1146
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 62 points 1 day ago

“Currently, there is no consensus on the face of the Democrat Party, as a majority of voters either give the title to AOC (26%) or simply say there is none (26%),” Co/efficient concluded.

Never heard of Co/efficient, but “Democrat Party” is a bit of a red flag. From mediabiasfactcheck:

FiveThirtyEight, an expert on measuring and rating pollster performance, has evaluated 20 polls by co/efficient, earning 0.7 stars for accuracy, indicating they are Mixed Factual by MBFC’s criteria. They also conclude that their polling moderately favors the Right with a score of -2.7, which equates to a Right-Center polling bias. In general, co/efficient is considered moderately accurate and demonstrates a right-leaning bias in polling.

[-] 9point6@lemmy.world 49 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

MBFC gives The Guardian and Breitbart equivalent ratings for factuality, which is patently ridiculous

It's not a reliable gauge of anything, and it's harmful to trust its rankings

[-] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 day ago

Who fact checks the fact checkers?

[-] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 16 points 20 hours ago

Wikipedia. Which says MBFC is unreliable and has a pro Israel bias.

[-] hexonxonx@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 20 hours ago

All of those sites are right-wing propaganda operations. Every single one of them.

Factual news is almost always going to be liberal biased. Sites like these encourage journalists to bias their news stories to the right for no good reason.

I'm surprised so many people are falling for this.

[-] Absaroka@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

However, co/efficient also states that it provides research for mostly Republicans, such as Gregory Steube (R-FL)

[-] SaltSong@startrek.website 7 points 23 hours ago

Democrat Party

This "red flag" is meaningless to people broke the age of 50 or so. I am a Democrat. I vote for the candidate who is a Democrat. Obama was a Democrat.

I don't have time to get pissy over the difference between the noun and the adjective. If that's all the points they can score on us, they are welcome to them.

The review by 538 is a much more important judgement.

[-] gobbles_turkey@lemm.ee 1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

This “red flag” is meaningless to people broke the age of 50 or so. I am a Democrat. I vote for the candidate who is a Democrat. Obama was a Democrat.

I get it man. I'm over 50 too and my team is the White Sox. I support the White Sox no matter that. Whats important in sports is that you support the team of your home town. Sure they were the worst team in 2024 and not entertaining to watch. Doesnt matter.

Anyone who writes scathing articles of the sox pathetic performance in the newspaper is wrong and disloyal, and is missing the whole point of sports. Its not about celebrating human athleticism and competition in striving to to be the best a human can be, its about adherence and loyalty to the corporation who owns your local team.

Adherence to your political party is similar. Government is not about advancing or serving society, its about eating rotten scraps off the floor and being grateful for having that much.

[-] SaltSong@startrek.website 3 points 15 hours ago

I think you missed the entire point of my statement, which, amusingly, proves my point.

The older generations get pissy about being called the "Democrat party" rather than "Democratic party," which, to be fair, is the proper name. But it's really a stupid thing to get worked up over.

The fact that you didn't even realize that I we talking about such a silly little thing is reasonably good evidence that it is, in fact, irrelevant to modern democrats.

How does Media Bias Fact Check assess the work done by Fivethirtyeight that they do not have access to as fivethirtyeight does not publish it?

Also are we teally accepting Fivethirtyeight as a good source anymore?

[-] ExtantHuman@lemm.ee 4 points 23 hours ago

Isn't 538 mostly just an aggregator of other polls?

[-] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 6 points 22 hours ago

No, they had their own model that Nate Silver built every year he was there. IDK who took over after he left.

Regardless they were shuttered last month. Before the closure they removed Rassmussen for being “rightward biased” despite Rassmussen being more accurate in their predictions than fivethirtyeight

this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
1146 points (100.0% liked)

politics

23551 readers
2963 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS