People should go back and read the original article about Shor and popularism from 2021. What really jumps out at you:
-almost everything Shor says looks worse in hindsight, if not wildly incorrect
-most of his critics end up being mostly correct nytimes.com/2021/10/08/opi…
-almost everything Shor says looks worse in hindsight, if not wildly incorrect
-most of his critics end up being mostly correct nytimes.com/2021/10/08/opi…
I mean does the approach here - “adopt X message, see your polls improve by 1.7 points” - in any way resemble how elections worked in 2022? Or is it just nonsense, an attempt to wrap a simple model around something that can’t really be modeled?
Which was a more useful approach to politics going into 2022? Shor’s method of statistically modeling the tiny marginal shifts caused by small policy position adjustments?
Or his critics’ preferred approach: “abortion and Trump seem to get people fired up, talk about them”?
Or his critics’ preferred approach: “abortion and Trump seem to get people fired up, talk about them”?
Even now, it’s not recognized enough how broken the “popularist” approach to politics is. Not just in terms of how it was exploited but in terms of how it misunderstands, very fundamentally, how elections and mass opinion function at all
It completely miscomprehends how people develop and form political opinions, and how people choose to vote, and because of that it completely whiffs on what sort of things will cause people to vote differently
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
