Crazy to think that Thurmond's strategy of throwing the election to the House in 1948 where Dixiecrats could play kingmaker came 10k voters in OH/CA away from working. 1/
I mean, it's probably one of the most consequential near-misses to our modern political timeline. Truman gets 303 E.V.s in 1948. He wins OH by 7,100 votes and CA by 17,900. If that flips no one gets a majority and it goes to the House. 2/
After the 1948 elections, the Democrats controlled 25 House delegations, 19 for Republicans, and 4 split. But 11 of the House delegations were controlled by Southern Democrats. 3/
Maybe Rs and Ds would have banded together to elect Truman, perhaps with Warren as the vice president. 4/
But the other possibility is that the Dixiecrats would have extracted concessions from the Democrats on Civil Rights. *Everything* changes in that universe. 5/
One of the reasons that Truman adopted the CR platform in '48 is that Rs had made strong showings with the African-American community in '46, raising the possibility that AA Dem attachment from '34-'44 was an FDR-specific phenomenon. 6/
So a major walkback on CR might have re-cemented AA attachment to Rs, and forestalled the Southern realignment. 7/
Either way, it would have been a display of power by the Dixiecrats, leaving a Democratic Party terrified in future elections. Just a massive "what if." 8/8
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
We talk a lot about how America has fractured culturally over the past 40 years, and this is such an interesting illustration. I'm not particularly red culturally, don't watch a lot of network television, etc., and I've *heard* of one of these movies and four of these shows. 1/
In the 80s and even the 90s it would have been practically impossible for a President to offer up a list like this and have it be the case. The most-watched show in TV history is still the M.A.S.H. series finale (which was bad, but everyone watched it). 2/
This isn't 100% bad; from googling a lot of these shows relate stories that wouldn't have been told when you had three networks all fighting over the same basic demographic. 3/
So this is a conceptual methods/stats question that I feel like I have an answer to, but I'm not sure it's the right one (my understanding will be 3-4 tweets in). When you do a regression on observational data, why do you report any confidence intervals? 1/
For example, if you regress electoral outcomes in U.S. counties on demographic characteristics, you have a census. There's no uncertainty there about the conditional means. 2/
I *think* the answer is that we're imagining a potential universe of infinite outcomes that this particular election was selected from, but I don't know if that's particularly satisfying? Am I missing something? Is this just another pathology of frequentism? 3/3
If you're going to opine on the Roman Catholic Diocese opinion, do yourself a favor and read the actual per curiam opinion, and not just Gorsuch's (non-binding, solo) concurrence.
In particular, the per curiam suggests pretty clearly that you can, in fact, regulate churches during COVID. In particular, you seem to be able to tie attendance to the size of the facility. 2/
It seems fairly obvious that the danger in, say, St. Patrick's Cathedral is roughly the same whether you allow 10 or 25 or 50 people to worship. That probably isn't true of the neighborhood chapel. 3/
As it turns out, Lindsay Graham's struggles in SC are a nice illustration of the ways that political coalitions work, and the difficulty building "coalitions of everyone." 1/
Bringing the upcountry into the Republican coalition seemed to lock down the state, but it also changed the demands on Republican officeholders who had to respond to new voters. 2/
As it turns out, centuries-old geopolitical divides in SC were not erased, and this shift impacted the views that members of the old political coalition had of the Republican Party. 3/