The Washington Post had its group of 23 “undecided swing state voters.” Before the debate, if pushed, they “probably” were for Trump 12-9-2. Afterwards, it was 13-9-1.
They were also asked about lots of issues that came up. The responses to one issue stunned me: “Do you agree with Walz that Trump tried to overturn the 2020 election?” 7 ag…
The Washington Post had its group of 23 “undecided swing state voters.” Before the debate, if pushed, they “probably” were for Trump 12-9-2. Afterwards, it was 13-9-1.
They were also asked about lots of issues that came up. The responses to one issue stunned me: “Do you agree with Walz that Trump tried to overturn the 2020 election?” 7 agreed; 12 disagreed and 4 were neither.
The comments were also stunning. As one who “somewhat disagreed said: “The media obscured the event; protestors were allowed into the buildings and Trump never directly commanded anyone to overturn the allegedly fair election.” And one who neither agreed or disagreed said: “I don't really think the election was fair, but I do think Trump influenced people to protest that way.”
I interpret this as showing how successful the right wing media has been in convincing less-involved people about the insurrection. Of course, it could just be a fluke (23 undecideds) but it scares me nonetheless.
"Undecided swing state voters." How do you determine the accuracy of that claim? How do you determine the meaningfulness of that group?
You can't - it's garbage. It's always been garbage, it always will be garbage. It's fluff to allow journalists to create news out of thin air, complete with pithy quotes, rather than actually investigate and do journalism. It's an integral part of the media's utter abdication of their responsibility to the truth and the profession they claim to represent.
It's crap like this that pisses me off and leads me to further and further despise the whole journalistic profession. The Washington Post can climb into the same dumpster the New York Times lives in, dressing up as garbage versions of Fox News and Pravda.
Of course it is not a scientific poll. It's 23 people.
You asked: "Undecided swing state voters." How do you determine the accuracy of that claim? How do you determine the meaningfulness of that group?"
I would say that about any poll respondents and any participant in a focus group. Here, the participants had been polled before and were undecided when polled. And the WP knows who they are, where they live, their professions, etc.
Their discussions about individual issues that came up during the debate certainly have as much validity as speaking to 23 undecided voters at their doors or on the phone. As the WP put it: "Our group is too small to capture how uncommitted swing-state voters feel overall, but it still offers an intimate window into how uncommitted voters, who will be some of the most important voters this election, are thinking and feeling about the debate in real time."
The only part of that post I disagree with is that this lowers my opinion of the media. It does not, because they've interviewed random people about politics forever!
While I disagree that "undecided swing state voter" is meaningless garbage, I would agree that it's garbage when done the way WaPo did.
If the majority of the people in this focus group were "probably" for one or the other pre-debate, they weren't truly undecided. And while there's certainly value in having a focus group of soft supporters of both candidates, to see if the debate changes that for them, it needs to be separate from aun undecided focus group, IMO.
I wouldn't be too concerned. The very results you're citing show that that was not a representative panel, and before anyone suggests that's circular logic, I submit that undecided voters who can be pushed to Trump by the Washington Post aren't really undecided.
Is it really that stunning, though? The majority of the people in the focus group were Trump supporters, including the one they quoted who neither agreed nor disagreed.
And as I commented elsewhere, only two people in this group were actually undecided initially.
This is like CNN including that guy in their focus group before that they knew was a Trumper, because they needed the extra person.
If they couldn't find enough legitimately undecided voters for their focus group they should have just said that, instead of pushing this narrative.
The Washington Post had its group of 23 “undecided swing state voters.” Before the debate, if pushed, they “probably” were for Trump 12-9-2. Afterwards, it was 13-9-1.
They were also asked about lots of issues that came up. The responses to one issue stunned me: “Do you agree with Walz that Trump tried to overturn the 2020 election?” 7 agreed; 12 disagreed and 4 were neither.
The comments were also stunning. As one who “somewhat disagreed said: “The media obscured the event; protestors were allowed into the buildings and Trump never directly commanded anyone to overturn the allegedly fair election.” And one who neither agreed or disagreed said: “I don't really think the election was fair, but I do think Trump influenced people to protest that way.”
I interpret this as showing how successful the right wing media has been in convincing less-involved people about the insurrection. Of course, it could just be a fluke (23 undecideds) but it scares me nonetheless.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/interactive/2024/vice-presidential-debate-voter-poll/?itid=hp-top-table-main_p001_f005
"Undecided swing state voters." How do you determine the accuracy of that claim? How do you determine the meaningfulness of that group?
You can't - it's garbage. It's always been garbage, it always will be garbage. It's fluff to allow journalists to create news out of thin air, complete with pithy quotes, rather than actually investigate and do journalism. It's an integral part of the media's utter abdication of their responsibility to the truth and the profession they claim to represent.
It's crap like this that pisses me off and leads me to further and further despise the whole journalistic profession. The Washington Post can climb into the same dumpster the New York Times lives in, dressing up as garbage versions of Fox News and Pravda.
Of course it is not a scientific poll. It's 23 people.
You asked: "Undecided swing state voters." How do you determine the accuracy of that claim? How do you determine the meaningfulness of that group?"
I would say that about any poll respondents and any participant in a focus group. Here, the participants had been polled before and were undecided when polled. And the WP knows who they are, where they live, their professions, etc.
Their discussions about individual issues that came up during the debate certainly have as much validity as speaking to 23 undecided voters at their doors or on the phone. As the WP put it: "Our group is too small to capture how uncommitted swing-state voters feel overall, but it still offers an intimate window into how uncommitted voters, who will be some of the most important voters this election, are thinking and feeling about the debate in real time."
The only part of that post I disagree with is that this lowers my opinion of the media. It does not, because they've interviewed random people about politics forever!
Lemme guess, they found these "undecided voters" in a diner out in some small exurban town?
While I disagree that "undecided swing state voter" is meaningless garbage, I would agree that it's garbage when done the way WaPo did.
If the majority of the people in this focus group were "probably" for one or the other pre-debate, they weren't truly undecided. And while there's certainly value in having a focus group of soft supporters of both candidates, to see if the debate changes that for them, it needs to be separate from aun undecided focus group, IMO.
I wouldn't be too concerned. The very results you're citing show that that was not a representative panel, and before anyone suggests that's circular logic, I submit that undecided voters who can be pushed to Trump by the Washington Post aren't really undecided.
Is it really that stunning, though? The majority of the people in the focus group were Trump supporters, including the one they quoted who neither agreed nor disagreed.
And as I commented elsewhere, only two people in this group were actually undecided initially.
This is like CNN including that guy in their focus group before that they knew was a Trumper, because they needed the extra person.
If they couldn't find enough legitimately undecided voters for their focus group they should have just said that, instead of pushing this narrative.