Blissfully unaware of all the work in thermostatic policy preferences.
“A 1 seat increase for the far-right, anti-immigration party **decreases** negative attitudes towards immigration by 4.1 percentage points.” “Political representation can cause an attitudinal backlash as fringe parties and their ideas are placed under closer scrutiny.” (Sweden)https://twitter.com/DurRobert/status/1039792570568794112 …
-
-
-
Shocker
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
h/t
@p_sfitz@sgadarian@DurRobert Does this support contested idea of need to engage such parties in normal or enhanced media coverage, not ignore them? But sure I saw some research (from Germany?) that discussing immigration with voters actually increased negative views? -
I think that you can cover these parties without legitimizing their ideas. I would interpret this finding differently. There's a lit on thermostatic public opinion - that the public adjusts its views in a lib or cons direction when thinks policy moved too far in other direction
-
The fear has been expressed that any discussion legitimises them. I disagree. Not heard of that analysis- sort of homestasis? Of course you then might ask how does the public develop its "core" beliefs, eg views on same sex marriage, or even marriage in general.
-
The idea is that public in aggregate has preferences over liberalism/conservatism (rather than particular policies per se) and that they observe (again in the aggregate) direction of policy. When policy goes too far in one direction, they essentially react in other direction
-
I'll try to find the time to read these. But am always wary of adding to a reading list I know I should be reducing!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
:: sarcasm on :: But it just feels so much better to assault them in public! :: sarcasm off ::
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
So very dependent on response of the news media, which I imagine is very particular to jurisdiction and political system.
-
Probably greatly dependent on trust in the news too...
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I’ll take “Historical Materialism” for 300, John.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
A dangerous experiment. If their number of seats increases so much that no one can stop them from forming a government, a new 1933 will be upon the unfortunate country.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.