1166
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2026
1166 points (100.0% liked)
Work Reform
17220 readers
583 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
No. Support is ~30%. Last time I checked, that's not a majority.
~47% (almost half) view them unfavorably. Another ~23% are unsure.
23-30% of people are perpetually unsure of everything lol
Those are people who don't wanna answer. Tbh if some rando was asking which political view I had, I would also not share it.
Especially when you get asked in a way that makes it clear that they have an agenda.
Like to ask say, "Do you support what the Mayor is doing with raising taxes on rich residents" they might ask "Would you be ok with having your taxes raised?"
Then report it in a reframed way later.
Polls are bull shit no matter what they say.
Hell in the first term I got a Trump poll and "How do you think the president is doing" disn't even have negatice options, just degrees of Good, Great, Excelent etc.
If I was approached in the NYC street by someone asking me how I felt about politics, I would not take the risk that they have my name and face already and want to put me in a oligarch's database.
"No comment.
And here, take my wallet and phone."
Exactly
Maybe. I don't know about that.
;-)
I don't know about that
undecided voters as well.
Or they're in the "nothing ever happens" camp.
About 35% of the unfavorable are the lost ones that vote R because that's what they've always done, what their church tells them, and what their one or two propaganda channels tell them. And the other 10% of those are probably Wall Street and adjacent. The ones that actually do have things to lose, since they're the ones stealing it from the rest.
yeah it's more of a splash if anything
hyper magnified by media focus on a about 3 charismatic individuals that are not following DSA policies
they're a bunch of independents waving a commie and palestinian flag
Still garbage, to compare "view them unfavorably" then you have to do "view them favorably" and not "Support" if you want to compare "Support" then you have to do "Against" with clear questions.
Source: https://sri.siena.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/SNY0826-Release-Crosstabs_Corrected.pdf
That table isn't on the link provided
Thanks, corrected the link.
You could be correct, but that's not what the headline says. People who lack support also "don't support". "Less than half don't support" is the same thing as "more than half do support." "!support < 50%" can be converted to "support >= 50%."
Why would you count "unsure" as "support"?
I don't. Unsure is lacking in support. They don't support him. They are included in the "less than half don't support" of the headline.
For another example of this language, atheist = lacking belief in a god. It does not mean you believe there isn't a god. Non-believers includes those who are anti-theist and atheist. They all lack belief, but one is against and one is neutral. Believers are the other group, who actively believe in one.
70% < 50%?
What?
If 47% view the DSA unfavorably, and 23% are unsure (which you're counting as unsupportive) then we're at 70%.
I'm only discussing the headline posted, not if it's wrong. What it says is that more than half support. I'm not claiming that's correct.
No, the headline says less than half support.
And there's a case to be made for the author to only include those who indicated they were explicitly unfavorable, and not those who were unsure (or agnostic). Otherwise Dan's criticism would have been that they included those to inflate the numbers.
The only thing that there isn't a case for is claiming that more than half do support the DSA.
Alright, this is my last message, but I'll try to explain it. This is an example of DeMorgan's law.
Let's call "support" A, and "50%" B, just so we can move it away from natural language. Not A means "not support" or "don't support".
The headline can be expressed as "not A < B". Using DeMorgan's law, we can change that to an equivalent statement of "A >= B".
Now, convert it back to natural language and that's "support >= 50%".
Again, I'm not making a claim on the validity. I am only expressing what the headline says. Headlines can be wrong, and the article may even contradict it. That doesn't affect the headline though.
I understand your pedantry. And I explained the rationale.
Not sure why you felt the need to restate it, no one is confused.
Damn, y'all two are splitting the dumbest fucking hairs.