Tim Walz Says 'We Wouldn't Be In This Mess' If It Wasn't For Him And Harris
www.huffpost.com
The former vice presidential nominee offered a blunt mea culpa on MSNBC.

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.

  • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
    1·
    1 day ago

    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.

    Uh… Okay? That has nothing to do with sample size.

    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?

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.