I find this analysis very accurate. I'm a zoomer, my friend group mostly falls in the "FanDuel American" demographic, with a few libs and a few TPUSA types (I'm the only truly BASED person I know), they aren't super happy about the deportations. They mostly hated the the left because of tranny's and nagging lib types making the media insufferable.
The age 18-30 population in the US is 51% white, per the Census Bureau. It’s not surprising that 60% of the under-30 demographic is opposed to deportations.
FWIW you (and everyone) should be skeptical of polls that fluctuate as wildly as the one you cited in the article. Since we have not gotten in a nuclear war last I checked, an approval rate change of 30 points in a few months isn’t credible for any purpose that matters. I recognize it makes it harder to churn out a column on the topic, but intelligent readers are going to discount any thesis supported by evidence so flimsy.
Polls are generally accurate. Too many RWers think polls are fake but X engagement driven by bots and Indians is real. An approval rate change of that magnitude can happen. It's also confirmed by several polls, not just one. The real flimsy evidence is unverified anecdotes and vibes from twitter.
I would stop spending so much time on polls, most of which are badly biased, and very often wrong. Vanderbilt's polling unit told us Brettison had a 90% chance of beating Marsha Blackburn for US senate several yrs ago, (for the usual reasons). And so on. Waxing eloquent about polling results does provide opportunities to write extensive 'analytical' essays, however.
People who claim it is isn't reliable data think their own personal feelings are reliable data. It's like leftists who refuse to consider crime data because their feelings tell them otherwise. Polls are pretty accurate when taken as whole. If all the polls are showing a souring on Trump among under-30s, that's more accurate than what one's personal feelings.
For example, the vast majority of polling in 2018 showed Blackburn beating Bredesen (not "Brettison"). You fixate on one wrong poll to say they're all bad. The 2024 polling was pretty accurate except for the one moronic sulzberger poll in Iowa.
The use of a bad poll as an example is not "fixating". It's an example. "Polls are pretty accurate when taken as whole"- because you state this with some certainty, does not make it so. Some are predictive, many are not. Statisticians that look at this issue really dont agree with you Mr Greer. If thinking polls are mostly accurate assists you in your analyses, I think that's fine. Disagreeing that polls are "mostly accurate" does not force one to rely on emotion, it forces one to consider alternative information. Conflating all polling results with actual "data" is exactly what GIGO refers to.
The use of a bad poll as an example is not "fixating". It's an example. "Polls are pretty accurate when taken as whole"- because you state this with some certainty, does not make it so. Some are predictive, many are not. Statisticians that look at this issue really dont agree with you Mr Greer. If thinking polls are mostly accurate assists you in your analyses, I think that's fine. Disagreeing that polls are "mostly accurate" does not force one to rely on emotion, it forces one to consider alternative information. Conflating all polling results with actual "data" is exactly what GIGO refers to.
The alternative information is usually personal emotions and random unverified anecdotes, not data. You haven't suggested any other data to assess youth opinions rather than anger over one single poll from seven years ago.
Thanks for the engagement.The Blackburn/Bredesen poll was an example, to repeat. Its not a fixation, and it isn't something to be angry about. I'm politely suggesting that polls dont provide you with the legitimacy you are seeking for your argument; the idea that polls are accurate and usually correct might be an "emotional and anecdotal" concept.
1) Your sole evidence for refuting all polling is this lone poll. The other polls showed Blackburn winning by a comfortable margin, which is how the election turned out. Polls are pretty accurate, as seen in our elections. This isn't based on emotion or anecdotes. You also misremember the Vandy poll as it showed a virtual tie, not a clear Bredesen victory. https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/senate/general/2018/tennessee/blackburn-vs-bredesen
2) You haven't offered any alternative information to rely on. You just say it should be forbidden to look at polls based on single poll from 2018.
For this article, I looked at several polls. You, in getting mad at it, looked at a single one from seven years ago on a completely different subject, from a different source, and which you didn't properly remember to say they're all wrong.
Im not 'mad' , not fixated, and nowhere suggested what you're doing is "forbdden". I am suggesting that almost all polling is seriously plagued by overwhelming bias of one sort or another, and if you rely on it, your analysis is going to be GIGO, more often than not . The idea of a broken clock being correct twice a day obtains here. Again, the Vanderbilt poll was just an example (it was a running poll with multiple releases, all of which did NOT predict a Blackburn victory), there are too many others to count.This essay discusses the problem further:
Most people want the impossible.
Lower taxes, higher spending, reduced deficits.
Fewer immigrants without any deportations.
Public safety without messy encounters with the police.
Etc
Whoever they elect they can’t deliver this contradiction, so they blame them and elect someone else, who also can’t solve the contradiction.
democracy...
Literally a perfect description of why democracy sucks lmao
then again, the solution today isn't technocracy either
I find this analysis very accurate. I'm a zoomer, my friend group mostly falls in the "FanDuel American" demographic, with a few libs and a few TPUSA types (I'm the only truly BASED person I know), they aren't super happy about the deportations. They mostly hated the the left because of tranny's and nagging lib types making the media insufferable.
Trump needs to rig the game so maga can't lose while he ethnically cleanses the country
The age 18-30 population in the US is 51% white, per the Census Bureau. It’s not surprising that 60% of the under-30 demographic is opposed to deportations.
FWIW you (and everyone) should be skeptical of polls that fluctuate as wildly as the one you cited in the article. Since we have not gotten in a nuclear war last I checked, an approval rate change of 30 points in a few months isn’t credible for any purpose that matters. I recognize it makes it harder to churn out a column on the topic, but intelligent readers are going to discount any thesis supported by evidence so flimsy.
Polls are generally accurate. Too many RWers think polls are fake but X engagement driven by bots and Indians is real. An approval rate change of that magnitude can happen. It's also confirmed by several polls, not just one. The real flimsy evidence is unverified anecdotes and vibes from twitter.
I would stop spending so much time on polls, most of which are badly biased, and very often wrong. Vanderbilt's polling unit told us Brettison had a 90% chance of beating Marsha Blackburn for US senate several yrs ago, (for the usual reasons). And so on. Waxing eloquent about polling results does provide opportunities to write extensive 'analytical' essays, however.
"I would stop looking at data and base all of your analysis on what I feel is right instead"
I wouldnt confuse polling results with reliable data. GIGO.
People who claim it is isn't reliable data think their own personal feelings are reliable data. It's like leftists who refuse to consider crime data because their feelings tell them otherwise. Polls are pretty accurate when taken as whole. If all the polls are showing a souring on Trump among under-30s, that's more accurate than what one's personal feelings.
For example, the vast majority of polling in 2018 showed Blackburn beating Bredesen (not "Brettison"). You fixate on one wrong poll to say they're all bad. The 2024 polling was pretty accurate except for the one moronic sulzberger poll in Iowa.
The use of a bad poll as an example is not "fixating". It's an example. "Polls are pretty accurate when taken as whole"- because you state this with some certainty, does not make it so. Some are predictive, many are not. Statisticians that look at this issue really dont agree with you Mr Greer. If thinking polls are mostly accurate assists you in your analyses, I think that's fine. Disagreeing that polls are "mostly accurate" does not force one to rely on emotion, it forces one to consider alternative information. Conflating all polling results with actual "data" is exactly what GIGO refers to.
The use of a bad poll as an example is not "fixating". It's an example. "Polls are pretty accurate when taken as whole"- because you state this with some certainty, does not make it so. Some are predictive, many are not. Statisticians that look at this issue really dont agree with you Mr Greer. If thinking polls are mostly accurate assists you in your analyses, I think that's fine. Disagreeing that polls are "mostly accurate" does not force one to rely on emotion, it forces one to consider alternative information. Conflating all polling results with actual "data" is exactly what GIGO refers to.
The alternative information is usually personal emotions and random unverified anecdotes, not data. You haven't suggested any other data to assess youth opinions rather than anger over one single poll from seven years ago.
Thanks for the engagement.The Blackburn/Bredesen poll was an example, to repeat. Its not a fixation, and it isn't something to be angry about. I'm politely suggesting that polls dont provide you with the legitimacy you are seeking for your argument; the idea that polls are accurate and usually correct might be an "emotional and anecdotal" concept.
1) Your sole evidence for refuting all polling is this lone poll. The other polls showed Blackburn winning by a comfortable margin, which is how the election turned out. Polls are pretty accurate, as seen in our elections. This isn't based on emotion or anecdotes. You also misremember the Vandy poll as it showed a virtual tie, not a clear Bredesen victory. https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/senate/general/2018/tennessee/blackburn-vs-bredesen
2) You haven't offered any alternative information to rely on. You just say it should be forbidden to look at polls based on single poll from 2018.
For this article, I looked at several polls. You, in getting mad at it, looked at a single one from seven years ago on a completely different subject, from a different source, and which you didn't properly remember to say they're all wrong.
Im not 'mad' , not fixated, and nowhere suggested what you're doing is "forbdden". I am suggesting that almost all polling is seriously plagued by overwhelming bias of one sort or another, and if you rely on it, your analysis is going to be GIGO, more often than not . The idea of a broken clock being correct twice a day obtains here. Again, the Vanderbilt poll was just an example (it was a running poll with multiple releases, all of which did NOT predict a Blackburn victory), there are too many others to count.This essay discusses the problem further:
https://quantus.substack.com/p/the-polling-crisis-accuracy-bias
I must gamble on Patrick mahommes. How bleached will his next child be? +2500 new daughter will have Afro.