661
Tim Walz says ‘we wouldn’t be in this mess’ if it wasn’t for him and Harris
(www.huffpost.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2025
661 points (100.0% liked)
politics
21775 readers
3533 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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 won't get into the weeds, but there.
No? She would've 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 "Trump bad" rhetoric while not promising to do anything for her constituents. I mean this woman was asked what she'd do different from Biden economically and she said "nothing comes to mind". Status quo politics just won't cut it in this day and age.
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.
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.
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.