Big deal—after correcting, it turns out that moderate candidates do not perform better than extreme candidates in general elections.
Kudos to Andy, Dan, and Adam for updating a key question in political science
Kudos to Andy, Dan, and Adam for updating a key question in political science
Comments
"estimates of effects on vote share and turnout share estimated in this sample are little better than “kitchen
sink” regressions and should not be given much credence"
We just don't know the effect at all, right?
After 2010, the Democrats lost over 1,000 seats in state legislatures across the country & Republicans gerrymandered the f out of state and Congressional districts to where primaries dictate the winner. And extremists win primaries.
but you are right, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Is it a good idea to retract them all?
My argument for pulling paper out has to do with its impact & newness. If a new paper starts getting widely cited, & it is flawed, I think it should be pulled out.
https://bsky.app/profile/jakemgrumbach.bsky.social/post/3ljqijkvfcc26
did no one else think to review this in the past 7ish years?
nervous side eye gif
2. I’d be interested to know how they define “extreme.” And whether they have a separate category for “abandoned reality as we know it.”
3. Our current reality kinda puts paid to the success of moderate candidates anyway.
that's not hyperbole, like half of the fuckers are actually registered republicans