Right now, progressives are the ones saying "Democrats have failed and I cannot vote for them" and moderates are the ones saying "I've never voted for Democrats before, but this year I will." This was true even before the Gaza invasion.
When someone tells you their voting intentions, believe them. Unfortunately, Democrats have no choice but to prioritize moderates.
People on the internet will really be like 'you believe in voting? that pales in effectiveness to my strategy, firebombing a Walmart' and then not firebomb a Walmart.
Is there a scientific "answer" to whether alcohol causes prostate cancer? That too depends on a wide variety of social factors and can be biased by ideological assumptions (eg drinking alcohol is a vice).
Nevertheless biologists develop competing models, use them to form hypotheses, test the hypotheses, subject the results to peer review, and revise their models to arrive at a consensus. Economists do all the same things.
I don't think any field of any research comes down to one person. Nevertheless, academics recognize that some people make greater contributions than others.
This is baked into academia in the form of citation. At the moment you wrote your first bibliography you distinguished those who made significant contributions to your own work. It would have been unacceptable to write an academic bibliography consisting of a single line: "All those who came before".
And even though research is always a collaborative effort, like soccer and filmmaking, it is natural for humans to recognize those who made the greatest contributions. That's why we award MVPs to athletes, Oscars to actors, and Nobels to economists.
The prize is for research in economics, not history or social science. They may be interested in the same topics, but economists usually take longer to reach a conclusion because their work is usually more data-driven.
Hence their conclusions appear to be "not news" to historians and social scientists who already believed the same things without the benefit of economic data.
The economics prize is funded by Sveringes Riksbank but they are not involved in selecting a winner. Neither is the government. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences is solely responsible for selecting the winner, and it is not part of government.
Here's the thing about economics: the "dismal science" is often trying to prove - or disprove - what appears to be common sense.
For instance, to some it's common sense that minimum wage increases cause more unemployment. To others, it's common sense that they don't. Eventually economists will reach a consensus, and it will be "not news" to half the population.
Since you've done research in this field, you must be aware that Acemoglu and Robinson have been publishing on this topic for ~20 years. Is there some earlier economist who was not properly given credit for their results?
The Nobel Prize is awarded after a lifetime of work, not the latest news.
The 2022 Nobel Prize in physics was awarded for describing the violation of Bell inequalities. The initial experiments were performed in the 80s and the results are "not news" to many current high school physics teachers.
The stock price/earnings ratio is still quite high. So based on fundamentals it's still not a good buy. Instead, you're gambling that in the future you'll hear more unexpected good news from Tesla than unexpected bad news.
On the contrary, I'm just repeating what courts have already ruled.
You're the one spreading misinformation. For instance, you just suggested using AI to delete something would invalidate copyright over the rest of the image, which is simply nonsense.
Dreaming is just another word for "thoughts and prayers".