I am really not following all the vitriol in the comments, are people not only ignoring the article to react to the headline but then also mis-reading the headline?
It's not saying anyone ought to vote a certain way, it's just pointing out that low-propensity voters tend to support Trump.
I suspect this is due to the recent polarization around education. Highly educated people tend to vote more, and over the last decade they have tended to vote more and more for Democrats. And vice versa for low-formal-education folks.
Think of "before the big bang" like "South of the South Pole." It just isn't a thing, you're at the furthest point and it doesn't go further.
And I don't think there is a true "end" to the universe, as we understand it currently there's just an expansion forever and at some point all the individual particles rip apart and spread out and nothing could possibly survive in such a situation so it counts as an "end" for all intents and purposes for us, but time itself is infinite.
IIRC the math actually can check out for an always-existing universe (instead of a big bang) but it doesn't really make sense because you still then have to explain the giant sudden expansion.
It entered the year worth $17/share, now it's worth $37/share. Yes, it was always insane to say it was worth more than Reddit but it's similarly not a flex when the valuation goes down from being worth more than Reddit to...still a lot of money.
I actually think it's better to read it. When you hear it spoken you instinctually give a speaker the benefit of the doubt that a sentence fragment is going somewhere when they have the intonation to imply such.
Seems more likely there is a plan that wasn't mentioned in the article, than the DNC just forgot to check the requirements of being on the ballot in each state.
But if Eastern Orthodox counts as "Christian" while Catholicism doesn't, that destroys the reasoning. If Eastern Orthodox doesn't count, then you're just referring to Protestants.
I don't think there's any explanation other than anti-Catholic bias, Protestants just want to claim their way of doing Christianity is the only way.
Theoretically, the individual-electoral-vote model gets your state more attention and ad dollars. You would think like Ohio who used to get a ton of ad spend as a swing state would switch to individual electoral votes instead of let everyone abandon advertising in the state because everyone knows its voting for the Republican.
Or even like New York. There are like "New York Republicans" that are more moderate traditionally, so splitting the electoral votes could help push NY-favored Republicans instead of the MAGA crowd (or whatever the far right fringe is called at any given time).
More like a vanity project of Enlightened Centrist (m/b)illionaires. They're legitimately not launching a ticket because they can't win, just like they said. So they're not funneling votes from anywhere.
Sane people could have told you, it was never going to work, especially not at the presidential level.
One case isn't necessarily scary. One person getting a version of avian flu that can spread bird-to-human is rough for that person but the concerning part is if that flu then mutates to spread human-to-human.
I am really not following all the vitriol in the comments, are people not only ignoring the article to react to the headline but then also mis-reading the headline?
It's not saying anyone ought to vote a certain way, it's just pointing out that low-propensity voters tend to support Trump.
I suspect this is due to the recent polarization around education. Highly educated people tend to vote more, and over the last decade they have tended to vote more and more for Democrats. And vice versa for low-formal-education folks.