And yet you want to put Whitmer on a national stage??
The child above me and their lack of knowledge has no relation to prudent political decision making, and their opinions are not reflective or representative of anything
A random ignoramus on the internet does not determine anything, much less what is wise for the country or the Democratic Party.
and their opinions are not reflective or representative of anything
Are you serious? The vast majority of the voting age citizenry are ignoramuses.
I am serious that anecdotal evidence is not statistically significant and that, therefore, one random child is not representative of anything
If you only look at each individual tree as a tree, you'll fail to realize you're in a forest.
So if the above person was familiar with Whitmer then I should presume that most people also are?
Your points aren't making sense. Anecdotal evidence gathered from a non-American child's comments on a random post on a fringe STEM-lord website is not representative of anything.
Jesus you people are insufferable. Not knowing about Whitmer is a single anecdote that is consistent with a trend that is quite obvious and so help me god if you do that sealioning bullshit demanding a peer reviewed study about Whitmers name recognition
consistent with a trend that is quite obvious
What trend?
sealioning
Using terms like this makes one sound socially maladjusted. Which makes sense given the site we're on. Which reinforces my point that a random comment has no representative value - people on here are STEM-brained weirdos or are bots. Either way, not exactly representative of the median adult US voter
And yet you want to put Whitmer on a national stage??
The child above me and their lack of knowledge has no relation to prudent political decision making, and their opinions are not reflective or representative of anything
A random ignoramus on the internet does not determine anything, much less what is wise for the country or the Democratic Party.
Are you serious? The vast majority of the voting age citizenry are ignoramuses.
I am serious that anecdotal evidence is not statistically significant and that, therefore, one random child is not representative of anything
If you only look at each individual tree as a tree, you'll fail to realize you're in a forest.
So if the above person was familiar with Whitmer then I should presume that most people also are?
Your points aren't making sense. Anecdotal evidence gathered from a non-American child's comments on a random post on a fringe STEM-lord website is not representative of anything.
Jesus you people are insufferable. Not knowing about Whitmer is a single anecdote that is consistent with a trend that is quite obvious and so help me god if you do that sealioning bullshit demanding a peer reviewed study about Whitmers name recognition
What trend?
Using terms like this makes one sound socially maladjusted. Which makes sense given the site we're on. Which reinforces my point that a random comment has no representative value - people on here are STEM-brained weirdos or are bots. Either way, not exactly representative of the median adult US voter