3 ms·
Okay, so you're going to go with the classic "I will disregard all evidence that I don't like by making unsubstantiated claims of bias". It's not hard to find
by hackyhacky 11mo ago
Okay, so you're going to go with the classic "I will disregard all evidence that I don't like by making unsubstantiated claims of bias".
It's not hard to find research that supports conclusions based on polling from different time periods. [1]
Fact is most people don't have enough data points in their personal lives to make any kind of conclusion about the state of the economy. They haven't gotten a raise in two years and their cousin Dale got laid off last week, but no one would extrapolate that to mean the economy is bad.
> They do different jobs, live in different geographic locations with varying density and urbanization
Yes, but they don't typically all swap locations with each other when a new administration takes power. Nevertheless their opinions do swap.
> economy was good but perceived by idiots who didn't know better
That is, in fact, exactly what happened.
[1] https://isr.umich.edu/news-events/news-releases/partisan-attitudes-toward-economy-creates-substantial-economic-uncertainty/ https://isr.umich.edu/news-events/news-releases/partisan-att...
- tgma 11mo agoDude, I literally linked to FEC contributions. "Unsubstantiated" my ass. I think we're done here. Keep believing what you like.
- hackyhacky 11mo ago> Dude, I literally linked to FEC contributions. "Unsubstantiated" my ass. That's not evidence of bias, unless, you think that anyone who makes a political contribution is unable to perform accurate research or do their job. Would you casually dismiss the work of a cop or a professor just because they made a donation? If you find a flaw in the research method, let me know. You're literally looking for any reason to justify your a priori decision to ignore research you don't like. That makes you the partisan hack, not the researcher.