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.
Nobody demanded that Harris align 100% with their stance; they demanded that she not be an absolute pile of shit of a candidate. That distinction matters.
she was actually pretty ok? The one thing that was bad about her was the israel stance, which is like maybe 5% of the voter base that ACTUALLY cares about that enough.
So first a lot more than 5% of the Democrat voter base cares about Gaza. I wonāt get into the weeds, but there.
No? She wouldāve won at least two or three swing states if that was the case. Her economic policy (or lack thereof, more accurately) was horrible. She dedicated the final two months of her campaign almost exclusively to āTrump badā rhetoric while not promising to do anything for her constituents. I mean this woman was asked what sheād do different from Biden economically and she said ānothing comes to mindā. Status quo politics just wonāt cut it in this day and age.
iām talking about the voter base that actually cares enough to influence their vote over it. Iām 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 āfuck israel i hope it burns to the ground and that palestine re conglomerates into israelā type of people.
āher economic policy was badā 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
Donāt move the goalposts. Hereās what you said:
Weāre 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 didnāt 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 weāre talking about.
centrists think āsecond worstā means āgoodā.
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 thatās an unreal comparison, you literally cannot base a reference point on them.
I mean, if youāre comparing finding a billion dollar check on the ground to democrats being willing to field a candidate with redeeming features beyond ānot trump,ā I think the check is more likely.
so if weāre basing your logic off of this specific example, where the likelihood of finding that check is, letās say āapproaching zeroā to be generous. It would be safe to say that you assume the dems doing anything to appease your opinion of them is āat zeroā or āfurthering from zeroā perhaps.
Sample Online sample of 604 voters fielded from December 20 to January 07, 2025. Margin of Error Ā±4.5%
thats uh, a really small sample size. Especially for a sample thatās supposed to consist of multiple swing states. Not to mention that organization is clearly either deeply embedded into the arabic culture, or arabic itself (didnāt look that hard) obviously thatās not an issue, we have things like AIPAC here in the US, itās just, probably very biased. Which is why they exist in the first place. Thatās kind of the whole point.
Whatās 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 weāre talking about her own merit specifically, iād say sheās 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 youāre 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 thatās obviously due to AI. Thatās 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? Whatās the frame of reference weāre 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 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.