I hate this sort of post, not for what it’s saying but how it’s saying it. This is one news organization writing a story about another news organization poll, and no links to the data are evident. Links to the original news story which aired via a YouTube link, but there’s not even a transcript of it up as I check yet.
So, it’s great that there a backlash, but without context of the data it’s not worth citing.
Listen to the first half of this podcast as Chenoweth explains what the cavets are to this rule. She describes it more of as a descriptive rule not prescriptive rule, and suggests many other circumstances going on in addition to achieving this rule. Further régimes have adapted to this rule since it was first discovered and she’s still truing to see what that adaptation means.
You Are Not So Smart: 313 - The 3.5 Percent Rule - Erica Chenoweth
Episode webpage: https://youarenotsosmart.com/
She has become the Republican-appointed justice most likely to be in the majority in decisions that reach a liberal outcome, according to a new analysis of her record prepared for The New York Times. Her influence — measured by how often she is on the winning side — is rising. Along with the chief justice, a frequent voting partner, Justice Barrett could be one of the few people in the country to check the actions of the president.
Overall, her assumption of the seat once held by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has moved the court’s outcomes dramatically to the right and locked in conservative victories on gun rights, affirmative action and the power of federal agencies. But in Trump-related disputes, she is the member of the supermajority who has sided with him the least.
So not what they wanted, but not RBG. Still to much authoritarianism for me from the SCOTUS.
Fascinating idea and I look forward to reading the book. As someone who has never seen protests be that effective as compared to other constituency pressure mechanisms, it’s an interesting counter point.
The OP’s article indicates 3.5% of the population, which for the US at the moment would be around 340 million. 3.5% would be 11.9 million people.
Rough guesses are that the protest saw about 4-6 million people out yesterday.
I’m particularly curious about the paper’s coalition building concepts about tying immigration to other value such as worker rights, private sector interests such as agriculture, racial justice, etc.
Beyond this I wonder if the analysis from ten years ago takes into account the technological isolation, manipulation, and echo chambering of modern politics. I would venture to guess that the 3.5% might need to be higher in a population that doesn’t listen to ‘untrusted opinions’.
Hugging face is repository and Machine learning hub. https://huggingface.co/huggingface
Where is the statistics button in the current iOS?
This Week in Virology talks a bit about this at the 10min mark TWiV 1214: Clinical update with Dr. Daniel Griffin
Episode webpage: https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-1214/
Media file: https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/twiv/TWiV1214.mp3?dest-id=25528
Also worth bookmarking the CDC summary… For as long as it’s up. https://www.cdc.gov/bird-flu/situation-summary/index.html
While I sympathize, I also have read enough history and law to know that the executive branch has many option and powers to leverage to make this happen.
The SAC, aka the third option is a prime example.
Further the executive has the ability to deploy forces for 90 days, but still must notify the speaker of the house within 48 hours of deployment.
These are just two examples.
But if Trump can’t even report within 48 hours, then they need to assert their power.