'Are you trying to kill us?' MAGA voters complain about Trump's 'depressing' nominees
'Are you trying to kill us?' MAGA voters complain about Trump's 'depressing' nominees
Some of Donald Trump's most loyal supporters aren't forgetting how upset they are about two key nominees for his upcoming presidential administration. Trump said on Friday that he had chosen Dr. Janette Nesheiwat, a physician and Fox News medical contributor, as his surgeon general. Raw Story re.....
You're viewing a single thread.
one Trump-supporting Truth Social user wrote in response to Trump's announcement.
but numerous commenters spoke out
One user, identified as @thompmark78,
A user with "Patriot. America First" in their bio
@Dbn281977, another user who frequently shares Trump's content
Another user, who posts in favor of Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and is identified as @Omi17,
A self-proclaimed Trump voter identified as @lutherbh1 complained about another aspect of Trump's transition.
So we're talking about maybe 15 people tops? I used to read these kinds of stories and tell myself that we were reaching the "find out" stage or whatever, but this is absolutely not a story. If it referenced any kind of poll data or wider reaching metric than reading a handful of tweets, there might be reason to hope, but as it stands, this is a nothingburger story that just gives you 15 minutes of feeling like there's justice in the world.
It's pretty disturbing that a lot of reporting has turned into "we saw 10 replies on twitter (or worse truth social) and wrote a story about it."
It's difficult to do polling and social science well. The kind of answers you want cost a lot of money to obtain. Aside from that, conservatives don't like to admit that they lost publicly or... anywhere else, often not even to themselves.
Polling relies on people answering the phone or mail so you largely get responses from uneducated and out of touch people
And good researchers know how to control for that.
edit: typo
There’s no control when there’s no way to verify the accuracy of what people are telling you. You can’t verify their income, race, age, social status, truthfulness of answers (a recent problem was people not admitting they were Trump fans in 2016).
I didn't say that it was easy.
I was going to post something similar. I've seen this type of article since 2016. Nothing comes from it.
I'm not really sure what's the point of articles like this.
Is it to create false hope that something will change?
Is it to just get non-MAGA people to click the link? <--- Probably this one
or something else.
What would be a good article would be
"Thousands of MAGA voters march on Capitol Hill in protest to the trump administration's handling of the economy."
The same point as most other articles. Keep us engaged. Keep us exhausted. Keep us fighting. Oh, and earn a little money too so that the billionaire who owns the network doesn't have to pay anything to keep his propaganda machine turning.
I trust people speaking unfiltered on the web more than polls. Does anyone not from a corporation or under 70 years old even participate in those anymore?
But the sample size is 15 people. Do you trust cherry picking 15 people out of thousands a good way to judge national trends?
I believe it’s just as accurate. Especially with the way the poll questions are phrased
You do understand that there are thousands of comments on these posts and they're selecting 10 or so to write an article, right? Do you think cherry picking 10 people who are upset illustrates any kind of trend? Can't you see how this article is disingenuous ?
The article, yeah. But observing social media anecdotally provides much more than 15 examples of those who believe this way. Then I can correlate that with what I know from the people I’m actually around every day, and the words of the minister on TV Sunday mornings warning about changing your DNA with vaccines to his 1500 member congregation.
I’m just saying it seems no less accurate than a poll, and is unfiltered by biased questions