It kinda makes them look even more short sighted tbh. Like yeah, you can look at “there’s a few polls where he takes from Biden” and call it a day, but it’s kinda missing the fact he’s lost a lot of relevance already with no signs of stopping.

It’s kind of a catch 22: he’s stealing votes from the low-info pool, but at the same time if he’s not defined at all he’ll make no impact by election day. Elevating him can fix that, but that risks those low info voters realizing what they’re getting into and then start biting into Trump’s numbers as expected.

It’s a little silly to look at a whole nearly 10 years and not recognize culture has changed significantly, but here’s an example considering the other reply failed to produce one:

Merely 1 year before, the internet was roiled by absolute massive drama that was basically masterminded by proto-incels upset that women were in the video game industry. They were extremely successful in framing a jilted ex’s story as somehow a question of ethics. It was not only impressive how seriously they were taken, but some aspects were just unquestioned as just “how the internet was” like making depictions of these public figures being beaten to a bloody pulp, when nowadays the kids have been having to make euphemisms for implying someone dying in any way to get around censors. It even spilled over into 2015, which is why I can even use it as an example for that year.

In comparison, Gamergate 2 happened a few weeks ago. Its likely not many people here will even realize that even happened, and those that do recognize it was a whimpering yelp at best compared to the OG.

So, while there’s no green, I think it’d be interesting to consider what’s going on in the yellow places. Its likely those areas are close to parity even if male suicide is (marginally?) higher.

Particularly India and China.

Edit: just India, China is on the higher end after looking into the actual numbers. Also, Grenada should show up as green on this map, but the creator chose to not include it. Admittedly, it wasn’t the only lesser Antilles island that was nixed so I’m not going to immediately call bias.

I’m not sure those numbers are as rosy for your argument as you’d think. You’re not considering the possibility of someone that does think it’s genocide and wholy approves of it. Which does exist, the “glass em all” types like my father.

I’m pretty sure it all balances out, because other polls are showing it’s still Israel with the popularity advantage even with the downturn.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/611375/americans-views-israel-palestinian-authority-down.aspx

It’s especially telling that desire to pressure the Palestinians to compromise is dropping faster than the increase to pressure Israel: it’s either people just becoming wishy washy or intentionally wanting the conflict to continue until Israel wipes them out. (Kinda wish Gallup didn’t nix the differentiation between those options tbh).

Yeah, I’m pretty sure most of the money Trump fundraised was from “new converts” of people that never voted until Trump entered politics. And those people are probably tapped out now or disillusioned

The Republican party has long been funded by big donors for so long that the individual member has a deep distrust in individual donations. At the very least, I know my parents are in that boat: they think it’s a scam.

The polls are wrong as long as they keep clashing with electoral reality. Nate Copper’s article is heavy on poll data but flimsy on electoral anecdotes: a county election in 2020 and New York Elections with inconvenient data lopped off (The recent elections to replace George Santos).

The shift the polls are claiming are so seismic that it begs the question why this unprecedented shift is non-existent in basically every post-dobbs election. And let’s not forget the fact that these polls present other, nonsensical trends to like the elderly shifting hard to Democrats too: a shift that can’t easily be waved off by the usual “The shift is only in voters that only vote in presidential elections” excuse.

That’s the thing, neither? I get approved a certain amount of hours and it’s always 40 a week.

I’m going to keep an eye out in the market with these replies. I think I’m still ok if it’s just the possibility of reduced hours because I’m not entirely sure if that’s likely the case. I didn’t mention it in OP, but we already had an “approved” amount of hours to work regardless based on contracts. We also have timesheets regardless due to auditing requirements.

But it probably doesn’t hurt to be cautious.

I was possibly thinking this too? The email that announced itself mentions “the timing of this change–DATE–will be aligned to the implementation of EMPLOYER’S new payroll cadence and provider”. Also something about manual transactions being unsustainable under the company size.

I’d assume you meant just the 40 hours right? As far as I can tell I could still get overtime since it’s non-exempt either way.

Question: what party is Sinema in now?

It’s pretty evident now Sinema could not be bullied if she was willing to immolate her career over even the soft demands made of her.

That is admittedly why I also said “or make a show about it”…

I’m actually not sure if Texas actually did stop the Feds from cutting the razor wire. I actually checked and it seems like the entire story just disappeared from all news after they made a lot of noise on it.

They won’t, but Colorado should still keep him off the ballot. The ruling was clearly made in fear of chaos instead of what was correct, so they deserve chaos irregardless.

Or at least make a show about it, like all those states did when Texas was told to let the fed agents cut the razor wire.

You’d think that, but humans can be weird with what actually causes introspection.

The hospital thing they just took the official line for. They actually mocked Aaron, or were actually grateful he took his own life thinking he was a disturbed individual.

Edit: If you want to understand the logic: they’re willing to turn a blind eye if they can “both sides” incidents so they can simply keep their position of “Israel has a right to defend itself, regardless if they’re not saints about it”.

The humanitarian aid story is getting them because Bibi won’t even let them do that! Hence why I mentioned the story sharing, since they know Bibi had made it clear he wants to starve Palestinians.

I feel like it was that gunning down incident with the humanitarian aid that ultimately tipped the scales.

I know I’ve been going on defense for Israel a lot recently, but I am kinda playing messenger boy as a neutral for being both here and some pro-Israel groups. The Michigan vote didn’t really phase them, that incident did. Seen them even sharing more info about how ridiculously strict Bibi is with aid in general.

But you did say 2008, you said it was a “similar” result. I’m not going to contest the anomalous nature, but the result itself is not similar at all!

My point is that I don’t agree, the numbers are only consistent for 2016/2020 (because turns out most people won’t waste time with an uncommitted vote when there’s a viable opposition candidate: Bernie). 2012 is a deviation and in the same way this primary did. The only thing different is the absolute number of votes altogether (in a state that has had insignificant population growth mind).

You can’t honestly tell me 39% is closer to 13% than 10%. 3% is not significant, it’s an error margin on a poll.

The significant part is the absolute numbers, but that comes with caveat that the Biden vote was 3x Obama’s in 2012 (and is 80% of the vote, which is a little less because of unviable candidates so unfortunately there’s a little muddying).

Honestly, the whole thing is kinda proving to me the pro-palestine movement still isn’t really big in the US despite the optics. Or, at the very least, there’s still a large pro-Israel contingent that dwarfs them. And probably why Biden’s been ignoring them.

The percentage is more important, and it’s basically the same size as 2012 which is the appropriate comparison (2016 and 2020 had other, viable candidates to vote for).

Numbers are higher… But that’s the issue isn’t it? Seems to me an even larger portion of voters came out to “anti-protest” the protest voters too.

Pretty weak showing for the uncommitted campaign. Marginally better performance so far than in 2012, making it indistinguishable from generic discontent even though it was supposed to be over a specific issue.

This sounds like a pretty dead bill, just barely making it over the finish line (To what’s basically a party line vote).

I don’t know what change they could make to peel off even a single Dem, much less overcome the governor’s veto.