Which is a dumber political theory?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Well all things considered I'll have to say the Bradley Effect. But it's kind of close, and there might be more bullsh!t said about realignment considering how little the Bradley Effect was talked about until Obama ran, not to mention the Bradley Effect is now basically considered dead and discredited, while realignment theory will be talked about until the end of time.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Bradley effect, considering the man who it was named after was undisputably not a victim of it in the first place. The final polls showed him up by 1% & he lost by 1%. OMG 2% BRADLEY EFFECT!

[Nym90]

Realignments do occur, but they are happening all the time, in both directions on all kinds of local levels, which makes the idea of clear "realigning elections" bunk.

The Bradley effect may occur in some very limited circumstances in some races, but there is so little actual evidence for its existence that there is no way to say with any degree of certainty that it isn't just random statistical noise.

[Keystone Phil]

Greatest political theory - The BRTD Effect

It's not even really a theory anymore; it's fact.

[Alcon]

Greatest political theory - The BRTD Effect

It's not even really a theory anymore; it's fact.

Not to be all persnickety, but by the scientific definition of "theory," you do treat it as a de facto fact.    (More accurately, you assume that it is true until there becomes reasonable evidence that it may not be)

"Realignment theory" is sort of a broad term.  What, specifically, are we talking?

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Bradley Effect.

[Keystone Phil]

Not to be all persnickety

Right...

[Nym90]

Greatest political theory - The BRTD Effect

It's not even really a theory anymore; it's fact.

Not to be all persnickety, but by the scientific definition of "theory," you do treat it as a de facto fact.    (More accurately, you assume that it is true until there becomes reasonable evidence that it may not be)

"Realignment theory" is sort of a broad term.  What, specifically, are we talking?

Yes, a common misconception of language. Many people confuse a "theory" (which is an idea backed up by scientific evidence, though not yet to the extent that it can be determined to be true for certain) with a "hypothesis" (one that, while possibly sounding logical, has not yet been tested scientifically). A "law" of course is an idea that has been proven to be true beyond all scientific doubt through rigorous testing.

So for example when people say evolution is "just a theory" they seem to think that means it's not supported by any evidence.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Greatest political theory - The BRTD Effect

It's not even really a theory anymore; it's fact.

Not to be all persnickety, but by the scientific definition of "theory," you do treat it as a de facto fact.    (More accurately, you assume that it is true until there becomes reasonable evidence that it may not be)

"Realignment theory" is sort of a broad term.  What, specifically, are we talking?

Yes, a common misconception of language. Many people confuse a "theory" (which is an idea backed up by scientific evidence, though not yet to the extent that it can be determined to be true for certain) with a "hypothesis" (one that, while possibly sounding logical, has not yet been tested scientifically). A "law" of course is an idea that has been proven to be true beyond all scientific doubt through rigorous testing.

So for example when people say evolution is "just a theory" they seem to think that means it's not supported by any evidence.

     Yes, it annoys me as well. That reminds me:

You must be logged in to read this quote.