No, you simply don’t like that I came to a different conclusion than you did. Feel free to link or quote which comment you believe has specific evidence of his approval rating or not winning the general election having actually impeded the use of his Constitutional powers in the term where he appointed 3 SCOTUS justices and nearly 300 federal judges.

I appreciate it, because doing that shit over and over grinds me the fuck down. 20+ years of the same arguments about the same shit, and they just keep making more misogynists. I’m tired, boss.

Do you dispute that a more decisive victory provides more political capital to the winner? Do you dispute that winning both the popular vote and electoral college is a more decisive victory than winning the electoral college alone?

I am asking you to specify what powers of Trump’s were limited by not winning the general vote. Because it wasn’t the ability to sign laws, appoint new SCOTUS justices, or stack the federal courts with judges. So far you have refused to elaborate beyond ‘it would have been worse in his first term’ which is untestable and unprovable. I am forced to conclude he didn’t actually have his powers restricted in any way by the vote, or by his approval ratings.

But hey, who knows, if it drops to a new low for the nth month in a row maybe that will magically make it so that people aren’t getting put in camps. (Not magical thinking though)

For the record, I do not believe that and never made that claim.

Then why the hell are you pissing about the people who have a symbolic vote on the presidency once every 4 years and not the people whose literal job as laid out in the constitution is to balance and check the powers of the president?

You are missing the point being made. There is a difference in how American society behaved following 2016 compared to 2024, a factor in that difference is Trump losing the popular vote in 2016 but winning it in 2024

As I said, this is magical thinking. There is not a legal mechanism holding him in control if he loses the popular vote, and in no way did it reduce his power; he appointed three SCOTUS judges in his first term for fuck’s sake.

This is basic politics, a more decisive victory confers greater power than a less decisive victory.

Basic politics also says the person with the most votes wins an election, so toss it out if you’re trying to understand American politics. I’m also not sure you should be lecturing me about basic politics if you believe the checks on Trump are how many votes he got and not the other two branches of government

It isn’t moronic to be critical of people who made a bad decision that served to empower Trump

If they “empowered him” by not voting blue in a state that went blue was always going to go blue, why can’t they disempower him by disapproving of him? Is it possibly because approval has nothing to do with what power a politician has, and that Congress and SCOTUS instead hold the reins to power and are simply letting it happen?

No, it must be those dastardly people in blue states who simply didn’t vote hard enough!

I don’t trust people who think women must be lying about rape if they can come up with a reason it would somehow be an “advantage” for them (guess what, someone will always be able to find an excuse)

Do you not remember “the Resistance”?

I remember protestors and journalists where I live getting beaten, gassed, and arrested while Democrats did more performative shit, Trump incited a riot, and nobody faced any consequences. Why, what do you remember?

If Trump had only won the Electoral College again he would have been less empowered by the election outcome.

This is magical thinking, corporations will do whatever gives them money and that’s all they’ve ever been doing. The only thing that can take power from Trump is Congress or SCOTUS. If a ‘mandate’ is so great at giving and taking power from Trump why don’t his opinion polls being in the trash fix anything? Is your premise that corporations look at politics once every 4 years and then shrug and move on? Just a snapshot on Election Day?

It’s generally not a good use of limited campaign resources or political capital to target these kinds of voters, that would be a bad strategy when that money and effort could be much better spent trying to actually win via the Electoral College.

Then don’t complain about voters you don’t want not voting for your candidate. It seems like focusing on winning only the votes of some Platonic ideal of an undecided voter instead of issues actually important to their base has done nothing but lead to Trump getting elected, but what do I know, I’m not a professional election loser.

And what did winning the popular vote in 2016 do for Clinton? As long as we live in an anti-democratic system where some votes are worth more than others and the electoral college exists, acting like the popular vote is what decides vote (and therefor getting angry at people living in deep blue states for not voting blue) is absolutely asinine.

You also can’t have it both ways; if it’s so important to get every single vote even in deep blue states, then you have to take the concerns of these voters seriously and not just demand they perform for the party’s sake. If their votes are so necessary then they must be earned.

Anyone backlashing against someone in a deep blue state for not engaging in performative pro-Democratic Party politics that go against their conscience is a moron.

And I can’t help but think “The Water Hoax” rhetoric churning through the LessWrong community has played a major role.

Incredible, I didn’t think I could hate anyone involved here any more, and yet.

The issues that individual studies have, on average, tend to be flattened out when aggregated with many other studies. Basing this on what I learned this semester from someone with a PhD in a portion of class specifically devoted to understanding the different types of evidence in scientific studies, and how reliable each type is.

You can always review the methods of a meta study to see if there’s anything that leaps out at you with their selection criteria. But more data is always going to win against less data. Even a study with a p-value of 0.05 can still have results that happened entirely due to chance, but when you add many other studies with the same or similar results then you become much more certain that it wasn’t due to chance.

You shouldn’t avoid them, because they’re considered the golden standard in terms of evidence. Compiling and analyzing the studies that dozens or hundreds of people have done can give much higher quality evidence than any of those studies alone.

You absolutely wouldn’t be saying any of this if your 8 year old kept walking into the wrong bathroom. Nobody would say oh, that’s normal because kids just can’t be expected to know which bathroom they go in at that age, or whether they call their mom ‘she’ or ‘he’. You fully expect an eight year old to have a firm grasp on the basics of gender, but not to be able to think about how they feel about how any of it applies to them?

They may not have what you consider deep thoughts, but trying to deny them their own sense of self because it makes you uncomfortable is going to fuck your kid up. Ask me how I know. Maybe they hop around in identities; so fucking what? 8 is the perfect time to be doing that, well before worrying about the irreversible effects of puberty and having to make decisions about blockers.

Noncitizen voting is extremely rare. All states are required to conduct voter roll list maintenance under federal law, and states already have processes to identify any noncitizens who do accidentally make it onto the voter rolls

Definitely something to end an article on instead of leading with it. 🙄

Yeah, it absolutely is. Hopefully they knock it out of the park.

After the stories I’ve heard from a family member who teaches middle schoolers I’m glad it’s only 40%.

OP is clearly a journalist, and Mr. Jorkin is unsafe for their work.

And some Democrats are listening. California Governor (and possible presidential candidate) Gavin Newsom has had several stabs at “moderating” on trans rights.

Daily reminder, ‘28 Democratic primary voters: if he does it to us, he’ll do it to you

Chemtrail conspiracy theories aren’t about cloud seeding.

He thought he could ban CNN from being in his presence? lol. lmao.

Once again: ‘28 Democratic primary voters, if he does this to us, he’ll do it to you.