There were no studies about any of the others because none of the others won. You posted a link about the growth of the opioid crisis during Obama's time in office. Mitt Romney and John McCain were both still alive at time, no one wrote a piece on what they did/didn't do to address the problem....because they didn't win the election so it doesn't matter. It's a 2 decade old problem. You want studies related to everyone as if their relevance is on the same level as that of the POTUS?
But Obama did win, right? He was elected and reelected, right? But because a Republican didn't win so it doesn't matter? Is that what you're saying? And RIP Romney and Mccain. Murder-suicide?
That's what your criticism lacks validity. Your primary complaint seems to be that the study combines an unpleasant scenario and a mention of their voting patterns. You allege "context" but the opioid crisis wasn't a political issue in 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012. It was a political issue in 2016 and so the voting patterns are being paid attention to in 2016.
No, my primary criticism is that a weak study is trying to explain Trump's election by trying to exploit a national tragedy.
My secondary criticism is that this type of propaganda is what will lead to a second term for Trump because we don't evaluate problems based on root causes, we take short cuts, demagogue, and assign blame.
And it was a known issue since long before 2012. Do you think people weren't aware of the opioid crisis before it was coined a crisis? Or before it was discussed on the stump. I posted a great blog that highlights the failures of the Obama administration during the crisis.
The other failure of your criticism is that you're not criticizing the study for what it says, your criticism is that other people didn't do similar studies for other elections also. But there was only 1 Presidential election after this crisis became a mainstream issue - the 2016 election. However, there are plenty of stories about what was being done prior to the 2016 election and how elected officials, including the POTUS of the time, Obama, weren't doing enough.
This is completely false. I've done nothing but criticize the study; for what it says AND what it doesn't say. Thats how you interpret and grade studies. You don't just deep throat their conclusions and consider them infallible. This study even admits to its limitations and shortcomings.
What is the point of there only being 1 election since this became "mainstream"? The problem has existed for 20 years and it has been known about for more than a decade.
You don't have any consistency here. Do you have a problem with stories blaming Obama's treatment of the issue from pre-2016? Were those stories about an "agenda"? Do you have a problem with this being a political issue going back several years? Or do you only have a problem with this specific study?
I am consistent. You are not. You are talking about stories, I'm talking about a study in a prestigious journal.
You're talking about blaming Obama, I'm talking about context. This study is obviously cherry picking data to meet an objective that has no scientific value. I have a problem with this particular study. Its politicizing an epidemic with a poorly constructed study and it obviously has an agenda.
To summarize, the opioid crisis became a mainstream political issue during Obama's term in office. Stories were written about this growing section of the population. The population group was being studied and analyzed from multiple angles. All of this fine...until they also study the voting patterns of these people. And then, only then, does it become an "agenda".
Weak summary. You can hardly call 1 election for 1 particular candidate from people suffering through an epidemic for 20 years a pattern.
I'm sorry but that is not a valid critique of anything if you're going to ignore the years of political attention to this issue to only find a fault with it in 2018.
What lacks validity is your retort. Your entire argument is based on the assumption that I am a Trump supporter or a but-but Obama guy.
You can't have meaningful discussions about issues that go back decades in a bubble around 1 person and 1 date.
