414
Dems’ blue wave isn’t nearly as in the bag as some think, so says pollsters
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2026
414 points (97.0% liked)
politics
31379 readers
2472 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Which is why the popularity of a policy should be looked through the lens of do people actually support the idea behind the policy instead of what the policy is called. For example Medicare is viewed favorably among the republicans but when you turn around and start asking about government health coverage suddenly the support flips in the other way and republicans hate the idea. Except that's pretty much what medicare is.
You can't view popularity of a policy on a superficial level because on a superficial level the popularity swings whatever way depending on the very specific phrasing of the question. You have to get to the core of policy and then view the popularity of the core idea to understand the popularity of a policy. Because if the policy at its core is popular you can find support for it by cutting through the bullshit, but if the policy is unpopular no amount of cutting through the bullshit will get you support. You have to actually spin bullshit to make an unpopular policy popular and you can only do that when there's nobody on the other side calling it out. Going back to the El-Sayed and Rogers example, the reason their debate was so one-sided is because El-Sayed was on the side of popular policies and could easily present them as they are. And Rogers couldn't do anything because every time he tried to bullshit something he got called out.