Walz will have to assure voters that the policies he’s championed don’t come at too high a cost, as Republicans assert.
He will? Couldn’t those claims just also be bullshit that no one buys into? Or even cares about in the first place? Why do they just accept the Republican attack as valid and important?
Independent, undecided voters are pretty stupid and believe the last thing they hear more often than not. See 2016 election and the final major hit to Hilary in the polls because Comey’s last minute FBI report about reopening her investigation that the Republicans spun.
If the Democrat isn’t out front and center showing off their accomplishments AND showing how cost effective they were, undecided voters will not research any deeper than the headlines and happily believe what GOP talking heads say if the other side doesn’t refute them loudly and with conviction.
Media reporting Republican hits as if they’re inherently meaningful is the only reason anyone would even make that connection in the first place.
Not all Democratic programs have any reason to worry about cost. “We’ll give you free healthcare”? Sure, ask if it’s worth the cost. (It is.) “We’ll put menstrual products in school bathrooms”? No, not really a serious question. The framing that every little bit of Democratic government spending needs to be carefully considered isn’t an inherent feature of US politics, it’s one generated by corporate media giving undue credence to fake Republican concerns about it. Notably demonstrated by how quickly those concerns evaporate when the spending is business subsidies, security theater, or tax breaks for the rich.
Anybody who asks this seriously, point them at the Minnesota state budget. Walz pulled Minnesota out of a deficit and into a serious surplus.
They’re important because like most elections this one will be decided by “independents” who are extremely gullible.
It’s a circular justification. They’re important aspects to consider because news stories say they’re important aspects to consider. If they didn’t, would anyone think “do period products in schools come at too high a cost”? It’s not the sort of thing that jumps out to me as a major expense in a state budget.
