68% of the top links on Facebook since September are in support of Donald Trump(businessofbusiness.com)
businessofbusiness.com
68% of the top links on Facebook since September are in support of Donald Trump
https://www.businessofbusiness.com/articles/alt-right-media-thrives-on-facebook-dan-bongino-ben-shapiro/
91 comments
Ben Shapiro and Dan Bongino, and 'conservative media' are alt-right now? Great journalism here. This doofus author clearly shows what he's about.
Shapiros history of consistent homophobic, transphobic, islamophobic vitrol sure do seem consistent with everything I hear from people in the alt right movement and validates them.
He also claims he is not alt right, not homophobic, and not racist. So there is that.
He also claims he is not alt right, not homophobic, and not racist. So there is that.
kypro(1)
[deleted]
What utter nonsense. Shapiro is just a conservative pundit the only thing that sets him apart is that he is very smart and, relatively speaking, intellectually honest. His greatest crime is not kowtowing to the left orthodoxy that is so dominant in tech/academia/media. And that makes his voice particularly valuable.
What’s valuable about homophobia? What’s intellectually honest about hating people for their sexual orientation and advocating for discrimination against them?
If the left orthodoxy means treating people equally, sign me up.
> very smart
This is the guy who endorsed Trump in October 2020 for another four year term because “he’s already done all the damage he can, he can’t do anything more”. Genius.
If the left orthodoxy means treating people equally, sign me up.
> very smart
This is the guy who endorsed Trump in October 2020 for another four year term because “he’s already done all the damage he can, he can’t do anything more”. Genius.
>If the left orthodoxy means treating people equally, sign me up.
If we all understand that this is actually (under the law) what MOST people want we'll be able to get along.
>What’s valuable about homophobia? What’s intellectually honest about hating people for their sexual orientation and advocating for discrimination against them?
I just started looking this up to write this comment. I was curious about it and I wanted to be as correct as I can. Ben Shapiro believes that contractually, under the law, homosexuality should be allowed. Full Stop. This is a very libertarian perspective. It's the idea that no matter what I personally believe due to my religion, you can and should be able to legally do what you want as long as it doesn't affect others (throwing that in for the abortion argument).
Personally, Ben Shapiro is a homophobe. Politically, he is not. He's pro-equality of opportunity and recognition under the law.
As someone who grew up really religious, I can understand how he justifies this idea. You are indoctrinated to hate the sin and love the sinner. This does not always come out the way it's supposed to, and leads to homophobia which I believe is evil and a reason I left religion. However, this dualism allows for one to strive for political equality, while still spouting homophobic ideas.
This is a very fine line to draw on a topic like this, but I think it's important for us to recognize if we're ever going to get less divided hateful towards each other. Most people, even bigots, racists, homophobes, etc. want equality. They want the government to give them the same rights as anyone else and to be left alone. They want their rallies, protests, sermons, etc. In order to get that they recognize (at least people like Shapiro do) that they need to fight a cultural war instead of a political one on this stuff.
It doesn't mean that those ideas are ok for people to personally have, but it does mean that we can work together to agree on a lot of shit, make progress.
tl;dr; Don't hate people on the other side of politics, talk to them.
If we all understand that this is actually (under the law) what MOST people want we'll be able to get along.
>What’s valuable about homophobia? What’s intellectually honest about hating people for their sexual orientation and advocating for discrimination against them?
I just started looking this up to write this comment. I was curious about it and I wanted to be as correct as I can. Ben Shapiro believes that contractually, under the law, homosexuality should be allowed. Full Stop. This is a very libertarian perspective. It's the idea that no matter what I personally believe due to my religion, you can and should be able to legally do what you want as long as it doesn't affect others (throwing that in for the abortion argument).
Personally, Ben Shapiro is a homophobe. Politically, he is not. He's pro-equality of opportunity and recognition under the law.
As someone who grew up really religious, I can understand how he justifies this idea. You are indoctrinated to hate the sin and love the sinner. This does not always come out the way it's supposed to, and leads to homophobia which I believe is evil and a reason I left religion. However, this dualism allows for one to strive for political equality, while still spouting homophobic ideas.
This is a very fine line to draw on a topic like this, but I think it's important for us to recognize if we're ever going to get less divided hateful towards each other. Most people, even bigots, racists, homophobes, etc. want equality. They want the government to give them the same rights as anyone else and to be left alone. They want their rallies, protests, sermons, etc. In order to get that they recognize (at least people like Shapiro do) that they need to fight a cultural war instead of a political one on this stuff.
It doesn't mean that those ideas are ok for people to personally have, but it does mean that we can work together to agree on a lot of shit, make progress.
tl;dr; Don't hate people on the other side of politics, talk to them.
>What’s intellectually honest about hating people for their sexual orientation and advocating for discrimination against them?
Can you provide any evidence he does any of these things?
Can you provide any evidence he does any of these things?
I’m not sure I would characterize his angry word vomit as “smart” or “intellectually honest”. He’s a male Ann Coulter; a loudmouth who loves to stir up controversy.
You're going to have to explain why you don't think Ben Shapiro is alt-right, he's basically a poster child for them.
Sounds like you don't know the difference between right and alt-right.
What does 'alt' mean when added as a prefix to left or right to you?
What % of people on the right would you consider alt-right? What % of people on the left would you consider alt-left?
What % of people on the right would you consider alt-right? What % of people on the left would you consider alt-left?
> What does 'alt' mean when added as a prefix to left or right to you?
Not the GP, but the 'alt' prefix to me seems to invoke the similar usage in the term 'alternative' music like Nirvana, Pearl Jam, etc, which were an 'alternative' to pop music from the 80s and 90s. The prefix suggests a change of type and not just a change of degree. They aren't just "more conservative Republicans".
This is why it applies more to the right than the left in today's social discourse, since the spectrum on the left is still more a matter of degree than kind.
In the context of the right, this change of type means abandonment of traditional establishment Republican stances like free trade and foreign interventionism in near totality, and the promotion of previously fringe movements within the right like ethnic nationalism (often under the guise of 'economic nationalism').
Not the GP, but the 'alt' prefix to me seems to invoke the similar usage in the term 'alternative' music like Nirvana, Pearl Jam, etc, which were an 'alternative' to pop music from the 80s and 90s. The prefix suggests a change of type and not just a change of degree. They aren't just "more conservative Republicans".
This is why it applies more to the right than the left in today's social discourse, since the spectrum on the left is still more a matter of degree than kind.
In the context of the right, this change of type means abandonment of traditional establishment Republican stances like free trade and foreign interventionism in near totality, and the promotion of previously fringe movements within the right like ethnic nationalism (often under the guise of 'economic nationalism').
Thanks for offering a perspective on the right.
I do disagree about a change of type not happening on the left. I see a very large rift developing on the left around whether to honor classically liberal values or not.
I do think the trends in 'alt' usage are predominately aimed at the right as more of a pejorative towards the outgroup, and less of a descriptive term. You can see a snapshot of the vast disparity in usage here: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=Alt-right,...
I do disagree about a change of type not happening on the left. I see a very large rift developing on the left around whether to honor classically liberal values or not.
I do think the trends in 'alt' usage are predominately aimed at the right as more of a pejorative towards the outgroup, and less of a descriptive term. You can see a snapshot of the vast disparity in usage here: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=Alt-right,...
What I imagined years ago is that the Occupy movement and the 99 percenters would become the Democratic's version of the Republican Tea party. You can kind of see this to a degree in AOC and Sanders, if I understand everything correctly.
I think you are correct in your definition. But if you are many people use it incorrectly. It's thrown at most conservatives. While most conservatives find ethnic nationalism appalling. That said nationalism is appealing to a large percentage of conservatives.
There isn't a single term used for a political group that you can break down into sub-components and root words to understand what it means. The best you can get will be the origins of the term, but that might no longer be related to how it's used today.
Yeah, my impression is that it's predominantly not used to accurately describe the political leanings of a person or group of people, and it's just a quick modifier that can be used by people to paint the target as an extremist who holds anti-social views.
If I were to wager a guess, I'd guess that the targets of the term 'alt-right' would rarely accept that description of their politics. Whereas 'right' or 'conservative' or 'social conservative' or similar terms would have a high acceptance rate for those that are being called it. 'Alt' has become a pejorative in everyday use (at least in the liberal circles that I run in).
If I were to wager a guess, I'd guess that the targets of the term 'alt-right' would rarely accept that description of their politics. Whereas 'right' or 'conservative' or 'social conservative' or similar terms would have a high acceptance rate for those that are being called it. 'Alt' has become a pejorative in everyday use (at least in the liberal circles that I run in).
You're still (intentionally?) missing the point. There is no such thing as an "accurate descriptor of political leanings". There are words useful to describe groups of people from the outside, words useful for groups of people use to describe themselves, and sometimes they overlap.
I disagree that it isn't possible to accurately describe one's political leanings.
I am a proponent of aiming for accuracy when trying to describe other people's politics, and being charitable whenever possible.
If I see a group of people using words to describe another group of people in a way that purposely misrepresents them, particularly in a negative way, I think that's something worth calling out.
I don't have the nihilistic take that "if you can't 100% accurately describe something, then it's okay to not even try".
I am a proponent of aiming for accuracy when trying to describe other people's politics, and being charitable whenever possible.
If I see a group of people using words to describe another group of people in a way that purposely misrepresents them, particularly in a negative way, I think that's something worth calling out.
I don't have the nihilistic take that "if you can't 100% accurately describe something, then it's okay to not even try".
alt is not an independent modifier you can assume would play a similar role in a different context. Alt-right is just an alternative rightwing movement.
My personal take would be that alt right is a rightwing suberversion of traditional american conservatism. In addition to largely white identity politics, there's also a strong push for anti-establishment, and indifference to traditional norms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right
> The term is ill-defined, having been used in different ways by various self-described "alt-rightists", media commentators, and academics. Groups which have been identified as alt-right also espouse white supremacism, white separatism, right-wing populism, anti-immigration, racism, anti-communism, anti-Zionism, antisemitism, Holocaust denial, xenophobia, anti-intellectualism, antifeminism, homophobia, and Islamophobia.
My personal take would be that alt right is a rightwing suberversion of traditional american conservatism. In addition to largely white identity politics, there's also a strong push for anti-establishment, and indifference to traditional norms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right
> The term is ill-defined, having been used in different ways by various self-described "alt-rightists", media commentators, and academics. Groups which have been identified as alt-right also espouse white supremacism, white separatism, right-wing populism, anti-immigration, racism, anti-communism, anti-Zionism, antisemitism, Holocaust denial, xenophobia, anti-intellectualism, antifeminism, homophobia, and Islamophobia.
[deleted]
I disagree, I think the usage and meaning of 'alt' is in fact complicated. I've asked many other people this same question and they've all given different answers.
The core underlying theme is that 'alt' gets used as a pejorative towards your outgroup. Your descriptions of the right here are quite uncharitable, which is a strong signal of your biased thinking.
You also conveniently didn't answer my question about % of the right you'd classify as 'alt-right' and the % of the left that you'd classify as 'alt-left'. I suspect the reason you chose not to is because of that same bias. It would make clear that you use 'alt' as a pejorative selectively towards your outgroup.
The core underlying theme is that 'alt' gets used as a pejorative towards your outgroup. Your descriptions of the right here are quite uncharitable, which is a strong signal of your biased thinking.
You also conveniently didn't answer my question about % of the right you'd classify as 'alt-right' and the % of the left that you'd classify as 'alt-left'. I suspect the reason you chose not to is because of that same bias. It would make clear that you use 'alt' as a pejorative selectively towards your outgroup.
This is about as needlessly hyperbolic as claiming that everyone on the left wants to see the US turn to socialism complete with "reeducation" camps for anyone right of center.
You lack perspective.
You lack perspective.
Whatever Ben Shapiro is, alt-right or just right of center, he holds views typical of most conservatives. If that means all the U.S. conservatives meet your definition of alt-right, so be it.
This. None of these are static categories, and even if Shapiro's litany of X-phobic views were previously 'alt-right', they are now part of the mainstream political right (and its manifestation in the Republican party). As a result I think it's genuinely hard to be a non X-phobic conservative these days.
This kinda parallels the alt-rock of the 90s as mentioned in other comments. Back then it was called that because it was "alternative" to what was mainstream rock, but over time it eclipsed the mainstream and now most new rock music falls under the "alt-rock" umbrella.
To continue with alt-music analogies, I am a big fan of alt-country (bands like Wilco, Son Volt, etc) who were the alternative to the dominant pop-country genre. IIRC in recent years that genre has influenced pop country but never really merged with it.
Shapiro is right-wing mainstream conservative, not alt-right.
Ben Shapiro is definitely a fascist and most certainly a racist but that doesn’t make him alt-right.
What the hell is alt-right anyways? As in, what are the fundamental principles of its ideology?
What the hell is alt-right anyways? As in, what are the fundamental principles of its ideology?
I'm honestly surprised to hear you accuse Ben of racism. What stances does he hold that lead you to that conclusion?
Read his own words. One tweet [1] is still up about how Israelis “like to build” (settlements) while Arabs like to “bomb and live in sewage”. For your own information, the context is regarding the settlements that Israelis like to build in Palestinian territory. The Palestinian area is depopulated by uzi-wielding settlers and military bulldozers. All countries of the world (including the US) consider these settlements a violation of human rights and international laws. What’s more racist than that?
[1] https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/25712847277?s=21
[1] https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/25712847277?s=21
Ah fair call. I had not factored in his Zionist views.
I think he has apologised for that one but it still shows some genuine racism.
I think he has apologised for that one but it still shows some genuine racism.
How do you determine who is a fascist?
Do you take into account any counter-evidence when making such a deduction?
Do you take into account any counter-evidence when making such a deduction?
I’m not throwing the fascist label because he is a right-winger. I’m throwing it because he supports a military which rules over a subset of the civilian population with the merciless boot. And that military rule is the Israeli rule over Palestinians in the occupied territories. That’s why I called him a fascist racist.
"He was editor-at-large of Breitbart News between 2012 and 2016. [...] Shapiro is a critic of the alt-right movement."
Sounds like a classic case of the "flat-earth society that has members all around the globe".
In any case, it doesn't get much more fact free and hypocritical than that.
Sounds like a classic case of the "flat-earth society that has members all around the globe".
In any case, it doesn't get much more fact free and hypocritical than that.
Not surprising considering Facebook's demographics in the United States.
Also given the fact that Trump's rallies were attended to in extremely larger numbers compared to that of Biden's, and the new White House videos being downvoted heavily in YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/WhiteHouse/videos
*edit: Responding to a comment below,
> I very much doubt he even won the election
We have to be extremely careful when alleging election fraud. I think that may be perceived to be divisive. It would be more fruitful to directly link to the individual allegations instead:
https://sharylattkisson.com/2020/12/what-youve-been-asking-f...
In 2 days, SCOTUS will hear some of these cases:
https://visiontimes.com/2021/02/17/the-supreme-court-will-lo...
*edit: Responding to a comment below,
> I very much doubt he even won the election
We have to be extremely careful when alleging election fraud. I think that may be perceived to be divisive. It would be more fruitful to directly link to the individual allegations instead:
https://sharylattkisson.com/2020/12/what-youve-been-asking-f...
In 2 days, SCOTUS will hear some of these cases:
https://visiontimes.com/2021/02/17/the-supreme-court-will-lo...
Have the courage to use a real account instead of creating new ones.
I'd argue you could have said this in a more constructive way.
If this were a sports game there would be yellow and red flags all over this incident.
-No talking politics
-No overuse of anonymous accounts
-Be Kind,
-Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive
I really like that last one.
As I'm not a moderator please just consider this a friendly reminder that there is always a human on the other side of the keyboard, even the anonymous ones.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
If this were a sports game there would be yellow and red flags all over this incident.
-No talking politics
-No overuse of anonymous accounts
-Be Kind,
-Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive
I really like that last one.
As I'm not a moderator please just consider this a friendly reminder that there is always a human on the other side of the keyboard, even the anonymous ones.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Indeed, the silent majority of this country voted for Biden.
Biden is president because of like 62,000 votes across 4 different states.
I agree, let's get rid of the electoral college, and we'll never have to deal with incompetent republicans in the WH again.
Making that argument without acknowledging that Trump lost the popular vote is very disingenuous.
Trump was president because of 107k votes in three states.
Even less than that really, only around 77k votes (MI, PA, WI margins).
He's actually president because of 81 million votes in every state but especially those in 25 States, DC, and Nebraska's 2nd congressional district.
And SCOTUS has planned to look at the cases in two days:
> The United States Supreme Court will be looking into election fraud lawsuits during its Feb. 19 conference. These lawsuits include two cases filed by the Trump campaign and one case, each filed by Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, and Republican Representative Mike Kelly.
https://visiontimes.com/2021/02/17/the-supreme-court-will-lo...
> The United States Supreme Court will be looking into election fraud lawsuits during its Feb. 19 conference. These lawsuits include two cases filed by the Trump campaign and one case, each filed by Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, and Republican Representative Mike Kelly.
https://visiontimes.com/2021/02/17/the-supreme-court-will-lo...
> filed by Sidney Powell, Lin Wood
It's time to read up on sociopathic personality traits because clearly something pertinent is being missed here.
It's time to read up on sociopathic personality traits because clearly something pertinent is being missed here.
You do realize that that makes Trump and his supporters look worse not better? Considering there's currently a pandemic going on.
It's always hilarious and absurd to me how people use Trump's rally size -- in 2020, during a pandemic -- as some sort of proxy objective measurement for popularity. I mean, Trump held rallies to the shock and horror of local and national and international government health departments because he's an entertainer and he knew it would be good for business, and in many cases even shamed people for wearing masks so as to attract _more_ people to his rallies. ("Everything's perfectly fine here you beautiful people!") Biden followed protocol to a T, because it was necessary to protect public health.
When medical professionals gave the green light to the BLM protests last summer they lost every bit of credibility.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/health/health-care-open-lette...
As we've seen repeatedly over the last year, the "science" follows whatever is convenient for democrats. Why should anyone listen to it?
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/health/health-care-open-lette...
As we've seen repeatedly over the last year, the "science" follows whatever is convenient for democrats. Why should anyone listen to it?
I don't think some random letter signed on some random day by a bunch of random healthcare professionals upset about police brutality is in any way evidence that so-called "science" is a political tool used by democrats in order to advance particular aims.
And I don't think I need to state the obvious, but maybe I do: an open letter signed by 1200 healthcare professionals does not speak for the entire medical profession, in any way whatsoever. Healthcare is one of the largest employers in the US. And it certainly doesn't speak for scientific objectivity.
And I don't think I need to state the obvious, but maybe I do: an open letter signed by 1200 healthcare professionals does not speak for the entire medical profession, in any way whatsoever. Healthcare is one of the largest employers in the US. And it certainly doesn't speak for scientific objectivity.
Don’t forget that Trump’s Tulsa rally killed Herman Cain.
Little bit of column A, little bit of column B. More people packed the streets for BLM than either candidate. But does anyone really believe that Joe Biden would have had popular rallies even without a pandemic to hide behind? I very much doubt he even won the election but we’ll probably never know!
> I very much doubt he even won the election
Yeah, the most hated man on the planet lost the election, how completely shocking.
Yeah, the most hated man on the planet lost the election, how completely shocking.
> But does anyone really believe that Joe Biden would have had popular rallies even without a pandemic to hide behind
There's a two party system in the US. Like every presidential election literally ever, both parties attract a lot of popular attention because.... there's only two parties.
There's a two party system in the US. Like every presidential election literally ever, both parties attract a lot of popular attention because.... there's only two parties.
Except for the 1992 presidential election, in which 18.9% of the votes went to 3rd party candidate Ross Perot. He didn't win any Electoral votes, but he did throw the election to Bill Clinton by denying George H.W. Bush an electoral vote majority in certain key states.
This is bullshit. There is a much smaller number of conservative news websites or tv channels compared to democrats, though the population is roughly 50/50, so of course the few conservative outlets individually attracts more traffic hence appearing more often in top links, but not in aggregate.
Engagement or enragement, it still is eyeballs on the article.
I'm imagining a alternate version of git where you do `git log` or some such other subcommand, and the output comes from the aggregate of every local clone that has ever existed.
So someone writes an alarming story that 68% of the kernel code is in such a broken state it actually doesn't even compile correctly. Ok, but what would that mean for such a weirdo, broken piece of software? That most users download, tinker, get frustrated and never come back? That Linus is incompetent? That there's one troll out there continually cloning master and breaking it to write a story about? That there's N such trolls?
To me, the only information to glean from that would be that this alt-git would be a massive pile of garbage.
The difference with Facebook is that its userbase doesn't have the competency or necessary source/data access to, say, leverage a hash to grab the goods and fork the thing into a non-stupid, workable piece of software. A non-negligible number of their users keep using it as a source of news.
The Qanon bullshit is basically a pentest that shows the content of this headline could literally be anything at all when it comes to Facebook. It'd be absurd to spend time discussing what exactly it is about Tom Hanks that makes people think he eats babies. The topic should be how the hell we are going to stop FAANG from enumerating through every socially destructive set of lucrative dark patterns before this stops.
Edit: clarification
So someone writes an alarming story that 68% of the kernel code is in such a broken state it actually doesn't even compile correctly. Ok, but what would that mean for such a weirdo, broken piece of software? That most users download, tinker, get frustrated and never come back? That Linus is incompetent? That there's one troll out there continually cloning master and breaking it to write a story about? That there's N such trolls?
To me, the only information to glean from that would be that this alt-git would be a massive pile of garbage.
The difference with Facebook is that its userbase doesn't have the competency or necessary source/data access to, say, leverage a hash to grab the goods and fork the thing into a non-stupid, workable piece of software. A non-negligible number of their users keep using it as a source of news.
The Qanon bullshit is basically a pentest that shows the content of this headline could literally be anything at all when it comes to Facebook. It'd be absurd to spend time discussing what exactly it is about Tom Hanks that makes people think he eats babies. The topic should be how the hell we are going to stop FAANG from enumerating through every socially destructive set of lucrative dark patterns before this stops.
Edit: clarification
presume its okay if its pro-biden :)
The US is proveably 50/50-ish
Unless Facebook has a strongly biased audience, it seems likely that their algorithms should represent the population.
68% pro Trump does not.
Unless Facebook has a strongly biased audience, it seems likely that their algorithms should represent the population.
68% pro Trump does not.
Facebook's audience does not reflect America's population. It is older and more conservative so I'm actually surprised by it's only 68% of the links.
Young people stay away from Facebook by the droves... that is until they get married and start having kids. By then they're older and <gasp> more conservative.
Young people stay away from Facebook by the droves... that is until they get married and start having kids. By then they're older and <gasp> more conservative.
I think its much more likely that people who are on Facebook with young kids right now are simply the people in my(30s) cohort who never deleted their account they signed up for back in the late 2000s.
> The US is proveably 50/50-ish
The “ish” does a lot of work there.
> Unless Facebook has a strongly biased audience is
If it doesn't, it would be one of the few media sources that didn't. Why wouldn't it?
The “ish” does a lot of work there.
> Unless Facebook has a strongly biased audience is
If it doesn't, it would be one of the few media sources that didn't. Why wouldn't it?
> The “ish” does a lot of work there.
In what way? The US is proveably 51.3% Democrat, 46.5% Republican. I was reducing significant digits because I don’t know the specific split for people who didn’t vote.
> If it doesn't, it would be one of the few media sources that didn't. Why wouldn't it?
Not sure your source on this one. Even Fox is only 53% Republicans, and MSNBC is only 62% Democratic (https://pos.org/whos-watching-a-look-at-the-demographics-of-...). This blows them away.
In what way? The US is proveably 51.3% Democrat, 46.5% Republican. I was reducing significant digits because I don’t know the specific split for people who didn’t vote.
> If it doesn't, it would be one of the few media sources that didn't. Why wouldn't it?
Not sure your source on this one. Even Fox is only 53% Republicans, and MSNBC is only 62% Democratic (https://pos.org/whos-watching-a-look-at-the-demographics-of-...). This blows them away.
Facebook is also not a US-only site. And the international audience almost certainly leans (heavily?) anti-Trump. So there's that.
Good point! That makes this even worse for US representation
Trump probably got close to 95 million votes, the mainstream media and the activist ballot workers/officials are great at deception and most Americans aren’t dumb enough to have thought Joe Biden would make a good President, especially after how great Trump was doing. It’s pretty obvious what happened in 2020 was more than just a perfect storm, the swamp drained Trump while saying “we can’t allow anyone to audit election integrity”.
Source please
This shouldn't be surprising as Trump was recently found in a Gallup poll to be more admired than Obama and Biden.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/328193/donald-trump-michelle-ob...
> Overall, 18% of Americans name Trump, 15% name Obama, 6% Biden and 3% Fauci.
I do find it a tad bit curious that Biden, with a mere 6% approval rate, was certified to have won the election and Trump apparently lost it when he had thrice Biden's approval rate.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/328193/donald-trump-michelle-ob...
> Overall, 18% of Americans name Trump, 15% name Obama, 6% Biden and 3% Fauci.
I do find it a tad bit curious that Biden, with a mere 6% approval rate, was certified to have won the election and Trump apparently lost it when he had thrice Biden's approval rate.
That's a remarkable misinterpretation of the survey.
> Eighteen percent of the survey's respondents named Trump as their most admired man, compared to 15 percent who named Obama and 6 percent who named President-elect Joe Biden.
Going from "named the most admired by a plurality" to "the most admired" is exactly the same flaw as in first-past-the-post voting.
> Eighteen percent of the survey's respondents named Trump as their most admired man, compared to 15 percent who named Obama and 6 percent who named President-elect Joe Biden.
Going from "named the most admired by a plurality" to "the most admired" is exactly the same flaw as in first-past-the-post voting.
Good point there, split between Obama and Biden.
But there's only one like trump, and his fans are very passionate. That's what worked for him in 2016 too.
There was another survey in November where Biden was slightly ahead of Trump, however.
at least that voting was in 2020 not 2021.