- Messages
- 2,686
I can't possibly believe that this simplistic reasoning makes sense to you.Here’s the obvious rebuttal. She said if inflation is what’s important to you, that breaks for Harris. This is somehow based on hypothetical inflation for each candidate in their upcoming administration, based on some subset of anonymous economists?
The obvious rebuttal is that we already have inflation data from when these two candidates were in power. And the data on inflation looks horrible for Biden/Harris.
There is a reason the electorate trusts Trump more than Harris on the economy.
If/when Harris wins, it will be because of Roe being overturned, people having Trump fatigue, and other things that move the needle in her favor. It will not be because the average voter thinks voting for Harris is the better “business decision”
1. Everyone with a brain understands that Biden/Harris did not *cause* inflation. Inflation has occurred all around the world, under administrations running the entire political spectrum with all sorts of different policies and economic foundations, in the post-COVID period. Economists generally agree that such inflation resulted from the unique economic situation caused by the pandemic. It caused inflation to rise everywhere, and now inflation has been falling most places for a while. But in the US, inflation rose less steeply and declined more quickly than in almost every country, which is pretty obviously a win for the Biden/Harris economic policy. I am confident that you can't point to any policy of the current administration that is responsible for inflation. So surely you're smarter than to actually believe that "the data on inflation looks horrible for Biden/Harris." Unless you actually want to point us to some data that suggests the Biden admin caused inflation?
2. it's sad that even though you're better educated than most voters, and especially most Trump voters, you still fall for the typical Trumpist mantra of "discredit the experts." You can find, everywhere, publicly, what economists think about the candidates' economic plans. The broad consensus is that Trump's economic "plan" (I use that term loosely, because really the only aspect of that "plan" that he's provided in anything approaching coherent detail is that he will raise tariffs across the board) will increase inflation more, and add more to the debt, than the Harris plan. I am confident that you have not made any effort to determine for yourself what effects tariffs may have on the economy, but if you did you would likely come to the same conclusion. Ignoring what economists say will happen in the future as irrelevant and instead focusing on what happened in the past as if it will be predictive of the future is simply foolish.
3. it's pretty much not debatable that the macro economic indicators right now are very good overall. Inflation continues to fall; wages continue to rise; jobs continue to be added; unemployment is low; the stock market is up. (I can remember when you used to tout the stock market under Trump as a reason for supporting him, and now you conveniently don't care about it anymore - shocking.) I think it's absolutely true that the average voter is not well educated about these things and bases their own opinion of the economy on things like "it feels like eggs are twice as expensive as they used to be." That is typical of the MAGA base - they tend to trust their feelings about what's happening over actual data. But aren't you better than that? We can measure the economy objectively; we don't need to rely on "vibes" about the economy that are mostly based on anecdotes and personal financial circumstances. Do you truly believe there is an objective case for the economy doing poorly right now? If so, feel free to make it.