“Better economy” is vague and nebulous, it’s my belief that if someone tells you that’s why they voted they way they did they either didn’t care enough to actually look into their candidates’ policies or they’re trying to hide the real reason they voted. And it’s very unlikely if their primary concern is the economy they wouldn’t bother looking into economic policy beforehand. If that’s what they truly voted for they’d have specific concrete talking points instead, eg changes to some specific tax or changes in funding for some specific type of business.
The same goes for candidates with a platform of “better economy”. Is it a better economy if everyone still struggles as they do now but the people at the top get infinitely richer? Is it a better economy if all big businesses fail but more people now have enough to live healthily and safely? “The economy” is too broad, it means nothing. Specific policy or it’s all bullshit.
It depends on who built the trap. John Kramer is the original jigsaw and came up with the whole “the choice is yours” thing so his traps are always technically escapable. Amanda is the first apprentice and breaks John’s rules by making traps completely impossible, she ends up in three separate games (if you count Saw 2) because John wanted her to stop. Then there’s the cop who’s lead killer for like three movies but I still never remember his name, he just straight-up murders people so obviously his traps aren’t always winnable either. I’m not sure why he even bothers with traps. The guy from Spiral has no real connection to Jigsaw and just uses traps as a cover, but that’s also a detective movie more than a Saw movie; the plot would barely change if there were no traps at all.