Come on. If you want to evaluate the effectiveness of Harris’ campaign, should you listen to her talk, or listen to commentary from a variety of sources?
To evaluate the effectiveness, you would listen to the people, of course. What “sources“ are you talking about? News pundits? Because that would be a terrible metric.
How can you evaluate how well the voting public is resounding to Harris by listening to Harris talk?
If only there were some way you could kind of collate the thoughts of voters and try to predict which way they were going to vote. Like a statistical analysis of voters opinions. You could call it an election survey. You could do it every week or so to get a trend showing the comparative effectiveness of each party’s strategies.
I mostly listen to the British and Australian public broadcasters. Both have journalists in the US. No media is completely free of bias but these are pretty good imo.
Regardless, I challenge you to find a commentator who’s saying Harris is on fire.
It makes plenty of sense actually. In my line of work I get to talk to a wide variety of people. Not just regionally, but even out of country at times, which I was fortunate enough to do earlier this month.
When it comes to regional excitement around a Harris presidency, I’m seeing a lot of excitement around her. Even from my republican friends and folks I meet. I’m seeing libertarians saying they’ll vote for her.
In Europe they love her and pray Trump doesn’t win.
But that’s who I choose to listen to. You like to listen to media pundits. Okay, to me those guys kind of suck balls. You have to listen to them with some real heavy filtering.
I don’t really know what you mean by “media pundits”. Some forms of journalism are biased and opaque, others are less so. You can’t just make a sweeping generalisation and say that someone listening to commentary from a variety of reputable balanced sources has been misled because “media pundits”.
Your on-the-ground insights are obviously something I don’t have, being that I’m in Australia, but they are of course anecdotal. There’s a lot of polling and research that doesn’t really support your perspective.
If you want to believe your direct insights rather than the accepted science, then I don’t really have much to say to you - that’s how people end up believing in a flat earth.
Come on. If you want to evaluate the effectiveness of Harris’ campaign, should you listen to her talk, or listen to commentary from a variety of sources?
To evaluate the effectiveness, you would listen to the people, of course. What “sources“ are you talking about? News pundits? Because that would be a terrible metric.
That doesn’t make any sense.
How can you evaluate how well the voting public is resounding to Harris by listening to Harris talk?
If only there were some way you could kind of collate the thoughts of voters and try to predict which way they were going to vote. Like a statistical analysis of voters opinions. You could call it an election survey. You could do it every week or so to get a trend showing the comparative effectiveness of each party’s strategies.
I mostly listen to the British and Australian public broadcasters. Both have journalists in the US. No media is completely free of bias but these are pretty good imo.
Regardless, I challenge you to find a commentator who’s saying Harris is on fire.
It makes plenty of sense actually. In my line of work I get to talk to a wide variety of people. Not just regionally, but even out of country at times, which I was fortunate enough to do earlier this month.
When it comes to regional excitement around a Harris presidency, I’m seeing a lot of excitement around her. Even from my republican friends and folks I meet. I’m seeing libertarians saying they’ll vote for her.
In Europe they love her and pray Trump doesn’t win.
But that’s who I choose to listen to. You like to listen to media pundits. Okay, to me those guys kind of suck balls. You have to listen to them with some real heavy filtering.
🔥🔥🔥Now get out there and vote for Harris🔥🔥🔥
I don’t really know what you mean by “media pundits”. Some forms of journalism are biased and opaque, others are less so. You can’t just make a sweeping generalisation and say that someone listening to commentary from a variety of reputable balanced sources has been misled because “media pundits”.
Your on-the-ground insights are obviously something I don’t have, being that I’m in Australia, but they are of course anecdotal. There’s a lot of polling and research that doesn’t really support your perspective.
If you want to believe your direct insights rather than the accepted science, then I don’t really have much to say to you - that’s how people end up believing in a flat earth.
No, no. Flat earth is insanely dumb
🔥🔥🔥Harris🔥🔥🔥 true af