Political Scientist studying Parties, Polarization, and Representation. Assistant Professor at Clemson.
Baseball, cats and occasionally social science.
It's OK to go to events organized by people you disagree with, including conferences led by, yes, billionaires and conservatives.
It's arguably even GOOD to talk to all those people you disagree with there, learn about their perspective, and try to convince them of something.
@teo_kai_xiang@akoustov I'm not sure what the *why* would be here, but I've had an error edited into an equation that was correct in the original manuscript, as well as a few other minors things.
TBH, I'd probably miss it if someone added fake citations - why would I think to check?
@FoulTerritoryTV@JakeDRill 100% the correct call. By rule, baseline not established until tag attempt, and he definitely doesn't deviate 3 further feet afterwards.
There is absolutely no reason it should take weeks to know who won an election in an advanced democracy (absent the race being so close it needs a recount)
This is a reminder that there are real consequences to counting votes late. When citizens wake up, they expect they'll see some results that decently reflect the election outcome.
Seeing this — and then seeing Pan surge in the last 45% of the vote — destroys trust in elections.
Apropos of nothing, my European Politics class assigns both Hayek and Marx week 1 as we try to understand the development of the dominant European ideologies.
Same thing here. A challenger with a relatively average man’s name is running behind a challenger named “Fatima.” There’s no real explanation for this big gap except voters using names as a heuristic, as rational voters might tend to do.
I don't want to blame someone for being young and asking questions, but holy shit the idea that this is even a question.
* Unemployment hit 10%. Stayed above 7% for four straight years
* 10M people lost their homes
* The banking system came close to total, catastrophic failure
* We didn't gain back all the lost jobs for six years
* Stock market declined by 57%
* Global trade declined 10%
Comparing right now to then is just...
@tylermilliken_ that's absolutely a fine spot to challenge; 3-2 count so you get first if you're right.
The problem is, obviously, not being right, but it was right on the corner, not like it was down the middle or something.
This gets to the heart of the problem in current politics: a crisis of governing legitimacy among the public. And all of the hardball being played right now—by parties or voters or courts— is working to further undermine what legitimacy remains.
There's only one way to actually make a "gerrymandering ban" work, and that's to get rid of districts. It's very simple: multimember statewide Congressional representation. You can do this with ranked choice, party lists, etc. Ask a political scientist or voting expert about this
@Aitch_GKR@TheStalwart Truly was accidental!
Got the seat from a friend who is an Arsenal supporter, first time at a game in the UK, did not realize how these things work at all and was definitely not adequately warned
@edenhofer_jacob Depends what we mean by comparative politics (ie, in American comparative politics just tends to mean studying something other than US politics or IR), but for the big questions about democratization, development, etc, I think this is probably right.
Relatedly, looking forward to presenting some really cool work on Group Appeals co-authored with @DrAlonaDolinsky and @lenamariahuber and watching my co-authors including @timeabal, Alexa Federice and Braeden Davis present some of our work on polarization
If anyone, particularly PhD students or other early career people, wants to grab coffee at MPSA and chat about Polarization, Representation or Group Appeals, let me know here or email rwhorne at clemson dot edu.
🚨NEW ARTICLE FROM EAP 📉📊📈
First fruits of our Varieties of Crises project, which tries to unite disparate literatures on economic, security, public health & natural disaster criese. More to come!
https://t.co/7OORGXbtvx