Summary
Former vice presidential nominee Tim Walz criticized Trump for economic chaos while taking personal responsibility for the situation during an MSNBC interview.
“We wouldn’t be in this mess if we’d have won the election — and we didn’t,” Walz told Chris Hayes. He called Trump the “worst possible business executive” and praised the Wall Street Journal’s editorial criticizing Trump’s 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 Trump’s 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 “really small” it’d be reflected in the margin of error.
Biased towards… Palestinians’ rights? The fuck are you talking about?
Uh… If you don’t 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 “decent” choice.
What voting numbers? The ones where she lost all seven swing states? Also I quite distinctly remember a whole lot of “hold your nose and vote for her”, which isn’t what you say about a “pretty competitive” 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 don’t understand that then you really are in no position to discuss the November election, because you don’t understand the people’s grievances that Harris failed to address.
“Good” doesn’t need a frame of reference; it’s an absolute judgement. “Better” 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 doesn’t even acknowledge a problem exists (again, “nothing comes to mind”) is not good.
shorter answer, statistics is really hard, like really really hard. It’s so incredibly easy to fuck up a survey/poll like this is so many possible ways it’s hard to even describe. Even something as simple as survey completion rates can influence a polls accuracy.
yeah, that’s not a problem, just worth pointing out that they have a very explicit ideological alignment, wouldn’t 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 they’re above it somehow, it’s a continual trend every dem cycle, happens every fucking time.
most likely in October, some of them likely happened earlier in September, though that would’ve 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 didn’t huff so many aerosols to make these posts. Maybe that didn’t 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 it’s more evident, but from what i saw, it’s 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 could’ve also gone up because of less supply, that’s pretty common. Again, things like the prices of eggs aren’t related to anything here, that was entirely due to birdflu.
it does though? Good is relative, evil is relative, there is no “intrinsic good” 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, i’m 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, it’s just that most people base that on things like “laws” and “social norms” 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 i’m the one doing it?
Uh… 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 I’ve seen. Ball’s in your court here.
Did you intend for this to be a non-sequitor? Because the fact that it’s a global trend is completely irrelevant; it’s 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 wasn’t going to being prices down.
That’s not what a frame of reference is, and either way “good” doesn’t mean “better than Trump”. That’d imply Trump is just neutral rather than absolutely terrible. Stop trying to redefine the word “good” and just engage with the damn point already.
It’s bad faith because that’s 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 you’ll need to show that “not a thing comes to mind” is unrepresentative of Harris’s economic policy. And here’s the thing: If it wasn’t she’d have walked it back.
It also seems you don’t 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.