Andrew Brown
@polibrown.bsky.social
Political Scientist || Data Scientist || Buffalo Sports || Cat and Dog Enthusiast || Lift Heavy Things and Inhale Computer Duster
“Ur my kinda dude”
Awww they’re gonna kiss
Awww they’re gonna kiss
November 11, 2025 at 1:07 PM
“Ur my kinda dude”
Awww they’re gonna kiss
Awww they’re gonna kiss
not replacing the idiots who cave is how you get Trump, actually. Ironically, your strategy is getting us more Trump!
November 11, 2025 at 1:01 PM
not replacing the idiots who cave is how you get Trump, actually. Ironically, your strategy is getting us more Trump!
In Congress, they're formally negotiating. That does not fit the definition of bribery. A campaign is not meant to negotiate with the other, unless it's post-election (coalition building) or pre-election (swapping endorsements).
November 11, 2025 at 4:19 AM
In Congress, they're formally negotiating. That does not fit the definition of bribery. A campaign is not meant to negotiate with the other, unless it's post-election (coalition building) or pre-election (swapping endorsements).
Every single Democracy with a Constitution has had a Constitutional violation of some sort. The number and severity of these violations decide whether the Democracy essentially fails.
In the U.S., our party system is uniquely unrepresentative.
In the U.S., our party system is uniquely unrepresentative.
November 11, 2025 at 4:16 AM
Every single Democracy with a Constitution has had a Constitutional violation of some sort. The number and severity of these violations decide whether the Democracy essentially fails.
In the U.S., our party system is uniquely unrepresentative.
In the U.S., our party system is uniquely unrepresentative.
Again, Democracy isn't binary, it's an index.
Yes, every single democratic country has this occurrence. Democracies can contain anti-democratic practices (all of them do).
I'm saying the way U.S. campaign finances work, this is more egregious here than in other democracies.
Yes, every single democratic country has this occurrence. Democracies can contain anti-democratic practices (all of them do).
I'm saying the way U.S. campaign finances work, this is more egregious here than in other democracies.
November 11, 2025 at 4:14 AM
Again, Democracy isn't binary, it's an index.
Yes, every single democratic country has this occurrence. Democracies can contain anti-democratic practices (all of them do).
I'm saying the way U.S. campaign finances work, this is more egregious here than in other democracies.
Yes, every single democratic country has this occurrence. Democracies can contain anti-democratic practices (all of them do).
I'm saying the way U.S. campaign finances work, this is more egregious here than in other democracies.
No, I'm not conflating the two. I am using a colloquial definition, though it is not in the pedantic context you provided, but moreso, "this SHOULD fit the legal definition of a bribe, it's just not." There are plenty of things that are technically legal but still bribery, see Clarence Thomas.
November 11, 2025 at 4:13 AM
No, I'm not conflating the two. I am using a colloquial definition, though it is not in the pedantic context you provided, but moreso, "this SHOULD fit the legal definition of a bribe, it's just not." There are plenty of things that are technically legal but still bribery, see Clarence Thomas.
"I think it's quite illuminating, actually - he mentions all these things about how the elections are unfair, but polling shows that surname recognition, party connections, etc don't really get you very far on their own"
November 11, 2025 at 4:07 AM
"I think it's quite illuminating, actually - he mentions all these things about how the elections are unfair, but polling shows that surname recognition, party connections, etc don't really get you very far on their own"
So we have:
A) big money interests influencing elections is totally democratic
B) political parties making consistent legal changes to prevent competition and splice electorates in their favor is totally democratic
C) it's not bribery to offer benefits in exchange for suspending campaigns
Amazing
A) big money interests influencing elections is totally democratic
B) political parties making consistent legal changes to prevent competition and splice electorates in their favor is totally democratic
C) it's not bribery to offer benefits in exchange for suspending campaigns
Amazing
November 11, 2025 at 4:06 AM
So we have:
A) big money interests influencing elections is totally democratic
B) political parties making consistent legal changes to prevent competition and splice electorates in their favor is totally democratic
C) it's not bribery to offer benefits in exchange for suspending campaigns
Amazing
A) big money interests influencing elections is totally democratic
B) political parties making consistent legal changes to prevent competition and splice electorates in their favor is totally democratic
C) it's not bribery to offer benefits in exchange for suspending campaigns
Amazing
right? it's absolutely asinine for someone to suggest political parties don't successfully influence primaries. it must have been so illuminating for you to realize this!
November 11, 2025 at 4:05 AM
right? it's absolutely asinine for someone to suggest political parties don't successfully influence primaries. it must have been so illuminating for you to realize this!
lol, yes
please, look up the definition of bribery
please, look up the definition of bribery
November 11, 2025 at 4:02 AM
lol, yes
please, look up the definition of bribery
please, look up the definition of bribery
"I think it's quite illuminating, actually - he mentions all these things about how the elections are unfair, but"
I notice elections is plural - so please tell me how you were talking about one election and not the broader subject of the comment you were responding to?
I notice elections is plural - so please tell me how you were talking about one election and not the broader subject of the comment you were responding to?
November 11, 2025 at 4:02 AM
"I think it's quite illuminating, actually - he mentions all these things about how the elections are unfair, but"
I notice elections is plural - so please tell me how you were talking about one election and not the broader subject of the comment you were responding to?
I notice elections is plural - so please tell me how you were talking about one election and not the broader subject of the comment you were responding to?
if you offer a cabinet position in exchange for someone suspending their political campaign to your advantage, they're securing a governmental position just by being personally beneficial to you.
that's a bribe.
that's a bribe.
November 11, 2025 at 4:01 AM
if you offer a cabinet position in exchange for someone suspending their political campaign to your advantage, they're securing a governmental position just by being personally beneficial to you.
that's a bribe.
that's a bribe.
if in exchange for the suspension of someone's political campaign you offer them advantageous resources like political and financial connections, that is a bribe
that is the definition of a bribe
that is the definition of a bribe
November 11, 2025 at 4:00 AM
if in exchange for the suspension of someone's political campaign you offer them advantageous resources like political and financial connections, that is a bribe
that is the definition of a bribe
that is the definition of a bribe
pssst
if you're offering someone a cabinet position in exchange for their suspension of an electoral campaign, that's bribery
if you're offering someone a cabinet position in exchange for their suspension of an electoral campaign, that's bribery
November 11, 2025 at 3:59 AM
pssst
if you're offering someone a cabinet position in exchange for their suspension of an electoral campaign, that's bribery
if you're offering someone a cabinet position in exchange for their suspension of an electoral campaign, that's bribery
Yes, it does. It demonstrates that parties regularly do decide candidate success.
You said, based "on polls" (which doesn't make any sense) party support doesn't have much of an impact.
This is not refutable. That is the subject of the book.
You said, based "on polls" (which doesn't make any sense) party support doesn't have much of an impact.
This is not refutable. That is the subject of the book.
November 11, 2025 at 3:56 AM
Yes, it does. It demonstrates that parties regularly do decide candidate success.
You said, based "on polls" (which doesn't make any sense) party support doesn't have much of an impact.
This is not refutable. That is the subject of the book.
You said, based "on polls" (which doesn't make any sense) party support doesn't have much of an impact.
This is not refutable. That is the subject of the book.
By connections I mean essentially financial access to other orgs/donors, which is bribery.
This occurs regularly in our political system and the earlier books I cited show this.
This occurs regularly in our political system and the earlier books I cited show this.
November 11, 2025 at 3:55 AM
By connections I mean essentially financial access to other orgs/donors, which is bribery.
This occurs regularly in our political system and the earlier books I cited show this.
This occurs regularly in our political system and the earlier books I cited show this.
Offering someone financial/career rewards in exchange for not running = bribery
Threatening someone with attacks/opposition support, using vast sums of campaign finance if they don't drop out, = coercion
you're free to look up the definitions of these words
Threatening someone with attacks/opposition support, using vast sums of campaign finance if they don't drop out, = coercion
you're free to look up the definitions of these words
November 11, 2025 at 3:55 AM
Offering someone financial/career rewards in exchange for not running = bribery
Threatening someone with attacks/opposition support, using vast sums of campaign finance if they don't drop out, = coercion
you're free to look up the definitions of these words
Threatening someone with attacks/opposition support, using vast sums of campaign finance if they don't drop out, = coercion
you're free to look up the definitions of these words
coerced as in their opponents will get the political favors, and they'll get money run against them.
you're okay with political parties, fundamental institutions in the U.S., essentially using money to decide the financial viability of office-seekers? that's undemocratic.
you're okay with political parties, fundamental institutions in the U.S., essentially using money to decide the financial viability of office-seekers? that's undemocratic.
November 11, 2025 at 3:53 AM
coerced as in their opponents will get the political favors, and they'll get money run against them.
you're okay with political parties, fundamental institutions in the U.S., essentially using money to decide the financial viability of office-seekers? that's undemocratic.
you're okay with political parties, fundamental institutions in the U.S., essentially using money to decide the financial viability of office-seekers? that's undemocratic.
"Voters are free to respond to the efforts of political consultants"
This is a silly statement. Voters don't see the consultants. They don't see 99% of this because they cannot.
This is a silly statement. Voters don't see the consultants. They don't see 99% of this because they cannot.
November 11, 2025 at 3:52 AM
"Voters are free to respond to the efforts of political consultants"
This is a silly statement. Voters don't see the consultants. They don't see 99% of this because they cannot.
This is a silly statement. Voters don't see the consultants. They don't see 99% of this because they cannot.
she didn't lose her seat "as a result", she settled a lawsuit.
you think that, as long as you win election afterwards, bribing is okay?
you think that, as long as you win election afterwards, bribing is okay?
November 11, 2025 at 3:51 AM
she didn't lose her seat "as a result", she settled a lawsuit.
you think that, as long as you win election afterwards, bribing is okay?
you think that, as long as you win election afterwards, bribing is okay?
1. we will give you support/financial resources/assignments/jobs/connections for other races/responsibilities if you fuck off
2. we will do all of this for your opponents if you don't fuck off
that is a regular occurrence
2. we will do all of this for your opponents if you don't fuck off
that is a regular occurrence
November 11, 2025 at 3:49 AM
1. we will give you support/financial resources/assignments/jobs/connections for other races/responsibilities if you fuck off
2. we will do all of this for your opponents if you don't fuck off
that is a regular occurrence
2. we will do all of this for your opponents if you don't fuck off
that is a regular occurrence
Yeah that's called mixed membership, half of their MPs come from direct elections the other half are voting for the party. it's not a change or a deviation from how the system fundamentally works.
November 11, 2025 at 3:48 AM
Yeah that's called mixed membership, half of their MPs come from direct elections the other half are voting for the party. it's not a change or a deviation from how the system fundamentally works.
I didn't say "forced off the ballot" by a state election law. Again, please look up what an invisible primary is.
November 11, 2025 at 3:43 AM
I didn't say "forced off the ballot" by a state election law. Again, please look up what an invisible primary is.
pal, that's my argument, if all it takes to make your claim bunk is *reading the fucking title* maybe you should get a carbon monoxide detector
November 11, 2025 at 3:42 AM
pal, that's my argument, if all it takes to make your claim bunk is *reading the fucking title* maybe you should get a carbon monoxide detector