yeah, and nothing changed that, people are still living paycheck to paycheck.
Now if you can find stats of MORE people living paycheck to paycheck (which do exist) that would be more convincing, but even then the underlying truth is still that it’s going to take time for things to improve, as well as inflation can’t be undone. So prices are at a new normal.
So the fact that “more stats abt people living paycheck to paycheck” would convince you strongly, strongly indicates that I’m not explaining myself well enough. I’m not under the impression that if I did communicate effectively you would magically be convinced. And that’s not necessarily my goal, but I would like to be able to have a productive convo with you, so I’m gonna give it another shot.
Here’s two facts that I’m convinced of:
if a consistent set of policies/campaign promises enjoy massive popular support across the aisle, then making such positions a core part of your campaign and your efforts when elected will give you a much higher chance of getting elected
progressive policies (i.e., paid sick leave, parental leave, union-strengthening laws, universal health care, antitrust legislation, increasing solvency of social security, and so on (note that I do not mention culture war stuff)) enjoy broad popular support, across the aisle, in all states
If you believe these facts (and you don’t need to), then an unavoidable conclusion is that if Harris would’ve run a progressive campaign, she would’ve had a much higher chance of winning.
The weakness in my argument is the two facts I mentioned. They require evidence. I’ve given a smidge of evidence for the second fact (the smoking gun of the ballot measures in Missouri). A better way to go about it is to find some policy oriented polls targeting a good cross section of the electorate which show that people (R, D, and I) generally support progressive policies (think paid sick leave, think universal health care).
The first fact is much harder to prove, but I would argue that common sense gets you a long way here. But for a more empirical approach, look at the Sanders and Obamna campaigns and the fairly broad and enthusiastic support they enjoyed.
The reason I think I wasn’t explaining myself well enough is because the stats you’re asking for do almost nothing to support my argument. At best, they’re indirect, weak, evidence of the second fact. It shouldn’t convince you if I find you some stats about the working homeless and paycheck-to-paycheck livers.
EDIT: I feel like I understand a bit better where your response is coming from. You think that I’m arguing in favor of the effectivity of progressive policies, rather than the popularity. I happen to believe both, but we’re talking about why the dems lost, and in a democracy, the popularity of policies is what matters un such discussions, not their effectivity.
Again, it’s a bit off topic, but for the effectivity you could look at the rate of homelessness and paycheck-to-paycheck situations in more progressively legislated and often poorer countries in western Europe. You’ll find that aside from popular (which is what matters here), these policies are also crazy effective.
yeah, and nothing changed that, people are still living paycheck to paycheck.
Now if you can find stats of MORE people living paycheck to paycheck (which do exist) that would be more convincing, but even then the underlying truth is still that it’s going to take time for things to improve, as well as inflation can’t be undone. So prices are at a new normal.
So the fact that “more stats abt people living paycheck to paycheck” would convince you strongly, strongly indicates that I’m not explaining myself well enough. I’m not under the impression that if I did communicate effectively you would magically be convinced. And that’s not necessarily my goal, but I would like to be able to have a productive convo with you, so I’m gonna give it another shot.
Here’s two facts that I’m convinced of:
If you believe these facts (and you don’t need to), then an unavoidable conclusion is that if Harris would’ve run a progressive campaign, she would’ve had a much higher chance of winning.
The weakness in my argument is the two facts I mentioned. They require evidence. I’ve given a smidge of evidence for the second fact (the smoking gun of the ballot measures in Missouri). A better way to go about it is to find some policy oriented polls targeting a good cross section of the electorate which show that people (R, D, and I) generally support progressive policies (think paid sick leave, think universal health care).
The first fact is much harder to prove, but I would argue that common sense gets you a long way here. But for a more empirical approach, look at the Sanders and Obamna campaigns and the fairly broad and enthusiastic support they enjoyed.
The reason I think I wasn’t explaining myself well enough is because the stats you’re asking for do almost nothing to support my argument. At best, they’re indirect, weak, evidence of the second fact. It shouldn’t convince you if I find you some stats about the working homeless and paycheck-to-paycheck livers.
EDIT: I feel like I understand a bit better where your response is coming from. You think that I’m arguing in favor of the effectivity of progressive policies, rather than the popularity. I happen to believe both, but we’re talking about why the dems lost, and in a democracy, the popularity of policies is what matters un such discussions, not their effectivity. Again, it’s a bit off topic, but for the effectivity you could look at the rate of homelessness and paycheck-to-paycheck situations in more progressively legislated and often poorer countries in western Europe. You’ll find that aside from popular (which is what matters here), these policies are also crazy effective.