Okay? You were claiming all Republicans will still vote for him. That’s demonstrably not true. If big name Republicans aren’t going to vote for him, why are you assuming all other Republicans will?
If I may project a little, I think the commenter is pointing to language that’s been cropping up essentially calling big name republicans traitors for endorsing Kamala. While you’re more than allowed to interpret what they said literally, I read it has intentionally a bit hyperbolic to make the point that a huge portion of the Republican Party will literally blindly follow him, even if the party leaders are starting to flake.
Just remember, rewording this statement:
If big name Republicans aren’t going to vote for him, why are you assuming all other Republicans will?
To the version that would exemplify your interpretation:
If big name Republicans are going to vote for him, why are you assuming all other Republicans will?
Still creates an equally bold, and hyperbolic claim. Sometimes people use words like “all” and don’t really mean every last person. I blame the English language, not the people taking words literally, for misunderstandings like this.
Just remember, especially with politics, people often hype up language a bit, it makes statements carry more oomph, and can help keep supporters excited for whatever movement they are supporting.
Because I talk to Republicans, like with my mouth and listen with my ears. I see the roadside Trump support. I see people hanging banners on freeway overpasses. I’m just being realistic because I don’t think conservative voters really care about what the Republican Elites are doing if those people aren’t MAGA morons.
It is perfectly understandable why many people fall victim to the luring illusory strength of anecdotal evidence. It is easy to confuse correlation with causation. Illusions of causality and control are very powerful personal experiences that can trick many into believing a false reality. Illusions of causality also lie at the heart of pseudoscience.
You clearly don’t understand what you’re trying to say. It’s a problem with this style of communication. Your putting to much value on your idea of what anecdotal evidence is. I’m not making presumptions about anything beyond my personal experiences. There’s no facts I can use outside of voting records and the words people use and the actions they take. You can call it antidotal evidence but that’s a poor direction because it’s like everything is anecdotal if someone wants to be argumentive. Everything is anecdotal at some point https://listen-hard.com/psychological-research-and-methodology/anecdotal-evidence-psychology/
I live in a conservative part of Washington, surrounded by even more conservative communities on the other side of the state boarder with Idaho. My city is an island of moderate voting but leaning right. It’s not very hard to get a sense of what the local politics are.
Matt Shea was a local government official. He’s made world news doing questionable shit. He’s made a religious manifesto. He is a local conservative leader where I live. He was on stage with the previous mayor of Spokane. The election results are clearly factual. That mayor didn’t lose in a landslide. Matt Shea was rejected by the Republican Elites but I think his endorsement of Trump has a stronger appeal to the Republicans in Eastern Washington than Dick Cheney.
Shea acknowledged that he had distributed a four-page manifesto which called for the killing of non-Christian males if a war were to occur and they do not agree to follow fundamentalist biblical law
This is reality.
It’s hard to NOT see all the parts and make a conclusion that local conservative voters don’t care what the National Republican Party thinks.
Psychology isn’t a good science especially if you’re trying to apply it to politics.
I live in a conservative part of Washington, surrounded by even more conservative communities on the other side of the state boarder with Idaho. My city is an island of moderate voting but leaning right. It’s not very hard to get a sense of what the local politics are.
Do you know what that is like?
I live in Indiana. I also don’t see all the Trump signs I saw in 2020. It’s not even close.
Okay? You were claiming all Republicans will still vote for him. That’s demonstrably not true. If big name Republicans aren’t going to vote for him, why are you assuming all other Republicans will?
If I may project a little, I think the commenter is pointing to language that’s been cropping up essentially calling big name republicans traitors for endorsing Kamala. While you’re more than allowed to interpret what they said literally, I read it has intentionally a bit hyperbolic to make the point that a huge portion of the Republican Party will literally blindly follow him, even if the party leaders are starting to flake.
Just remember, rewording this statement:
To the version that would exemplify your interpretation:
Still creates an equally bold, and hyperbolic claim. Sometimes people use words like “all” and don’t really mean every last person. I blame the English language, not the people taking words literally, for misunderstandings like this.
Just remember, especially with politics, people often hype up language a bit, it makes statements carry more oomph, and can help keep supporters excited for whatever movement they are supporting.
Because I talk to Republicans, like with my mouth and listen with my ears. I see the roadside Trump support. I see people hanging banners on freeway overpasses. I’m just being realistic because I don’t think conservative voters really care about what the Republican Elites are doing if those people aren’t MAGA morons.
That is completely anecdotal.
That is a weak perspective.
Let me share something with you https://wikipedia.org/wiki/All_politics_is_local
Let me share something with you in return: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/writing-integrity/202011/the-plural-anecdote-is-misinformation
Did you even read that? What part aside from the use of your keywords do you want me to take from this?
All of it.
This part, for example
You are falling victim to that very thing.
You clearly don’t understand what you’re trying to say. It’s a problem with this style of communication. Your putting to much value on your idea of what anecdotal evidence is. I’m not making presumptions about anything beyond my personal experiences. There’s no facts I can use outside of voting records and the words people use and the actions they take. You can call it antidotal evidence but that’s a poor direction because it’s like everything is anecdotal if someone wants to be argumentive. Everything is anecdotal at some point https://listen-hard.com/psychological-research-and-methodology/anecdotal-evidence-psychology/
I live in a conservative part of Washington, surrounded by even more conservative communities on the other side of the state boarder with Idaho. My city is an island of moderate voting but leaning right. It’s not very hard to get a sense of what the local politics are.
Do you know what that is like?
Let me give you an example. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Shea
Matt Shea was a local government official. He’s made world news doing questionable shit. He’s made a religious manifesto. He is a local conservative leader where I live. He was on stage with the previous mayor of Spokane. The election results are clearly factual. That mayor didn’t lose in a landslide. Matt Shea was rejected by the Republican Elites but I think his endorsement of Trump has a stronger appeal to the Republicans in Eastern Washington than Dick Cheney.
This is reality.
It’s hard to NOT see all the parts and make a conclusion that local conservative voters don’t care what the National Republican Party thinks.
Psychology isn’t a good science especially if you’re trying to apply it to politics.
I live in Indiana. I also don’t see all the Trump signs I saw in 2020. It’s not even close.
Does my anecdotal evidence trump yours?