Zaktor

The more you look for it the more you recognize that a lot of the people in charge of politics (and business for that matter) aren't smart or knowledgeable or even master strategists, they're just the sort of person who skirt through life through some combination of charisma and utter willingness to say whatever it takes to please the people who can advance their career.

Like you expect the dumb shit they say to be an act by a keen mind who understands politics deeply and is manipulating the public into advancing their interests, but they're often just fucking idiots with no principles who whenever they've been stymied due to their idiocy just let it slide off their back and move on to a new path with utmost confidence.

Jill Stein isn't going to slink away into the darkness after a public demonstration of political ignorance for a lady whose whole public persona is supposed to be about politics, she's just going to forget about it and keep the scam going. Not knowing the basics of government isn't going to stop her from saying she knows how to fix the problems with government. Not being on the ballot in states is unimportant for whether it sounds good to her in the moment to say they can win in all 50 states. They're all just unimportant "facts" and you can just keep talking and most people will forget or not know that you're an idiot.

It's a fine sample size. That's a normal national poll. A poll of 1,000 people has a margin of error (from random sampling) of 3%. There are other errors than random chance that could bias a poll, but random chance is what sampling size is generally managing.

Use those other sites. Third Way is a large contributor to why the Democrats are continually threatened by third parties. Their whole idea is that Democrats can and should go as hard toward the right as possible because the left flank of the party is (a) bad for their financial backers and (b) has to vote Democratic. You can't promote that position and then act like a shocked Pikachu when your own philosophy ends up creating the problem you now want to warn against.

Plus all those godforsaken inaccurate pie charts other people pointed out.

And outside the cult, it's a bet that Truth Social would become a vector for bribing the president of the United States. If people are going to bribe Trump by pumping his share price, you can get a cut.

You literally just got moderated for this. Just read the f'in rules.

What's uncivil about insulting the product of a politician? Kamala Harris isn't here.

Social media isn't a search engine. If an article is referring to someone by name in the title, they almost certainly have a Wikipedia page the questioner could read rather than requesting random strangers on a message board provide answers for them (in the form of multiple answers of varying bias and accuracy).

Wanting to learn isn't the problem, it's not spending the tiniest bit of personal effort before requesting service from other people.

There's no reason to take this guy or his organization at face value when they make claims. It's been hype and hopium for a decade now, fueled by TED Talks and wunderkind-loving media.

Cleaning up the garbage patch isn't just a matter of collecting nicely floating big pieces of plastic. Doing that is good, but it's not actually something that can ever get it to "clean", it's just something that helps slow the accumulation over time. You get the big stuff (relatively) easily, then it gets progressively harder, and eventually impossible.

Which is progress. It's just not the lofty result they keep promising. If all it took was a big net and a relatively modest (by government standards) budget, this wouldn't be a problem.

It's literally the question, unlike vague concepts of "supporting Israel militarily" until an ideology is disbanded (hello War on Terror).

Proposals for a cease fire include releasing all the hostages. And for those that want to somehow accomplish the impossible task of dismantling an ideology, only half support it. Less than half to be precise. And those are mostly Republicans.

Nearly seven in 10 Republicans (67%) favor supporting Israel until Hamas is dismantled, compared to only four in 10 Independents (44%) and Democrats (41%).

Another way to say this is "a majority of Democrats and independents do not favor supporting Israel militarily until Hamas is dismantled". Yeah, great factoid. One might even call it misleading to use it to indicate Democrats don't support restricting arms.

If the question is "do you support Israel", yeah, but that's not the question.

At the same time, a bare majority of Americans (53%) agree on restricting military aid to Israel so it cannot use the aid toward military operations against Palestinians, similar to previous readings. Seven in 10 Democrats (68%) and more than half of Independents (54%) support restricting military aid to Israel, while the majority of Republicans (59%) oppose doing so.

Combined, nearly two-thirds of Americans (64%) also say the United States should pressure Israel to accept a ceasefire, either with diplomacy (27%) or by reducing arms shipments (37%). However, three in 10 (29%) say the United States should continue arm shipments to Israel and not pressure it to accept a ceasefire at all. While the majority of Republicans say the United States should continue its arms shipments to Israel and not put any pressure on it (53%), nearly half of Democrats (47%) and a plurality of Independents (42%) say the United States should pressure Israel to accept a ceasefire by reducing its weapons transfers.

https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/americans-see-united-states-playing-positive-role-middle-east

Lichtman argues he was right in 2000 because his system predicted the popular vote winner, but that means in 2016 he was wrong because Trump didn't win the popular vote. He then tried to say the keys are now about predicting the electoral college winner, but there wasn't any change in the keys. He's just trying to redefine his targets to say he was right after the fact.