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.
i’m talking about the voter base that actually cares enough to influence their vote over it. I’m sure if you polled the public it;s like 90% or higher who care about it at all, like 40% support israel, 60% against israel, and like 5% of those is “fuck israel i hope it burns to the ground and that palestine re conglomerates into israel” type of people.
“her economic policy was bad” bro, did you see ANYTHING that trump said? Literally an irrelevant argument. Especially now.
I remember her talking about a lot of things she and walz were going to do, that was like a pretty big deal. Was their entire plan, not all of it was great, but it existed, unlike trump.
yeah and? Biden had pretty good economic policy? Aside from the whole covid thing, but you have no choice there, unless you want a global recession, more like a depression. Again, trumps economic policy has been an utter disaster in comparison.
https://www.imeupolicyproject.org/postelection-polling
Don’t move the goalposts. Here’s what you said:
We’re talking about Harris on her own merit, not about Trump.
Like? Give me something specific she clearly said she would do for the working class and a link of her saying it in September or October.
He did well on the economic recovery front, but he or example didn’t go after price gouging. His economic policies were a step in the right direction, not an end state to campaign on.
Again, that is literally not what we’re talking about.
centrists think “second worst” means “good”.
in the context between shooting yourself in the head with a 12 gauge slug, and stubbing your toe really badly. I think most people would agree with me when i say that stubbing your toe is the best option. Comparatively, a good option.
Of course if you compare it to things like, randomly finding a billion check on the ground, nothing compares to that, but that’s an unreal comparison, you literally cannot base a reference point on them.
I mean, if you’re comparing finding a billion dollar check on the ground to democrats being willing to field a candidate with redeeming features beyond “not trump,” I think the check is more likely.
so if we’re basing your logic off of this specific example, where the likelihood of finding that check is, let’s say “approaching zero” to be generous. It would be safe to say that you assume the dems doing anything to appease your opinion of them is “at zero” or “furthering from zero” perhaps.
Three specific examples in a row. clinton, biden, harris.
Sample Online sample of 604 voters fielded from December 20 to January 07, 2025. Margin of Error ±4.5%
thats uh, a really small sample size. Especially for a sample that’s supposed to consist of multiple swing states. Not to mention that organization is clearly either deeply embedded into the arabic culture, or arabic itself (didn’t look that hard) obviously that’s not an issue, we have things like AIPAC here in the US, it’s just, probably very biased. Which is why they exist in the first place. That’s kind of the whole point.
What’s the other available option? Voting for jill fucking stein? Who cares what i said, the facts are plainly evident, you have one really bad choice, and one decent choice.
and if we’re talking about her own merit specifically, i’d say she’s still a pretty competitive candidate, the voting numbers seem to agree with me on that one.
she ran for a bunch of shit, notably the child tax credit, the housing crisis, the food crisis, corporate taxes, capital gains tax, there are a number of other things, those are the ones i can remember off the top of my head.
the price gouging one im not sure on, there was only really significant price gouging of medical equipment and consumables in the early pandemic months, which was quickly shut down, as it was deemed illegal, beyond that you’re talking about things like food, which struggle with inflation, and are also affected by things other than the economy, notably the avian flu for eggs. Consume electronics have gotten more expensive in some capacities, the GPU market specifically, but that’s obviously due to AI. That’s about it, everything else is probably going to be related to inflation.
Who else are we comparing it to? Fucking god? IS the heavenly father himself going to come down and run our government for us? What’s the frame of reference we’re holding here?
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.