[daveguy]

A 2025 study... Asking people if they "would have" voted for the winner of the election, a corrupt vindictive racist asshat already in power? Well, I guess that's one way to conduct a study. Fortunately the shift in sentiment is clear, growing, and reflected in special elections.

[apparent]

Your theory is that people who didn't care enough to vote are concerned that Donald Trump is going to come after them if they don't say they would have voted for him, when surveyed anonymously?

And then NPR was duped into credulously reporting on this polling?

That is quite a theory.

[daveguy]

I'm saying it doesn't take much for someone to say, "yeah, I would have voted for the guy already in power". I'm surprised it wasn't much higher than that.

So no, you definitely misrepresented my theory. It doesn't take a specific threat of violence for someone to say "sure, I would have cast a vote with the winner." And yet it was only ~1.5% higher than before the election. Are you saying you don't even recognize the bias of saying "yeah, I'm good with the winner"? Or the bias of a honeymoon period? I mean, June 2025 was before 90% of his craziest shit. But you go on.

[apparent]

Oh sorry, you made it sound like "corrupt" and "vindictive" were somehow relevant to the polling results.

The media seemed pretty surprised by the results, which indicates that your hypothesis is perhaps not accurate. But hey, keep doubling down, moving the goalposts, etc. I'll leave you to it.

[daveguy]

Nah, just an observation. Or my hypothesis is accurate and they were just taking it at face value like you apparently did (assuming you are posting in good faith). The click bait appeal couldn't have hurt (although I agree with your expectation that they don't usually go for that). But dippy did pull their funding after all.

My goalposts never moved. Sorry you misinterpreted a few accurate adjectives.

Have a great evening!