chris
@chris-stl.bsky.social
and we’d all watch football, which in those days was called baseball
Don’t Tread on Me and Don’t Step on the Dope
December 11, 2025 at 2:20 AM
Don’t Tread on Me and Don’t Step on the Dope
M's had it in the back soon as this happened of course
October 11, 2025 at 5:11 AM
M's had it in the back soon as this happened of course
someone get Michael Barrett on the line for the love of god
October 11, 2025 at 4:19 AM
someone get Michael Barrett on the line for the love of god
Even setting aside the whole “pbs won’t exist by next Tuesday” issue there’s no way in hell someone like Fred Rogers takes off in the 21st century hellscape sadly
May 15, 2025 at 11:00 PM
Even setting aside the whole “pbs won’t exist by next Tuesday” issue there’s no way in hell someone like Fred Rogers takes off in the 21st century hellscape sadly
anymore than you have the data to support something fishy. There was a huge Trump wave; he was shot at in one of the states you’re looking at and garnered sympathy; we had a candidate who didn’t become a candidate until the closing months of the process. Russian/bomb threats bad but don’t explain it
May 9, 2025 at 8:19 PM
anymore than you have the data to support something fishy. There was a huge Trump wave; he was shot at in one of the states you’re looking at and garnered sympathy; we had a candidate who didn’t become a candidate until the closing months of the process. Russian/bomb threats bad but don’t explain it
AND it’s really not a great idea for us to make allegations of fraud when there wasn’t any fraud anymore than it is for GOP to do the same. Sure you’re trying to use the legal system instead of trying to overthrow the election, but I don’t think you have a case (personal opinion I’m not your atty)
May 9, 2025 at 8:18 PM
AND it’s really not a great idea for us to make allegations of fraud when there wasn’t any fraud anymore than it is for GOP to do the same. Sure you’re trying to use the legal system instead of trying to overthrow the election, but I don’t think you have a case (personal opinion I’m not your atty)
were cast.” And say that’s unsatisfactory but you don’t have an explanation that’s better than basically “trust me dude.”
Look we all cope in different ways and your hearts in the right place but I think your efforts could be better focused elsewhere. 2024 is done, it’s in the books.
Look we all cope in different ways and your hearts in the right place but I think your efforts could be better focused elsewhere. 2024 is done, it’s in the books.
May 9, 2025 at 8:17 PM
were cast.” And say that’s unsatisfactory but you don’t have an explanation that’s better than basically “trust me dude.”
Look we all cope in different ways and your hearts in the right place but I think your efforts could be better focused elsewhere. 2024 is done, it’s in the books.
Look we all cope in different ways and your hearts in the right place but I think your efforts could be better focused elsewhere. 2024 is done, it’s in the books.
exponentially at higher volume precincts right? And if that unexpected turnout is almost exclusively favoring Trump, then aren’t the results we saw exactly what we would expect? Instead: “[e]ssentially, one candidate benefited, unexpectedly and disproportionately, in precincts where more votes
May 9, 2025 at 8:15 PM
exponentially at higher volume precincts right? And if that unexpected turnout is almost exclusively favoring Trump, then aren’t the results we saw exactly what we would expect? Instead: “[e]ssentially, one candidate benefited, unexpectedly and disproportionately, in precincts where more votes
This is pretty clearly just desperately looking for any possible explanation for the Trump wave besides “more people wanted to vote for Trump.” The analysis is so transparent in trying to coax the data into showing something irregular that it’s kind of laughable. Surely turnout could increase
May 9, 2025 at 8:14 PM
This is pretty clearly just desperately looking for any possible explanation for the Trump wave besides “more people wanted to vote for Trump.” The analysis is so transparent in trying to coax the data into showing something irregular that it’s kind of laughable. Surely turnout could increase
Hi! I looked at them. I have a law degree and one on political science that involved a lot of work with election datasets. This is sour grapes nonsense and I wish you’d stop what you’re doing. There are lots of problems with your priors about “expected” results but I’ll get to the point:
May 9, 2025 at 8:11 PM
Hi! I looked at them. I have a law degree and one on political science that involved a lot of work with election datasets. This is sour grapes nonsense and I wish you’d stop what you’re doing. There are lots of problems with your priors about “expected” results but I’ll get to the point: