Balanced sources tend to give you what the extremes don't, which is nuance.
Does your approach not gloss over the nuance? Or are you able to surface the complexities of a given topic simply by examining the extremes?
Does your approach not gloss over the nuance? Or are you able to surface the complexities of a given topic simply by examining the extremes?
For example, I read many conflicting predictions concerning the last US election, saw that I could not distinguish bad predictions from good ones, and concluded that I have to remain unconvinced. I was vindicated by it being a very tight race. This doesn't always happen.
On the other hand, I read the recent Texas filing [0] and found that I could confidently argue against it, and the best opposing arguments I could find did not convince me. To my SO, I confidently voiced the prediction that this lawsuit will fail, and articulated why the probability argument in the attached Cicchetti Declaration is misguided. This is arguably a very easy task, so this correct prediction does me little credit, but I think that's the point: even if I only become convinced of things which are obvious, it is important to not accidentally become convinced of things which are not obvious.
[0] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163048/2020...
The votes would need to be very precisely distributed, though.
Sure, with a geographically optimum shift of votes to maximally leverage the anti-democratic nature of the electoral college, it would take about ~125k votes (37 EVs need flipped, ~40k gets PA for 20, ~31.5k gets GA for 16, and ~3.5k gets ME-1 for 1; at least I think that's the lowest-vote-change scenario, and assumes reversals of votes where every change reduces the margin by 2.)
Of course, that would also be by far the biggest popular vote loss by an electoral college winner since the election of 1824, which had four candidates clearing over 10% of the vote, and the only electoral college defeat of the majority (not merely plurality) winner of the popular vote in US history.
What was the minimum number of votes across the minimum number of states needed for him to win in 2020? Again, nobody has actually provided a reason this vote was close - it wasn’t close at all, it was a humiliating rejection, especially for an incumbent.
I don't know the exact number, but afaik less than 1 million. Compared to the size of the electorate, a few hundred thousand votes here or there is really not that much. It only seems so to Americans because they have historically low participation and high polarisation.
Also, turnout set a 50 year high in percentage of eligible population to vote.
The only people who think this election was “close” are the same ones who keep saying that shocking new evidence will be released tomorrow by Giuliani, but only if I send in a check to the committee to save America.
Losing as an incumbent is humiliating, doubly so when you get rejected by so much of your own party. Trump’s loss was a humiliation, particularly because it was because he was such an incompetent president.
It could also likely be that some states were small margins, and some districts even smaller. Overall, though, I agree with you.