684
submitted 4 weeks ago by PugJesus@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] hemmes@lemmy.world 9 points 4 weeks ago

No, I actually don’t agree respectfully. I wholeheartedly disagree. I think she’s on fire.

🔥🔥🔥Harris🔥🔥🔥

It's like you haven't watched any commentary at all.

I desperately want her to win but every indication is that she has even odds.

[-] hemmes@lemmy.world 6 points 4 weeks ago

Sounds like you’ve been listening to the wrong people instead of watching her interviews and rallies for yourself.

Come on. If you want to evaluate the effectiveness of Harris' campaign, should you listen to her talk, or listen to commentary from a variety of sources?

[-] hemmes@lemmy.world 4 points 4 weeks ago

To evaluate the effectiveness, you would listen to the people, of course. What “sources“ are you talking about? News pundits? Because that would be a terrible metric.

That doesn't make any sense.

How can you evaluate how well the voting public is resounding to Harris by listening to Harris talk?

If only there were some way you could kind of collate the thoughts of voters and try to predict which way they were going to vote. Like a statistical analysis of voters opinions. You could call it an election survey. You could do it every week or so to get a trend showing the comparative effectiveness of each party's strategies.

I mostly listen to the British and Australian public broadcasters. Both have journalists in the US. No media is completely free of bias but these are pretty good imo.

Regardless, I challenge you to find a commentator who's saying Harris is on fire.

[-] hemmes@lemmy.world 3 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

It makes plenty of sense actually. In my line of work I get to talk to a wide variety of people. Not just regionally, but even out of country at times, which I was fortunate enough to do earlier this month.

When it comes to regional excitement around a Harris presidency, I’m seeing a lot of excitement around her. Even from my republican friends and folks I meet. I’m seeing libertarians saying they’ll vote for her.

In Europe they love her and pray Trump doesn’t win.

But that’s who I choose to listen to. You like to listen to media pundits. Okay, to me those guys kind of suck balls. You have to listen to them with some real heavy filtering.

🔥🔥🔥Now get out there and vote for Harris🔥🔥🔥

I don't really know what you mean by "media pundits". Some forms of journalism are biased and opaque, others are less so. You can't just make a sweeping generalisation and say that someone listening to commentary from a variety of reputable balanced sources has been misled because "media pundits".

Your on-the-ground insights are obviously something I don't have, being that I'm in Australia, but they are of course anecdotal. There's a lot of polling and research that doesn't really support your perspective.

If you want to believe your direct insights rather than the accepted science, then I don't really have much to say to you - that's how people end up believing in a flat earth.

[-] hemmes@lemmy.world 2 points 4 weeks ago

No, no. Flat earth is insanely dumb

🔥🔥🔥Harris🔥🔥🔥 true af

this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2024
684 points (100.0% liked)

News

23367 readers
2513 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS