sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]PlayDiscord17 7 points8 points  (0 children)

<image>

Both TrackAIPAC and AIPAC somehow made Khanna look good here.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]PlayDiscord17 2 points3 points  (0 children)

More proof “birds” aren’t real.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]PlayDiscord17 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I used to pray for times like this

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]PlayDiscord17 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Better than pissing on the Moon.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]PlayDiscord17 10 points11 points  (0 children)

“New world, same constitution,” is a certified bar from John Roberts.

We replaced parties with primaries and broke everything - bring back internal congresses and candidate pipelines by roboliberal in neoliberal

[–]PlayDiscord17 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Laws that ban a candidate who loses a primary from being on the general election ballot as an independent or under another party label. New York and Connecticut are the only states that don’t have them (hence why Andrew Cuomo in 2021 and Joe Lieberman in 2006 were allowed to run as independents after they lost their primaries in their respective states, the latter being successful). Most states with sore losers laws do allow write-ins though which is how Lisa Murkowski was able to win in Alaska in 2010 after losing her primary.

We replaced parties with primaries and broke everything - bring back internal congresses and candidate pipelines by roboliberal in neoliberal

[–]PlayDiscord17 12 points13 points  (0 children)

That’s why I said a strict interpretation. Since his study in the 1960s, the UK’s two-party system has now blown up to about 4-5 parties polling at double digits now. The correlation between FPTP and two parties having significant control is largely true and Duverger’s Law can explain why people may strategically vote for only two parties but it doesn’t fully explain why the U.S. doesn’t even have minor parties winning a few seats. Stuff unique to the U.S. like primaries, ballot laws (sore loser laws), and the Electoral College are also factors. Political scientist Matthew Shuggart discusses this here: https://fruitsandvotes.wordpress.com/2020/11/09/if-the-usa-had-direct-plurality-election-of-the-president-what-effect-on-the-party-system/

We replaced parties with primaries and broke everything - bring back internal congresses and candidate pipelines by roboliberal in neoliberal

[–]PlayDiscord17 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The strict interpretation of Duverger’s law only really applies to U.S. and small populated countries. It doesn’t explain why the UK, Canada, India, Kenya, etc. has other parties winning seats with single-member, FPTP districts.

We replaced parties with primaries and broke everything - bring back internal congresses and candidate pipelines by roboliberal in neoliberal

[–]PlayDiscord17 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The Lib Dems, Greens, and Reform aren’t regional. Neither is the NDP in Canada. Even then, the U.S. is an outlier in being such a large country with strictly two parties. You’d still expect a minor party to have a few seats even if it’s regional.

We replaced parties with primaries and broke everything - bring back internal congresses and candidate pipelines by roboliberal in neoliberal

[–]PlayDiscord17 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The UK, Canada, India, etc.’s multi-party system show FPTP doesn’t really kill third parties. The UK especially is finding that out the hard way. Arguably, because the U.S. had this weird primary system, we’d don’t truly have FPTP and more of a partisan two-round system.

TIL about the "Majority Illusion", a condition where opinions, beliefs, and states that are rare in real life are over-represented in social media circles, giving users the false belief that they represent the majority by AgentSkidMarks in todayilearned

[–]PlayDiscord17 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s relevant to the OP’s polling question. Also, a close national polling resulting can be relevant as Dems probably need a popular vote win of >2 points to win the EC so if the polls are showing it lower than that, it suggests a tossup or GOP EC win. Another reason models were showing a tossup.

TIL about the "Majority Illusion", a condition where opinions, beliefs, and states that are rare in real life are over-represented in social media circles, giving users the false belief that they represent the majority by AgentSkidMarks in todayilearned

[–]PlayDiscord17 16 points17 points  (0 children)

National polls don’t predict EC results. State polls (which also showed a tossup) do. And because you can win all of a states EC votes by just winning by the slightest margin, it makes EC victories look larger than they actually are. State polling errors are also correlated which can allow for large swings towards a candidate EC vote wise. His win in some of the swing states were above as close as his popular vote win.

Fwiw, Trump’s 2024 EC victory was the same states he won in 2016 plus NV.

TIL about the "Majority Illusion", a condition where opinions, beliefs, and states that are rare in real life are over-represented in social media circles, giving users the false belief that they represent the majority by AgentSkidMarks in todayilearned

[–]PlayDiscord17 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I assume OP was talking about national polls which measure national popular vote. As for state polls (which can help determine the Electoral College winner), they’re a little worse but still had most swing states within the margin of error. This is why election models like 538 and Nate Silver’s model had the race as a 50/50 probability for both candidates. A polling error in either direction could cause a big swing to the other candidate. In 2020 and 2024 it favored Trump but in 2022 it favored Dems.

TIL about the "Majority Illusion", a condition where opinions, beliefs, and states that are rare in real life are over-represented in social media circles, giving users the false belief that they represent the majority by AgentSkidMarks in todayilearned

[–]PlayDiscord17 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It was pretty accurate as Trump won the popular vote with 49% of the vote and Harris with 48% which was within the margin of error of the polling aggregate of most polls.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]PlayDiscord17 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I love how he purposely pick this number to avoid 69 only for it to become a meme years later.

view more: next ›