giving you a strange mix of parasocial & psychological gratification that you clearly aren’t getting from real world relationships.
Removed by mod
Too much
OK! Thank you!
Made me think of this user for some reason.
Didn’t we just do this? I swear, we just did this:
As usual, national polls are useless. We don’t have national elections, and as others pointed out, the poll doesn’t even say what Newsweek says it says. Numbers after the jump.
Now… ALLLLL that being said… Last time I did this, Harris hit 270 exactly. First time this year any candidate hit the magic number.
AZ - Toss Up. Harris +1, +3, Trump +1, +4
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/arizona/NV - Toss Up. Tie, Harris +1, Trump +1
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/nevada/NM - Harris +5, +8, +10
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/new-mexico/GA - Toss Up, 5 separate polls show tie votes.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/georgia/FL - Trump +6, +13, +14
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/florida/NC - Toss Up, Harris +3, Trump +1, +2, +3
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/north-carolina/PA - Toss Up, Tie, Harris +1, +4, Trump +1, +3
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/pennsylvania/MI - Tie, Harris +2, +3. 3rd parties 0 to 1%, no impact.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/michigan/WI - Harris +1, +2, +3, +4, Trump +1
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/wisconsin/MN - Harris +5, +6, +8
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/minnesota/Plotted on the map:
As usual, PA is a must win. If Harris takes it, that’s it, she doesn’t need anything else.
Failing that, NC or GA + any 1 other state. AZ + NV alone is not enough, that drops her right at 268.
For Trump, he has to win PA to stay in, that gives him 238, from there he needs 32 more. So NC + GA. Or NV + AZ and either NC or GA.
Minimum 1 state for Harris to win, PA. Also a 2 state win of NC or GA + 1 other. Max would be 3 states. AZ, NV + 1 other.
Minimum 3 states for Trump to win (PA, GA, NC), could be as many as 4 of the 5 outstanding (PA, AZ, NV, + GA or NC)
How to stop feeding the troll:
I really wish we had a rule about posts that mention polling, but don’t link to the polling. Probably impossible to moderate but it’s really low-quality journalism.
What’s ironic is the article links several other polling sources, but not the one it mentions in the headline.
Bring that up to the mods.
As you don’t engage in any good faith discussion of anything you post and have had numerous posts/comments removed for forms of trolling and just coming off a temp community ban for a form of trolling, I don’t think your input is needed and certainly wasn’t asked for.
If I wanted to go to the mods, I would - as I have done before about you and other matters, as you know. I was simply commenting in the hopes that someone maybe had a different perspective or suggestion on it. If you, as usual, don’t have anything constructive to add, maybe don’t reply to folks with inanities.
Thanks!
Hide behind the mods like a good little cretins 💁
Cowardice looks good on you! Keep hiding.
Newsweek - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Newsweek:
MBFC: Right-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris-donald-trump-national-polls-1966429
