Yes. But... This poll doesn't do that. The headline calls out 44% as the top line number, which includes 0 undecided. The tone of the headline as positive news for those in favor of EU membership is based on an implicit assertion that only 30% of undecideds would be needed to clear the 50% mark, which is a pretty good margin of error on the 50/50 division that you might naively assign to a population you have no other data on, especially before you take into a count those who may opt not to vote. It's also notable as an opinion poll for politicians actions outside of a direct referendum (not every issue will swing every vote, so knowing that this issue has more potential to swing votes towards vs. against you might encourage actions and rhetoric supporting a closer relationship with the EU. Finally, it's relevant as a comparison point to prior polls on this issue (in 2017, for example, a quick Google search suggests that the average was more like -20 margin opposed to EU membership, so the transition to +8 in favor is significant). It feels like you are arguing a straw man here, but maybe I am the one missing context.
Sconrad122
Only 36% are no. So a +8 poll with 20% undecided. Definitely could swing the other way if it came to a vote/referendum, but you'd almost definitely rather be the candidate with +8 if this were an election
Description says the poster caught 9h of video, but based on the clock watermark in the top left, what is shown is about 7.5h of video (maybe cut for the interesting bits/highest quality) from 0830ish to 1600ish) at a rate of roughly 20 minutes of real time per 1 second video time, as the original commenter pointed out
The Harris campaign literally did this, I want to say in a sideswipe during the debate. And Trump said nuh-uh, it's not a tax, and the campaign more or less shut up about it, wasn't a core feature of their advertising, stump speech, or debate strategy going forward, they opted for "save our institutions" and "he's going to raise the ever nebulous cost of living" (which got lost in the Biden is responsible for bird flu egg prices noise from the other side). Can you imagine betting it all on courting Republican voters, and being so easily talked off of the "he's going to tax you more" hill? I know hindsight is 20/20, but that's some frustrating shit to think about
You have it all right except that Covid 19 happened in 2020 (at least outside of China and maybe a few early cruise ship cases?), not 2019
Kamala still sends me emails asking for money, I think for the DNC. That is the problem with corporate Democrats, they think resistance looks like fundraising
There was a lawsuit from the AFGE (federal employees union) I think that they had to drop because it relied on the assumption that DOGE was a federal agency. When it was revealed that DOGE was just a renaming of the US Digital Service, that invalidated the premise of the lawsuit. Idk how the USDS had money lying around in its budget for a bunch of new and unqualified GS-15s to just be added to the payroll like government billets aren't painstakingly difficult to establish, but that is another question, I suppose
Yep, or any other etf or fund that tracks an ex US index, if folks don't want to give their money/share votes to Vanguard. I'm unfortunately not well versed in brokerages outside the US, so no fund suggestions, but VXUS tracks the FTSE Global All Cap Ex US index, MSCI also has a World ex US index, it shouldn't be too hard to find an ex US index tracking fund at a reputable brokerage of your choice
A lot of their direct competition is not in the S&P 500 because they are not American companies. Hyundai, Volkswagen, Toyota, Nissan, BYD, etc. American automakers let the EV market languish so long that they are only now becoming legitimate competitors in that space
Starting at 0 would actually be silly for a normalized market index value graph like this one because the market going to true 0 is not a realistic situation. Or thought of another way, this graph is essentially zero-indexed, but 0 is marked as 100 on the Y axis. 90 in this case could be thought of as -10% value and that would be perfectly accurate. These kinds of graphs are usually misleading in other ways, usually by picking specific time ranges to represent or cut off on the X axis. For instance, you could argue that the value that Trump is erasing here is largely offset by the market gains from November to January that could be arguably attributed to speculative optimism about Trump winning the election and so the crash that is shown is actually just a market correction. One might point out that triggering a market bubble and subsequent correction is no matter of pride in response to that argument, but it is there
I don't think I am describing any hypothetical voter switching? I'm defending the value of the poll as data, and describing how the poll's data could be extrapolated into a projection of positive or negative vibes for a desired result by comparing outcomes against naive assumptions on how undecided voters might distribute their votes. Maybe you are talking about that? I don't consider an undecided voter deciding how they will use their vote "switching" on an issue, and I tried to make it clear that I'm not saying anybody should count on any percentage of the undecided vote, just that you'd rather be in a position where you need fewer undecided voters to reach 50% vs more. I actually left out the nuance where opinions can change over the course of a campaign, causing voters to either switch or opt against voting, that does add uncertainty to an already uncertain process. Which is my point; your language is accusing "neoliberals" of "counting on votes", and I'm just arguing that this poll doesn't need to count on any votes to communicate a positive, if uncertain, picture of the potential future. Your comment feels like it would be more relevant on an opinion piece about this poll that says that this election is in the bag (kind of like how your original comment implied that this poll meant the election was in the bag as a no, as I read it), which is why I am confused. I'll admit, I can't read Icelandic, so I haven't read the article attached to this headline, which is maybe where I am missing context, I'm just reading the headline and a translated excerpt from the comments, so maybe there is an argument being made elsewhere in the article that I'm unaware of. I'm sorry if my tone was accusatory, I'm trying to express my confusion as to why your reaction to my comment was to talk about neoliberals counting votes, which seemed tangential to the comment I made