Surplus Cornbread

Trump's disappointed he hasn't crashed the economy yet and wants to prove he's tougher than US GDP

I think it is completely reasonable to say neither of those strategies can work in the context of a sufficient partisan gerrymander (I believe that myself). But I do think it is inaccurate to say Robinson backs a "throw minorities under the bus" approach and is more emboldened by Mamdani's win. 2/2

There is a meaningful difference between what Robinson is talking about and what centrist dems talk about. Robinson is taking the Bernie campaign "we can mobilize voters with popular left wing economic stances" while centrists are doing "we must be ideological centrists to win these folks". 1/2

I think we all knew the concept of a "marsupial" was just a big prank

OK then this conversation is over. If you can't admit any wrong doing at all then you're a person of poor character and the only thing this conversation does is give you respect you evidently don't deserve.

The government has been ignoring housing which was a problem in 2024 for the approval of the government. And you only got back to it after I reminded you.

And if a perception can be explained by material reality, that means we don't have to assume vibes is the explanation, and likely shouldn't.

Nope, we had that debate already and I'm satisfied with the response I made. But thank you for actually trying to explain your insults, even though you still are too prideful to admit this specific post of yours was unfounded in its question and associated insult.

Thank you! Because now I can clear up an apparent misunderstanding.

The "ignoring housing" point was not about you ignoring housing in your overall advocacy (I wouldn't know that about you) but ignoring it in your response to me as an explanation that is not vibes for cost living crisis perception.

So you admit my comprehension of your point was correct? Then I ask for an apology for your unfounded insult.

And if you can't point out specifically what justified that highlighted statement I posted then I can only assume you agree I did not imply that and you're too prideful to admit it.

from @tehoriman.bsky.social "People vote for politicians that want to make the crisis worst, the actual solution is explained and rejected by voters and the things that are solutions are the literal solution. *Highlight*You're a fool if you think Will Stancil is against increasing housing production, and that seems to be your argument.*end highlight*"

You've accused me of multiple fallacies but as far as I can tell you've been committing them instead.

Now I'm confused how this is a response to what I said.

Let's go with this, why do you think what I said anywhere in this thread implied that I believed Will's preferred policy is to restrict housing supply? Be specific, I've quoted your exactly to make my points before so I'm asking for the same.

Where were the solutions explained and how far did the explanation reach? This seems to be "I understand the issue so everyone who doesn't must be stupid" that's common with people who are bad at politics.

I didn't imply anything on Will's housing policy. Point out where you think I did.

1) People actually do support actual solutions but they weren't on the ballot
2) People haven't had the actual solutions explained and thus did not know what to support
or 3) The things you think are solutions may not be.

All of those would mean "don't want solutions -> crisis is fake" is unfounded

OK well you're explaining this differently than anything in this thread. But, at that point it really looks like playing a bit of semantics with the "crisis" idea.

But you're saying "people don't like the actual solutions" without evidence of what you're talking about. Which means that it could be

Your point wasn't that they aren't directly linked in an abstract sense. Your and Will's point was what I quoted, that the cost of living crisis is imagined in this specific circumstance. Except there are clear aspects of reality that do explain the perception so one does not need to resort to vibes

does not mean that was what drove people's view of the cost of living crisis. In fact, I'd argue more likely that the media was responding to demand for understanding the CoL issues and latched onto prominent but ultimately low relevance stories because the real issues made for worse headlines.

And you're ignoring the points about housing having risen faster and the research I linked showing interest rates (which are NOT part of the calculation of real household income) were much higher and correlated with the negative view of the economy.

The fact the media wrongly focused on groceries

Estimated Percent of People of All Ages in Poverty for the United States from the St Louis Fed, 2013 to 2023

Real median household income hasn't been released for 2024 as far as I can tell. But while you're right on employed income accounting for "either you're unemployed with COVID/generous unemployment checks or employed making a lot" is a good position to be in especially considering how low poverty got

You claimed, and I'll quote directly "it is just imagined cost of living and vibes!"

So if real income was lower than the start of the Biden presidency at and a bit before the election, how was it imagined?

Someone having a more nuanced understanding of data than you isn't them acting in bad faith.

That's not true. I've heard it be 5 miles over, 10 miles over, even sometimes over 10 on interstates. And then you go to a speed trap town and ticket at 1 over, or non-whites face that in tons of places. These "accepted social conventions" are highly variable and that's dangerous for everyone.

that's not what it is designed or mandated to do. So two things can be true at the same time: 1) The Federal Reserve did a (mostly) good job achieving its mandates and had little reason to be worried about the economy and 2) regular people weren't irrational for caring about other things.

I think one problem is that Will thinks that the US public should agree with the Federal Reserve's definition of a "good economy" ignoring that the Fed has two very specific and high-level mandates while people have more diverse and granular concerns. The Fed doesn't take action on those because

The Cost of Money is Part of the Cost of Living: New Evidence on the Consumer Sentiment Anomaly Founded in 1920, the NBER is a private, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to conducting economic research and to disseminating research findings among academics, public policy makers, an...

Will has a bad habit of cherry picking dates/data sources or focusing on trends as if folks had no memory. And none of this accounts for how housing greatly outpaced inflation, especially considering interest rates that were correlated with economic dis-satisfaction. www.nber.org/papers/w3216...

Chart from the St Louis Fed comparing real median household income, real median personal income, and employed full time median income 2007 to 2024.

Chart showing US murder rate 1950 to 2024

Imagined compared to what time frame?

Crime honestly did spike nationwide from 2020 to 2022 and while 2024 was a big drop we weren't back to pre-pandemic by then. Real wages did decline in that same 20-22 time and while recovering in 24, were below 2020 or 2019 levels (depending on the measure).

I don't know if this person was serious, but there's a reason why statements like that work as engagement bait. The urge the correct something so obviously wrong is strong!

That's not really true in places that do this well like the Netherlands. Partly from having people decide to take non-driving options which is something we should want our cities to encourage. The best solution to the environmental problems of driving is not better traffic flow but fewer drivers.

She wants to keep open the option to support oppressing trans folks, backing Israeli genocidal actions, and attacking DEI, while not offending the huge numbers of her voters who would rightfully hate those stances.

She'd call it pragmatic, voters should see it as undermining their influence.

The answers here show a person careful to avoid taking a stance on any position that is even perceived as controversial.

Which should be taken for what it is: an attempt to remove power from voters to have the knowledge they need to decide what they want in elections for the politician's benefit.

OK then we just don't agree on what it means to be anti-capitalist critique.