Hey @[email protected] and @[email protected]: When I was sending that code to parse Wikipedia’s sources list for a possibly better fact-checking scanner, one of the notable things that I found out is that Wikipedia regards Newsweek as unreliable. It used to be reliable, as most media outlets are, but they say that since an ownership change a few years ago, they’re not. I have to say, now that I’ve been paying attention, their stories definitely seem to have very little to do with factual information, and quite a lot to do with amassing clicks or communicating a particular partisan message which isn’t true, or both. Case in point, this explicitly propaganda-framed article.
I don’t see a community rule which is specifically against unreliable articles, as measured by any source, but how would you feel about that? In conjunction with a more robust standard for what is and isn’t reliable? In my judgement, this link is clearly in violation of “Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed.”
Also, why is this guy still allowed to post? It seems weird. He’s so openly spamming the community with unwelcome trolling and propaganda that it seems strange that he’s still being welcomed with open arms. In what way is this improving the community to have him putting up a steady flow of posts, and having every one met with universal downvotes and jeering?
It’s a broader question than this one post, but this post is a good example in reference to both questions.
Preach it.
What specifically about the article do you find clickbaity or unfactual?
I’ve discussed it elsewhere in the comments. The reason why more people changed their party affiliation in 2024 than 2023 has absolutely nothing to do with them being Democrats or not, but the article has constructed this bizarre artificial lens to look at that fact through, that lets them pretend that it had something to do with them being Democrats, and imply that that means people overall are leaving the Democratic party, when that has nothing to do with the data they’re looking at.
sorry we are repeating this in another thread, I didn’t realize I replied to the same person twice. But I do want to leave this here for context.
To me it does seem a little concerning that democrats have lost more registrations than republicans:
This year, 48,702 Republicans switched parties, with 24,046 changing to “other” and 24,656 becoming Democrats, around a 67 percent increase in Republicans leaving the party.
And I’m sure if they were pro Harris it would be completely reputable and certainly not click bait.
If someone posted 15 times a day some objectively misinformational story about how great Kamala Harris is on some issue, then yes, that would be a bunch of crap. I still wouldn’t react to it with the same level of vigor, because it’s not potentially harmful in the same way to the same level to myself and my country’s government, but yes, it would be inappropriate.
If government is shit that doesn’t represent the working class then it should be called out. And called out repeatedly until the message is clear.
If someone posted 15 articles a day saying that Google was running a secret satanic society in the basement of their Mountain View campus, and they had to be stopped by supporting Microsoft instead, I would object to that. Not because I love Google, but because that’s a bunch of lies, and the solution that’s proposed is going to make things worse.
I don’t know how many times I have to say it. The issue is not that counterculture viewpoints are unpopular on Lemmy. The issue is that this particular “counterculture” viewpoint is both false, and leading very predictably to very non-counterculture result, getting Trump elected, which would be a catastrophe for both the counterculture and the mainstream.
Yes, all issues must be treated the same. Reminds me of idiot managers I’ve had literally telling us to focus on several things at once
So, the question remains: if I bother you so much, why don’t you just block me? You were annoyed enough to bring it to the mods, so wouldn’t blocking me be a simpler solution? That way, you wouldn’t have to deal with my posts, and your feed would only show what you prefer to see.
You’re welcome to mock me or twist my words, but doesn’t that undermine your own argument? If I’m “arguing in bad faith” by responding, aren’t you doing the same by engaging in similar behavior?
I’ve blocked plenty of people here who annoy me, so why not just do the same with me?
It seems odd to call for a ban when it’s clear I’m the one facing trolling and personal attacks daily.
If you check the mod log, you’ll see more posts removed for trolling me than the other way around. Thank you! :)
So, the question remains: if I bother you so much, why don’t you just block me?
Because you’re polluting the community.
If someone’s yelling with a megaphone on a street corner, and a lot of it is false and dangerous material that’s clearly in service of a threatening development in my government, putting on noise-cancelling headphones is not a solution.
You’re welcome to mock me or twist my words, but doesn’t that undermine your own argument?
When did I do either of those things?
Are you talking about me quoting your fake-friendly style of messaging back to you? I did feel a little bit dirty about doing it. Why would that be an offensive type of message for you to receive, though? I want you to explain to me why me reacting to your message with that type of cheerful dismissiveness would be a bad thing for me to do.
It seems odd to call for a ban when it’s clear I’m the one facing trolling and personal attacks daily.
They’re two distinct issues. If someone’s being uncivil to you, that might be against the community rules. If you’re posting things at an unbelievable volume, from dishonest sources, for a dishonestly partisan purpose, then I think that should be forbidden, although it may or not not be against the current community rules as interpreted by the current moderators. I do think the latter leads to the former, but in terms of everyone behaving and following the rules, they’re simply two separate actions. Certainly the latter doesn’t justify the former.
If you check the mod log, you’ll see more posts removed for trolling me than the other way around.
That sounds completely plausible. That, to me, is gross negligence in moderation. I think I’ve explained why already.
Because you’re polluting the community.
Dude, the number of pro-Harris articles far outweigh the ones I post, and I only share from legitimate news sources. Like I’ve said before, if the mods find any of them unreliable, I’ll stop posting from those sources.
lot of it is false and dangerous material that’s clearly in service of a threatening development in my government
Seriously?! You’re saying that me posting articles from Newsweek to Lemmy—a platform with a much smaller audience than the original sites—is “threatening development” in your government? Do you even realize how tiny the Lemmy audience is? Do you actually think Newsweek, Reuters, AP News (the sources I often use) are all publishing false and dangerous material? Come on! I thought you were serious at first, but now it’s hard to take you seriously. Sorry, guy.
Are you talking about me quoting your fake-friendly style of messaging back to you? I did feel a little bit dirty about doing it.
Oh I wasn’t offended. I think it’s a legitimate response. People think I’m being fake when I do that, but I’m not. It was just ironic you were there talking about how I am terrible for the community, and then you mimicked me when I asked you something. So I thought it deflated your argument a bit. But no, I didn’t mind it.
from dishonest sources, for a dishonestly partisan purpose
Again, you brought your point up about Newsweek to the mods. They haven’t said they no longer count it as a reliable source. The HAVE said that they are not against biased, partisan sources though. And if they say Newsweek isn’t reliable, then I won’t use it. And I’m not conservative, so I’m not being partisan in that sense. I’ve posted articles with all different kinds of political viewpoints–all equally downvoted by the way.
That, to me, is gross negligence in moderation.
Actually it’s not gross negligence in moderation. They are removing comments of people trolling me and being uncivil. As they do for everyone. The mods here do great work and they put up with a LOT of nonsense. My comments and articles are the least of their worries. Have you seen some of the racist and violent stuff they have to remove every day?!
Friend, your complaints about me are minor in the scheme of all the crap they have to wade through.
So again, why aren’t you blocking me since my posts annoy you so much? I’m not being a dick, I am honestly curious of why you would put yourself through the aggravation of seeing my posts if they bother you so much. You said it was because I was “polluting” the community, but how is you not blocking me solving that problem?!
Also, I disagree. I don’t think I’m polluting anything. I am posting interesting articles from legit sources. Feel free to DM me too if there is something you don’t want to say publically. I’m fine having the conversation either way. Thank you! :)
[sealion noises]
You’re asking me questions, and you don’t like the answers. You’ve got a right to your opinion, but I think I’ve explained sufficiently why I would like to see you banned. I’m not interested in a debate about it.
I do want to address this:
Seriously?! You’re saying that me posting articles from Newsweek to Lemmy—a platform with a much smaller audience than the original sites—is “threatening development” in your government? Do you even realize how tiny the Lemmy audience is?
I think the impact of this particular pollution will be small, but I value the idea of being a part of a little community where this type of pollution is minimized, and I think that in the aggregate across many different types of social media, the impact is large. I think that social media large and small are subject to a huge amount of manipulative content of some kind, and I think that does incalculable harm to the exchange of information that’s essential to a functioning democracy. It’s why democracy is on such a back foot in so many different places right now. The old model of journalism with high standards, whatever its numerous flaws, has been replaced by standards-free anarchy which carefully engineered propaganda is free to flood into at scale, and it’s happening to a huge degree, and we’re not well-equipped to deal with it. Whatever your intentions in being here, whether or not they are well-meaning, you’re participating in that flood.
I don’t really care how the mods are currently defining good behavior and bad behavior. Whatever they’re doing as pertains to you, it’s leading to a massively unpopular reaction in the ordinary members of this community, and I think we’ve all spent enough time explaining our reasons for that reaction at this point. You can hide behind the mods if you want. I’ve observed your openness level to what people are telling you, and at this point I’ve mostly given up on talking with you, and am simply aiming my conversation at the moderators, arguing for why their current approach to moderating you is wrong, and you need to be banned.
If you were just coming in with an unusual point of view, that would be one thing. Honest criticism of the war in Gaza, honest criticism of the Democrats’ economic policies, honest critique of the whole idea of capitalism in general, is all fine. They’re far from un-heard of. Lemmy is far, far, far from some kind of DNC circle-jerk where you’re the only one who’s got any kind of rebellious viewpoint. The problem with your content is that, like this article, it is wildly and deliberately misleading, and repeated at a scale that’s offensive. You post all this stuff blaming Kamala Harris for the massacre in Palestine, but you voted for someone who wants to accelerate the massacre and is angry at the Biden administration for not doing enough to support and enable it. You claim not to care who wins the election, but you constantly post attacks against one side like it’s a part-time job. You claim to want third parties to be viable, but you spend very little time supporting the exact reform that would make them viable at doing anything other than spoiling the election for the other side.
If you don’t want me criticizing you, and it seems that you don’t, then be straight about what you believe. People respect plenty of minority and counterculture views here. Pretending that you’re getting this reception because people love Kamala Harris is precisely the problem. Recognize that other people have valid reasons for their criticism. Respect their time and opinion enough to cool it with the megaphone, and engage directly with what people who disagree with you are saying, instead of pretending they said something else. If you refuse to do any of those things, you’re going to receive criticism from the community, and when that criticism is ignored, you’re going to receive insults in kind to the disrespect you are showing to everyone else. That’s how humans function.
Do you actually think Newsweek, Reuters, AP News (the sources I often use) are all publishing false and dangerous material?
Yes, sometimes. Absolutely. The badness of the mainstream press is a big part of the problem as well. We’re currently discussing Newsweek, which it seems like has been taken over by an explicit propaganda operation to some extent, but almost all of the US press is subject to the corruption to at least a certain degree.
Come on! I thought you were serious at first, but now it’s hard to take you seriously. Sorry, guy.
I’ll have to try to carry on, somehow.
I don’t have any issues with you disagreeing with me—that’s your right. But it seems like you’re treating Lemmy as a small, unchanging community, and you’re viewing my posts, which you even admitted are “minor" pollution, as a reflection of bigger societal issues like social media.
I think you’re focusing on me because I’ve become an outlet for your frustration about those larger problems.
Here’s the thing: I’m not the cause or the solution to that. Wanting me banned because you don’t like the potential changes my presence might bring to your idea of this community is unreasonable. There are far worse people online deliberately causing problems, and I’m not one of them.
Despite your assumptions about me, you’re wrong. I’ve always been open about my interest in political news, and I’ve posted articles from all perspectives. This community doesn’t need more pro-Harris content because it’s already overflowing with it.
So, no, I don’t take your accusations to heart. You’re afraid of change, particularly what you see as negative change, and I’ve somehow become the face of that for you. But banning me or seeing me leave isn’t going to fix anything.
And honestly, if everything you said were true, you could block me.
But here’s my theory—and it’s just a theory, not an accusation: You’re so annoyed by me that you won’t block me because you secretly enjoy watching people jump on me. You’re waiting for that big moment when I get banned or called out, or better yet, give up.
But, like those who think I’ll disappear after the election, you’ve got me wrong.
I enjoy using Lemmy and I’m here to stay. I value its potential to avoid becoming an echo chamber. I like hearing dissenting voices, even if I don’t always agree.
In my view, you’re longing for the “good old days” of Reddit, where niche communities felt untouched by the general public.
You might see me as someone mucking up what you love, but I disagree. Lemmy is more than just this one community, and I plan to keep using it across different communities and I’m on many different instances.
Whether you like it or not, change is coming—but I’m not the one bringing the negative aspects of it.
Thank you, friend! :)
Let me clarify a few things. I’ve been accused of all kinds of things over the past several days.
I’ve been called a Russian troll, a MAGA supporter, and even accused of being “proud to be aligned with KKK grand wizard David Duke,” which is especially ridiculous since my mother is black. I’ve also been accused of not voting because people assume I’m not in the U.S., of trolling simply because I disagree with someone, and of posting “every 17 minutes,” which is just laughable considering the timestamps are right there for anyone to see.
I’ve been accused of channeling “punchable face energy,” and told that single word that comes out of my mouth is “dripping with disingenuity.” And having multiple accounts. Of being a team of people. Russian words are directed my way.
When I post links to back up my points, I get mocked for “acting like a 12-year-old” just for answering a question and posting links. If I don’t respond, I get accused of ignoring people, and when I do respond, it’s apparently too much and “only a bot” could reply so frequently. Or that I am craving attention. or that I am “arguing in bad faith.”
I’ve been asked to tell people why I post something, and if I answer, they say I’m lying or they say “Oh your copy/pasta standard response.” If I don’t, then they say variations of, “Because we all know the true answer, you’re so transparent!”
I’ve even had my name mentioned in threads for articles I didn’t even post, with people mocking me for “losing my touch on posting” or joking about “summoning me.”
Some users keep daily stats on my posts and downvotes, updating them obsessively and put it in every comment thread of my posts. If I try to explain myself, I’m accused of playing the victim or having “main character syndrome.”
Despite all this, some people still refuse to block me because they claim they want to “make others aware” of me.
One guy just posted four paragraphs of AI-generated nonsense in response to a post I made. When someone asked him why he did that, he admitted that he did it just to see if he could get a reaction to me and seemed disappointed that I didn’t reply to the comment.
All of this in just the last few days.
Here’s a fun look, start here. People mocking me for an article that I didn’t even post: https://lemmy.world/comment/12907842
Under same article that I didn’t post, mad because I am not engaging them: https://lemmy.world/comment/12911504
More people mocking me and using russian reference, for yet another article I didn’t even post: https://lemmy.world/comment/12916672
Mod log of comments removed: https://lemmy.world/modlog/1252
So, no, I’m not trolling. It’s just that you’re annoyed by me. There’s a difference. Trolling is posting stuff TO annoy you–I don’t do that. You being annoyed by me, is just you being annoyed by me. I have no control over that. And you can block me too.
In fact, I deal with trolling and baiting daily, but I’m still here engaging in the conversation.
This community shouldn’t be just for people who are liked or who only post articles that everyone agrees with. This community is a political news community, it’s not a “Pro-Harris Articles Only!” community. The number pro-Harris articles here far far outnumber any other articles. So I’m not spamming. I’m posting articles you don’t like.
And for the record, I HAVE posted pro-Harris articles and anti-Trump articles, and anti-third party articles, and they get downvoted too! Because people just downvote any article posted by me, regardless of content.
This community is supposed to be a place for discussion, and I think we need to keep it that way, without resorting to personal attacks or creating an echo chamber. I’m not the one resorting to personal attacks. Take a look at the links I provided.
I get no preferential treatment from the mods. They treat me just like everyone else. They have removed comments of mine, and article postings of mine if they didn’t agree with the source.
If they feel Newsweek isn’t a reliable source because of the information you have given them, then I won’t post articles from Newsweek any longer. It’s that simple. Thank you! :)
EDIT: Actually, I’ve received a lot of cool, supportive DMs and even a couple public comments, so it turns out more people care about what I have to say than I thought, and not everyone wants this to be an echo chamber! Yay!
This sounds extremely whiny and devoid of any self awareness. It would be a lot easier to think about why you’re getting all the pushback than it would be to write countless essays about how innocent you are and how mean everyone else is.
How is it whiny? Dude brought receipts
Dude brought receipts that had nothing to do with the topic at hand.
The issue I was raising was that he posts non-stop, and that a lot of it is transparently and objectively false. This post is a great example. He then brought receipts about how people were mean to him, and that it’s okay to provide true information that doesn’t match the bias people expect to see. Neither of which is related to what I was saying.
You say “transparently and objectively false.” But they are from recognized news orgs, and the one you had a particular problem with was Newsweek. And I also said that if the mods disallowed that source, I’d stop posting articles from there.
How about rather than making the mods cull out your bullshit sourced articles, you do it yourself.
Why not just rebut the article?
Because I don’t think my sources are bullshit.
I didn’t ask the mods to cull anything. I merely said that IF the mods decide that Newsweek isn’t a valid source, then I won’t post any Newsweek articles. Thanks, friend! :)
TIL whining means you can’t provide “evidence”
You’re proving one of my points. Thank you, friend! :)
One of your points is that you have no self-reflection skills?
Aww, someone is a bit in his feelings, isn’t he? And such a roll call of the abuse you’ve had to endure! Truly harrowing!
But there seems to be something totally lacking. Anything that showed you had the slightest bit of self awareness. You claim no motive for sharing, but just about everyone else sees what you’re doing. You claim innocence, “I didn’t write the article” but when asked repeatedly to explain why you found it interesting, you have literally never answered, only saying “I don’t have to explain anything!”. Which is true, in so far as when you don’t explain your motivations, people will fill in the blanks.
Everyone else here who is a regular or even occasional poster has “tells” of one type or another. We’re human, and by definition that means we have biases. I generally can often guess who posted something without even looking at the user name, and that’s fine. And that’s just as true of other people guessing when I’ve posted something. The rest of us engage with posts and comments in a way that matches our personal views.
But supposedly not you. You claim no bias, no agenda and spend most of your time in the comments being disingenuous - not only about your agenda (which is plain to see), but in claiming you have no motive for what you do. That’s not genuine human behavior, which is probably why there’s so many who believe you’re a bot. Your behavior in posting and commenting falls smack dab in the uncanny valley. The only other explanation is that you’re not being honest.
As for the rest, please don’t pretend that you haven’t been trolling yourself. The modlog is evidence enough for that.
You keep acting like it’s the articles you post that are the problem when it’s your behavior in the comments that makes people angry. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a genuine conversation with you involved. It’s obfuscation, sealioning, deflection, and playing the victim.
And don’t do your usual “Just block me if you don’t like it!” When people see someone pollute a shared communal space, they should call it out, not turn a blind eye to it. Otherwise it’s just another example of the Tragedy of the Commons.
You have every right to keep posting (as long as the mods are willing to shoulder the extra work you create), but if you do, do it honestly. Stand up for what you believe in, even if folks say you’re wrong. Be an advocate for ideas, people, and movements. Explain why you think what you do - the only cost is the potential for someone to change your mind, and the benefit is you might change someone else’s mind.
But don’t be dishonest about why you’re doing whatever it is you think you’re doing here. Don’t hide behind “I didn’t write the article” and “I don’t have to explain anything to anyone”. You might still get downvoted to oblivion, but you might not.
Thank you for explaining exactly how I feel. This dude is a turd.
I honestly at this point can’t tell how much is intentional trolling and how much is that he just doesn’t know any better/doesn’t want to know any better. If it’s the latter, I do feel sorry for him a little as he’s probably neurodivergent like myself but doesn’t have any tools to deal with it or even awareness of the problem. But then he’ll do something that’ll convince me it’s all an act and he just enjoys playing the heel.
Removed by mod
It’s public forum, and I can express my opinions or ask questions even if you may disagree with them. As many here do. And as you have done just now.
Thank you, friend! :)
And nothing I said implied otherwise.
It is a public forum. You expressed your opinion and I expressed mine.
As I mentioned earlier, if the mods decide that Newsweek is no longer considered a reliable source, I’m more than happy to stop posting articles from Newsweek here.
Thanks, friend! :)
Keep on doing what you do. Without your posts this is just a boring “vote Harris” community
Hey friend, thanks for that. They can be mean and hateful, but not even close to enough to make me leave. We need you here too. All good. Thank you! :)
Turns out that when you spam dumb articles all day, people start to get sick of it. Weird.
Well you think they are dumb. But that’s your opinion. And if you’re tired of me and my articles, then why wouldn’t you just block me? That way you don’t see me or my articles. Genuine question.
I honestly thought I had blocked you. I guess I just blocked your dumb community that you made as an excuse to post more spam. I can deal with seeing a few of your posts around, it’s funny watching everyone dunk on you.
Hey, you do you, man. All good. Thank you! :)
I love the toxicly positive response accompanied by a downvote. It’s so you. Never change.
Well, wait. Actually do change. Just stop trying to convince Lemmings of whatever you’re trying to convince them. It’s not working.
What exactly do you think I’m trying to convince them of? Thank you! :)
if you don’t like the community, why don’t you just leave? rhetorical question.
i’ll answer for you: because you want a voice in the community. Same with people who disagree with you. once they block you, they lose their voice in disagreeing with you.
Because I like the community. I just think a lot of people want it to be an echo chamber, so they get mean and hateful. But not nearly mean and hateful enough to make me leave. So all good! Thank you! :)
Amen brother! I’m so glad that self reflection can never hold you back! Now you get back out there and spread the message of the Jesus-satan!!!1
Aw, someone is upset! They really struck a nerve with their comment, didn’t they?
Nope, just making a note of it. None of this is even close to making me want to leave.
I know the whole point of these comments is to push me out, but I’m not going anywhere. Thank you! :)
Never once has it crossed your mind to self reflect or stop pissing people off. Probably because the only reason you use the platform is to piss people off.
It’s his fault people are pissed? People don’t like posts or comments critical of Harris. That’s not his problem. It’s a community for political discussion
Bullies blaming the victim for being easy to bully instead of just stopping.
Thank you!!
I guess it’s also your fault for defending the trolling behavior
Do you just want an echo chamber?
Do you honestly expect anyone to believe you respect truth?
Thank you!!
Let me clarify one thing. You are a troll. You search the web to find click bait articles from sources that will not get you banned to troll people. That is who you are. You can say whatever you want and weave within the rules, but we know what you are doing. We will continue to down vote your articles so everyone knows they are click bait garbage.
and of posting “every 17 minutes,” which is just laughable considering the timestamps are right there for anyone to see.
In the seventy days since this account was created it has made five thousand seven hundred and fifty-eight submissions to Lemmy.
That averages out to once every seventeen minutes and thirty seconds, twenty-four hours a day seven days a week.
If they spend eight hours a day on Lemmy Monday to Friday that’s a a submission every four minutes and ten seconds.
posting “every 17 minutes,” which is just laughable considering the timestamps are right there for anyone to see.
Lol because if someone mentions an average rate versus doing some complex analysis of your use patterns, they’re obviously lying. Because that’s right folks: math lies!
Average rates are fine. I don’t mind that. But actually some people think it’s literal and I’ve had to steer them back to the fact that it’s an average, not a literal thing. So I agree with you. Thank you! :)
Does it matter if they leave out the word “average”? What difference does it make?
You are sealioning here, once again. The point stands that you submit things to Lemmy far more than an average user would, and almost all focused on the election. The only other point they are making there stands also – that all of this activity has been concentrated into the two months leading up to the election.
I guess now you’ll sealion again, correcting me that it’s actually been 62 days already or something else that doesn’t matter in the least.
Just a downvote and no reply? Wow, I really must have touched a nerve.
oh, fuck off.
103% ? All of them, plus they killed 6 independents? What a stupid title.
103% increase. The number of people leaving increased by a factor of 1+1.03 = 2.03. Which is to say, the number of people leaving more than doubled, which would have been a better title, but either way there is nothing wrong with math in the title per se.
103% sounds like a lot. 60k outof 4 million is not a lot. Title is stupid clickbait.
depends on how you contextualize it. Biden only won PA by 80,555 votes in 2020. In that context 60,000 voter registration flips to republican is a lot.
Weekly updated data provided by Pennsylvania’s Department of State shows the party breakdown of registered voters in the state as of Monday: 3,958,835 Democrats, 3,646,110 Republicans, 1,085,677 unaffiliated and 346,211 with “other” affiliations.
This year, the state-released data shows that 51,937 registered Democrats changed their affiliation to “other,” and 61,126 switched to Republican, for a total of 113,063 leaving the party.
On the other hand, Republicans have seen a significant but smaller number of members leave the party, with 29,038 registered Republicans changing their affiliation—13,196 to “other” and 15,842 to Democrat—in 2023. This year, 48,702 Republicans switched parties, with 24,046 changing to “other” and 24,656 becoming Democrats, around a 67 percent increase in Republicans leaving the party. Read more 2024 Election
blyat
In other words, it jumped from about 0.5% to 1.5%.
How did you get the exact right answer?
There are 3.9 million Democratic-registered voters in PA, compared to 3.6 million Republicans, and 61,126 of them switched their registration to Republican this year. That’s 1.5%. It came from 0.9%, not 0.5%, but your ending answer was spot-on.
I can’t for the life of me figure out where Newsweek got the 103% increase, since it was 36,341 voters switching to Republican last year, and 61,126 isn’t a 103% increase over that. It is, as Newsweek notes, “nearly twice,” which is incompatible with 103%, so maybe they are just making up random numbers. I don’t know.
I could also, as a separate way of illustrating how totally worthless this whole article is, total up the people who switched their registration from Republican to Democratic in 2023, and in 2024, and measure how much the number went up by, since it wasn’t an election year last year and so obviously the numbers are going to go up in the year where it matters. But what would be the point? I don’t want to do that, because I’m not a partisan hack trying to make a disingenuous point.
Edit: @[email protected] figured it out. I needed to include the “other” affliliations, not just R and D. I could redo the math to see if it adds up to 103% that way, but as I mentioned, the whole comparison is useless and dishonest anyway, even with the right numbers, so why bother?
There are 3.9 million Democratic-registered voters in PA, compared to 3.6 million Republicans, and 61,126 of them switched their registration to Republican this year. That’s 1.5%. It came from 0.9%, not 0.5%, but your ending answer was spot-on.
You’re only looking at people who flip from D to R. The article is talking about all people who left D, including to “other”.
“In 2023, 19,321 Pennsylvania voters changed their registration from Democrat to “other,” and 36,341 switched from Democrat to Republican. Overall, 55,662 registered Democrats in the state left the party.”
“This year, the state-released data shows that 51,937 registered Democrats changed their affiliation to “other,” and 61,126 switched to Republican, for a total of 113,063 leaving the party.”
113,063 / 55,662 = 2.0312
which is a 103% increase.
And people claiming this is insignificant compared to the total 6 million+ voters in PA should keep in mind that margins in PA are very close. Biden only won PA by 80,555 votes in 2020, so changes in the 100k range are absolutely significant.
Read the last paragraph of my message.
I see. why do you consider it useless and dishonest?
Because they’re comparing the number of people who changed their registration in 2023 to the number in 2024, and implying a conclusion from the fact that the number went up that is anything other than “2024 is an election year so it actually matters what people are registered as, so of course the number will go up.”
fair enough. The article also compared it to the opposite movement, as in the people who left the Republican Party between 2023 and 2024:
“This year, 48,702 Republicans switched parties, with 24,046 changing to “other” and 24,656 becoming Democrats, around a 67 percent increase in Republicans leaving the party.”
So I guess that makes the headline a little less concerning, but the difference still seems like something to worry about.
My intent was to point out how ridiculous the “103% increase” line is, not to suggest the comparison was valid in the first place.
It’s all good. I was only surprised that you seemed to have arrived at exactly the answer, clearly just by making up numbers to make a point. I was trying to agree with you and add a little data.
Thank you, friend! :)
considering the margin of victory in 2020 was 1.17%, that is pretty concerning.
Pennsylvania still has more registered Democrats than any other party
Good to know!
3,958,835 Democrats … a total of 113,063 leaving the party.
Not an insignificant fraction but not a particularly large fraction either.
Newsweek - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Newsweek:
MBFC: Right-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
