249
Kamala Crushes Trump in Key Metrics in Post-Debate Poll
(www.thedailybeast.com)
How is it this close at all? xD
Probably a combination of
- Trump's cult of personality
- Voter apathy
- Polling imperfections
Also, I think Trump benefits from the assumptions that low information voters have about Republicans, and their tendency to blame the incumbent party for anything bad that happens, particularly in the economy. Harris laying out specific policies to help families, small businesses etc. is just in one ear and out the other, but Trump being vaguely pro-business in any way reinforces their biases.
And to make matters worse, most people aren't all that rational. They aren't paying close attention to what's being said and analyzing it coldly and logically. Hell, they may not even be paying attention, and just check in every once in a while. This also benefits Trump because his strategy is to spew lies, false promises and emotionally charged rhetoric which is most effective on the uninformed and unthinking members of the audience.
That said, there's just always going to be 20% of the people who would say Trump was better in every way no matter what happened. Some of that is because they are treating every question as a proxy for Trump vs Harris/Democrats/Commies/Whatever, and part of this is because they are so far gone that they can only interpret the debate through a right wing lens that will uncritically accept whatever Trump says, and which rejects any good point Harris makes.
Plus the electoral college. Florida and Texas were becoming increasingly purple until the Republicans in charge of those states made them into alt-right hellholes.
were becoming increasingly educated
FTFY
Trump did lose the popular vote twice. So did Bush in 2000, meaning a Republican won the popular vote once in the last 8 presidential elections.
'Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.'.
53% is hardly "crushing".
And the only key metric is the election result.
and 43 percent saying he would prioritize lowering the cost of household goods
How is anyone still this naive?
Seriously. Especially with the massive trade tarrifs he's proposing... You think companies are just going to bend over and accept those extra expenses? No. They are just going to pass that expense onto the consumer as a cost of doing business.
Yeah I found this phrase quite irksome too.
Conservatives everywhere seem to get this "good economic manager" perception for free. It shits me. The tarries he's talking about would be a terrible idea for everyone - especially lower class consumers.
People are extremely dumb, and I think it's closer to third grade level that's recommended. They've been gutting education since at least Reagan and this is the inevitable result.
The strangest thing is, Harris isn't even ambiguous in prioritizing reducing costs and helping small businesses with financial assistance. People just tuned out by then on the debate, that was closer to the half way point. When I lecture, I have to take breaks for discussion after 15 minutes because even well meaning people lose focus after that time. It's actually well researched pedagogy, but a debate isn't a lecture and there's no way they thought about it (aside from maybe throwing to commercial, haha).
I'm glad it points out what people think Trump did well in, but how the fuck do people think Trump will lower the price of household commodities and rent when 2016-2020 (and it's policies) are when all this shit kicked off?
Well, one potential psychological flaw in her $50k small business tax credit is that it's only for new small businesses to go towards startup costs.
Existing small businesses that may be struggling can look at that and only see her making it easier for their future competition to get rolling. It's a net negative for them.
Just about the only people that are going to look at that tax credit and see how it benefits them are people that are already looking into starting a small business and the main thing holding them back is the startup costs. That's probably not a lot of voters.
Most voters don't have a business and never will.
The value of a net new business is that it creates more jobs and economic activity.
Most people benefit from more jobs to either work at or drive up labor demand.
Per that school of economic thought, incentivizing a new business adds more activity to the market and more opportunity for people to find ways to innovate, provide value and become profitable.
Giving money to an existing struggling business is subsidizing a businesses that's already demonstrated that it's not working.
However, we're both putting too much into it. The goal is to say $50k for small business, because people like a business friendly atmosphere.
Trump gets credit for giving tax cuts to businesses for stock buyback, which only helps investors. The goal is to court people who want pro business policies without literal handouts to corporations.
All true. My point is that if they're polling current small business owners asking if she is business friendly, they might likely say no, because her plans aren't directly friendly to their specific company.
this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
249 points (97.7% liked)
News
37211 readers
1997 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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
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. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
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 2 years ago
MODERATORS