"They’ll see the videos and headlines and say, “wow, that’s some crazy shit. This dude shouldn’t be president”."
Not if the major newspapers and network news has anything to say about it. They will all, just as they did in 2016, 2020, and so far this time around, continue to push "Nothing to see here" headlines and stories about Trump and "Here's why ____ is bad for Biden" about Biden.
That could change, maybe, (and against the will of the media) if Democrats hammer the news cycles with "Milwaukee sucks!"-type Trump quotes and short, pithy descriptions of his and Project 2025's plans. But too many Dems consider that rude for it to be a safe bet that they'll actually something more than a knife to this nuke fight.
The author writes “Despite every macro-economic indicator suggesting we are in an unprecedented economic boom, with jobs aplenty and real wages growing” (no link [provided)
It shows totals for fiscal 2021-24 (millions): 1.96, 2.77, 3.02, 1.98 (7 months). the rate of the first seven months in FY 2024 the total for the year would 3.39 million, a continuation of the rising trend throughout the Biden administration. This provides some context for the recent change in border policy.
This data contradicts the author’s assertion. Why make this statement?
The author then goes on to say “But this wouldn't happen with a highly curious and engaged electorate. All it takes is a Google search on most topics to find several sources that relay data that suggest the truth.”
Apparently, a Google search was too much for the author. So why expect more from the electorate?
I think you make a fair point that I did not provide links to back up my statements, and therefore they lacked context. Although, it is ironic that we are having a "high-information" and nuanced discussion regarding an article, the point of which was to highlight the lack of nuance and low-information environment of the electorate. But this is really what citizens should be doing: exploring and debating issues using facts and logic.
Regarding real wages, they have been going up significantly for the last 12 months: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/realer.t01.htm. The link you supplied directs us to a graph that is oddly specific. It's regarding only High School dropouts or HS grad w/no college. And the graph has 2 different scales, giving the impression of an accurate comparison of trends, when the true comparison is not evident. It seems that the graph is saying that real wages of HS dropouts have been rising, whereas HS grads w/no college have somewhat stagnated, which would be an interesting fact, but there's very little context provided. Plus, there's no source listed. I get that my lack of linking and sourcing in my article perhaps should preclude me from making this criticism, but if you're going to throw stones for this, you should at least provide good, accurate sourcing of your own.
On immigration, I was referring to the recent news that border encounters have been decreasing over the last several months and that illegal crossings have gone down by 54% since the December 2023 immigration panic: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigration-us-mexico-border-crossings-mayorkas-may-2024/. This news got very little attention and pretty much lasted for one news cycle and has now completely disappeared from our consciousness after months and months in late 2023 of getting our heads pounded in with "border crisis" headlines and sound bites. Considering how important immigration supposedly is for much of the electorate, and how much of a Biden-induced "crisis" we were apparently in 6 months prior, it seems like this would be welcome relief and an indicator that Biden is doing something right to correct the situation. In addition, without Congress acting on increasing resources and manpower at the border, there's not much a President can do to solve the problem long-term. My point was that these nuances are not sought after or understood by most of the electorate. I admit, however, that I did not provide this link, and therefore my statements lacked context, and I could have done better. I'm always looking for ways to improve my writing.
The immigration data you presented to counter my statement shows "encounters" only, not "illegal crossings", and covers "nationwide" encounters, not "southern border encounters" (shown here: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-border-encounters), I assume we're not as concerned with Canadian border crossings as with Mexican crossings, although they reflect the same general patterns. The data you cited is correct, but you seem to be ignoring that the recent trends are downward, as you state they show "a continuation of the rising trend throughout the Biden Administration". They don't. In the last 5 months since December's peak, the numbers have been going lower, AND the most recent 2 months were lower than each of the two previous years' figures for the same months.
All of these things are worthy of debate and fact-checking. But the point of the article was not to suggest we should "expect" more from the electorate. It was to say that this is the way it is, and it has mostly hurt Biden so far, but as Trump gets more and more stage and air time, it will start to hurt him more.
Great yet sobering thread and reminds me of the old saying “ A politician is someone who explains why nothing can be done”.
"They’ll see the videos and headlines and say, “wow, that’s some crazy shit. This dude shouldn’t be president”."
Not if the major newspapers and network news has anything to say about it. They will all, just as they did in 2016, 2020, and so far this time around, continue to push "Nothing to see here" headlines and stories about Trump and "Here's why ____ is bad for Biden" about Biden.
That could change, maybe, (and against the will of the media) if Democrats hammer the news cycles with "Milwaukee sucks!"-type Trump quotes and short, pithy descriptions of his and Project 2025's plans. But too many Dems consider that rude for it to be a safe bet that they'll actually something more than a knife to this nuke fight.
The author writes “Despite every macro-economic indicator suggesting we are in an unprecedented economic boom, with jobs aplenty and real wages growing” (no link [provided)
I previously looked into the real wage picture.
https://mikebert.neocities.org/Wages%202000-24.gif
The author continues “Despite immigration data showing plummeting rates of border encounters and illegal crossings” (again no link)
I looked up border crossings https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/nationwide-encounters
It shows totals for fiscal 2021-24 (millions): 1.96, 2.77, 3.02, 1.98 (7 months). the rate of the first seven months in FY 2024 the total for the year would 3.39 million, a continuation of the rising trend throughout the Biden administration. This provides some context for the recent change in border policy.
This data contradicts the author’s assertion. Why make this statement?
The author then goes on to say “But this wouldn't happen with a highly curious and engaged electorate. All it takes is a Google search on most topics to find several sources that relay data that suggest the truth.”
Apparently, a Google search was too much for the author. So why expect more from the electorate?
I think you make a fair point that I did not provide links to back up my statements, and therefore they lacked context. Although, it is ironic that we are having a "high-information" and nuanced discussion regarding an article, the point of which was to highlight the lack of nuance and low-information environment of the electorate. But this is really what citizens should be doing: exploring and debating issues using facts and logic.
Regarding real wages, they have been going up significantly for the last 12 months: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/realer.t01.htm. The link you supplied directs us to a graph that is oddly specific. It's regarding only High School dropouts or HS grad w/no college. And the graph has 2 different scales, giving the impression of an accurate comparison of trends, when the true comparison is not evident. It seems that the graph is saying that real wages of HS dropouts have been rising, whereas HS grads w/no college have somewhat stagnated, which would be an interesting fact, but there's very little context provided. Plus, there's no source listed. I get that my lack of linking and sourcing in my article perhaps should preclude me from making this criticism, but if you're going to throw stones for this, you should at least provide good, accurate sourcing of your own.
On immigration, I was referring to the recent news that border encounters have been decreasing over the last several months and that illegal crossings have gone down by 54% since the December 2023 immigration panic: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigration-us-mexico-border-crossings-mayorkas-may-2024/. This news got very little attention and pretty much lasted for one news cycle and has now completely disappeared from our consciousness after months and months in late 2023 of getting our heads pounded in with "border crisis" headlines and sound bites. Considering how important immigration supposedly is for much of the electorate, and how much of a Biden-induced "crisis" we were apparently in 6 months prior, it seems like this would be welcome relief and an indicator that Biden is doing something right to correct the situation. In addition, without Congress acting on increasing resources and manpower at the border, there's not much a President can do to solve the problem long-term. My point was that these nuances are not sought after or understood by most of the electorate. I admit, however, that I did not provide this link, and therefore my statements lacked context, and I could have done better. I'm always looking for ways to improve my writing.
The immigration data you presented to counter my statement shows "encounters" only, not "illegal crossings", and covers "nationwide" encounters, not "southern border encounters" (shown here: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-border-encounters), I assume we're not as concerned with Canadian border crossings as with Mexican crossings, although they reflect the same general patterns. The data you cited is correct, but you seem to be ignoring that the recent trends are downward, as you state they show "a continuation of the rising trend throughout the Biden Administration". They don't. In the last 5 months since December's peak, the numbers have been going lower, AND the most recent 2 months were lower than each of the two previous years' figures for the same months.
All of these things are worthy of debate and fact-checking. But the point of the article was not to suggest we should "expect" more from the electorate. It was to say that this is the way it is, and it has mostly hurt Biden so far, but as Trump gets more and more stage and air time, it will start to hurt him more.