Summary
Former vice presidential nominee Tim Walz criticized Trump for economic chaos while taking personal responsibility for the situation during an MSNBC interview.
āWe wouldnāt be in this mess if weād have won the election ā and we didnāt,ā Walz told Chris Hayes. He called Trump the āworst possible business executiveā and praised the Wall Street Journalās editorial criticizing Trumpās tariff war.
Walz emphasized Democrats must offer something better, not just criticize Trump. Recently, he acknowledged a leadership void in the Democratic Party and admitted spending too much time combatting Trumpās false claims about immigrants.
Short answer: Learn statistics. Slightly longer answer: 604 people is more than enough for a normal distribution to appear, so if the sample size was āreally smallā itād be reflected in the margin of error.
Biased towardsā¦ Palestiniansā rights? The fuck are you talking about?
Uhā¦ If you donāt care to have a conversation then you should say so from the start. If you do care to have a conversation, then what you said quite obviously fucking matters. Also you ignored everything I said to claim Harris is a ādecentā choice.
What voting numbers? The ones where she lost all seven swing states? Also I quite distinctly remember a whole lot of āhold your nose and vote for herā, which isnāt what you say about a āpretty competitiveā candidate.
Quotes for those things from September or October?
Again, the fuck are you talking about? Grocery price gouging during recessions is a widespread and documented phenomenon, and if you donāt understand that then you really are in no position to discuss the November election, because you donāt understand the peopleās grievances that Harris failed to address.
āGoodā doesnāt need a frame of reference; itās an absolute judgement. āBetterā is a relative judgement that does require a frame if reference. Most people can judge whether something is good without being offered a specific frame of reference, and to most people a candidate that doesnāt even acknowledge a problem exists (again, ānothing comes to mindā) is not good.
shorter answer, statistics is really hard, like really really hard. Itās so incredibly easy to fuck up a survey/poll like this is so many possible ways itās hard to even describe. Even something as simple as survey completion rates can influence a polls accuracy.
yeah, thatās not a problem, just worth pointing out that they have a very explicit ideological alignment, wouldnāt exactly benefit them to publish polling that shows the opposite would it?
you mean the trend that has been nearly entirely global in scope? You mean the trend that has SO aggressively outrun every previous election that it made news shortly after the election period? That one?
because for some reason people are too far up their own asshole to do a productive service for their country, because they think theyāre above it somehow, itās a continual trend every dem cycle, happens every fucking time.
most likely in October, some of them likely happened earlier in September, though that wouldāve been early in the candidacy. Her campaign got rolling early august, really started moving forwards late august, which was very late. Voting is early in November, so unlikely for much to happen in that month.
again, prices evidently went up, to which harris proposed a price ceiling on groceries, something you would know if you didnāt huff so many aerosols to make these posts. Maybe that didnāt address anything, but she was also, not the president at that time, so.
To what extent that price increase was due to things like covid, inflation, or price gouging is not clear to me, maybe itās more evident, but from what i saw, itās based on companies listing significant profits over covid, which was mostly because consumer spending was SIGNIFICANTLY higher through that period of time, and these sorts of things tend to lag the market a bit. The price couldāve also gone up because of less supply, thatās pretty common. Again, things like the prices of eggs arenāt related to anything here, that was entirely due to birdflu.
it does though? Good is relative, evil is relative, there is no āintrinsic goodā murdering someone is bad, murdering someone that does something bad, is good, crimes are bad, unless a guy named luigi did them. Nobody operates on explicitly intrinsic morals, you have to operating in some sort of reference frame here, iām just trying to figure out if your reference frame is like, a dog, or something. Something that would very explicitly discount your whole viewpoint from a credible perspective.
Most people operate in a defined frame of reference, itās just that most people base that on things like ālawsā and āsocial normsā however politics has been so brain fucked i can only assume people base it off the trip demons that visit them when they experience hypoxia due to lack of breathing from how much fent they did.
should i accuse you of cherry picking examples here? In the same way that you accuse me of moving the goalposts, or is that somehow bad faith here because iām the one doing it?
Uhā¦ Okay? That has nothing to do with sample size.
If you have a better poll share it. Otherwise the findings here agree with other polls Iāve seen. Ballās in your court here.
Did you intend for this to be a non-sequitor? Because the fact that itās a global trend is completely irrelevant; itās a global trend because everyone is making the same mistakes.
She proposed a ban on price gouging during emergencies. This is already a thing in 37 states and completely irrelevant in the context of 2024 economic uncertainty, because there was no emergency in 2024. Her ban on price gouging wasnāt going to being prices down.
Thatās not what a frame of reference is, and either way āgoodā doesnāt mean ābetter than Trumpā. Thatād imply Trump is just neutral rather than absolutely terrible. Stop trying to redefine the word āgoodā and just engage with the damn point already.
Itās bad faith because thatās not how cherry picking works. Cherry picking is when you pick an outlier from a group to represent someone or something. If what I did was cherry picking, then youāll need to show that ānot a thing comes to mindā is unrepresentative of Harrisās economic policy. And hereās the thing: If it wasnāt sheād have walked it back.
It also seems you donāt intend to actually engage with my criticism of Harris. Either actually address my points (rather than going on philosophical diatribes) or this conversation is over.