Best elections & political processes books according to redditors

We found 171 Reddit comments discussing the best elections & political processes books. We ranked the 84 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Subcategories:

Political leadership books
Political parties books
Election process & political books
Elections books
Political advocacy books
Media & internet in politics books

Top Reddit comments about Elections & Political Process:

u/NRG1975 · 179 pointsr/politics

Because they stay within their echo chamber. Republican Noise Machine is a good read on it.

u/SonofSaxon79 · 97 pointsr/The_Donald

The book apparently is arguing that God has chosen Trump to save America. And HOLY SHIT look at the rating of the book and reviews on Amazon!! https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Chaos-Candidate-American-Unraveling/dp/0998216402

96% gave it 5 stars with 683 reviews!! (4.9 out of 5)

u/Mimantians · 30 pointsr/forwardsfromgrandma

I doubt Ben realized Email for Dummies is real, he just wants to go for potshots because Hillary is a dummy with EMAILS.

That said, since Ben Garrison is aware of the "...For Dummies" series, I'd like to recommend him this book, and this one, and of course this one.

u/Synux · 19 pointsr/OurPresident

She was a threat long before 2016 but if we just look at her attacks on We the People in 2016 we see:

Second signed agreement between HRC and the DNC promising to rig the election in exchange for funding:
https://www.npr.org/2017/11/03/561976645/clinton-campaign-had-additional-signed-agreement-with-dnc-in-2015

DNC lawyers statement admitting to rigging the primary by asserting they get to do so because they are a private organization:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/5/31/1662843/-DNC-lawyers-say-it-can-pick-candidates-in-smoke-filled-back-room

After providing HRC with advanced information on upcoming debate questions, Donna Brazile admits to being aware of rigging of the primary in interview and in her NYT Best Seller:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/11/donna-brazile-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders

Tom Perez admits the primary was rigged:
https://observer.com/2017/02/dnc-chair-candidate-tom-perez-admits-democratic-primaries-rigged/

DNC emails admit to rigging the primary:
https://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-primary-was-rigged-dnc-undermined-democracy/

77 Billion to One are the odds against a fair 2016 Democratic primary election according to a study done by a body of statisticians, attorneys, and technologists.  100 pages of peer-reviewed statistics determined the Margin Of Error on exit polls far exceeded U.N. maximums. These events occur where voting is electronic, they favor HRC, and impacted no other candidate regardless of party.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01M1D0VY7/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Hillary Victory Fund - Money laundering, fraud, and campaign finance violations:
https://nypost.com/2018/06/09/democratic-parties-accused-of-funneling-84m-into-clinton-campaign/

I feel threatened.

u/RickShepherd · 14 pointsr/SandersForPresident

Please enjoy some citations:

Second signed agreement between HRC and the DNC promising to rig the election in exchange for funding:
https://www.npr.org/2017/11/03/561976645/clinton-campaign-had-additional-signed-agreement-with-dnc-in-2015

DNC lawyers statement admitting to rigging the primary by asserting they get to do so because they are a private organization:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/5/31/1662843/-DNC-lawyers-say-it-can-pick-candidates-in-smoke-filled-back-room

After providing HRC with advanced information on upcoming debate questions, Donna Brazile admits to being aware of rigging of the primary in interview and in her NYT Best Seller:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/11/donna-brazile-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders

Tom Perez admits the primary was rigged:
https://observer.com/2017/02/dnc-chair-candidate-tom-perez-admits-democratic-primaries-rigged/

DNC emails admit to rigging the primary:
https://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-primary-was-rigged-dnc-undermined-democracy/

77 Billion to One are the odds against a fair 2016 Democratic primary election according to a study done by a body of statisticians, attorneys, and technologists. 100 pages of peer-reviewed statistics determined the Margin Of Error on exit polls far exceeded U.N. maximums. These events occur where voting is electronic, they favor HRC, and impacted no other candidate regardless of party.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01M1D0VY7/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Hillary Victory Fund - Money laundering, fraud, and campaign finance violations:
https://nypost.com/2018/06/09/democratic-parties-accused-of-funneling-84m-into-clinton-campaign/

u/CUNTY_LOBSTER · 14 pointsr/politics

No kidding, we had a state-level investigation here in Arizona called AzScam (they got the idea from the ABSCAM investigation). Busting people was so incredibly easy, and so many people seemed willing to take bribes, that the undercover rat (who wrote a book on it) only focused on people he thought would be the easiest. He casually mentions at one point that he thought it would be pretty simple to bust Jan Brewer, who ended up being our governor, but he was already in so deep with so many other legislators.

u/RuanStix · 10 pointsr/southafrica

Man, the publisher, and author asked not to share this online or pirate it. They are going to have massive legal fees fighting that poes Zuma and his cronnies about this book. Please for the love of ending corruption in SA, go and buy a digital copy.

u/LtNOWIS · 10 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

Well, the interesting part of the story is John Yob. He traveled with his wife Erica, and another couple (Ethan and Lindsey Eilon) from the mainland to the US Virgin Islands in late December or January. John, Erica, and Lindsey were elected as delegates, so they comprise half the delegation. John Yob is a Republican party campaign guy who worked for the presidential campaigns of Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, and John McCain, along with various statewide campaigns in Michigan. He has a lot of experience working conventions in Michigan, and just published a book called "Chaos: The Outsider's Guide to a Contested Republican National Convention." Being a delegate doesn't just let him hang out in Cleveland and cast his vote, it lets him put motions on the floor, try to organize other delegates, and so forth.

There's a court case about whether Yob's people fall under the 90-day residency requirement to be able to vote and serve as delegates, and whether that restriction is even constitutional. It will be decided on March 22. If those 3 people are removed, then the alternates would replace them and Rubio would pick up a pledged delegate. But like I said, I don't think Yob wanted to be a delegate just so he could vote for his preferred candidate and hear a bunch of speeches.

u/hotchikinburrito · 9 pointsr/AskSocialScience

In political science most of the literature on vote choice, at least in contexts with stable party systems, builds out of the loyalties people have to political parties. Partisanship creates what the authors of the seminal work The American Voter call a "perceptual screen" which filters information in ways that reinforce these ties. In other words, people first identify with a political party, then interpret the world in ways that support these views (think confirmation bias and motivated reasoning). This identification, moreover, typically [comes from parents](http://press.princeton.edu/titles/654.html] or other early social experiences.

Vote choice and candidate preference then follows from these loyalties. Loyalties to a political party is symbolically and psychologically meaningfully, much like supporting a sports team or adhering to given religious tenets. That's why you'll see people sticking by candidates regardless of information, among many other political phenomena.

See this in the NYTimes for a quick overview.

u/AmerieHartree · 8 pointsr/AskUK

Other people have addressed the EU question, so I'll focus more on politics in general. There's some decent BBC media which covers current politics, it can sometimes be a bit tedious, some shows are better than others, and I certainly wouldn't recommend rigorously following all of them, but it's pretty good for familiarising yourself with the current state of affairs. Some TV and radio shows to follow -

Daily Politics - daily show analysing politics, which often gets high profile politicians on.

This Week - weekly show, airing after Question time, with a slightly comedic approach to political analysis.

Andrew Marr Show - weekly show, the one which senior ministers (the prime minister, the chancellor, the home secretary, etc) are most likely to appear on.

Question Time - weekly topical debate program, with questions from the audience directed towards politicians.

Any Questions - radio version of Question Time. Often not quite as annoying as Question time.

Today in Parliament - daily radio show covering news from parliament.

 

Parliament.uk and gov.uk are both great resources for learning how parliament and government functions, and learning about legislation. If you'd prefer a less fragmented read, such as a book, then Exploring British Politics by Garnett and Lynch seems like a good introductory source, though I will add the disclaimer that I've only used it occasionally as a reference book, and it is fairly pricey.

 

It can sometimes be difficult to understand the significance of things in politics without a basic grounding in the historical context, so I will recommend some more books to help with that (although much of the info can be found online). Two of the most important figures in recent British political history are Thatcher, and Blair. Charles Moore's Margaret Thatcher: The Authorized Biography, Volume One is a good book for starting to understand the political context of the Thatcher era, although it is obviously quite biographical too, and being the first volume it only covers roughly the first third of her time in government. The comprehensive tome on Blair and his wide-ranging effect on the functioning of british politics is surely Seldon's Blair's Britain, 1997-2007, although I will warn you that is it most definitely a tome - incredibly thorough and a bit of a slog. The best way to approach this is probably to read the sections on things you are interested in, like the NHS, and leave the rest until you feel you want to learn about them. Sections of Seldon's Cameron at 10 are definitely worth a read if you want some more insight into the first Cameron ministry, and the coalition years.

 

I can't really recommend any comprehensive histories on the political parties (although what I've read of Tim Bale's The Conservatives Since 1945 is pretty good). One I would recommend is Goodwin's Revolt on the Right, which offers a fairly original analysis of the phenomenon that is UKIP. There's a more up-to-date follow-up to that, (UKIP: Inside the Campaign to Redraw the Map of British Politics), which I imagine is also pretty good, but I haven't read it. Familiarising yourself with general political ideologies (to rattle off an incomplete list: one nation conservatism, high toryism, classical liberalism, social liberalism, libertarianism, social democracy, democratic socialism, etc), how these relate to each other, and how they have manifested in the various 3 main parties over time is a must for understanding the parties and the political tensions within them. Wikipedia should suffice in filling in the details there (and in other places), for now.

u/NotFromReddit · 8 pointsr/southafrica

It seems to be on Amazon as well, if you're into Kindle reading like I am.

https://www.amazon.com/Presidents-Keepers-Those-keeping-prison-ebook/dp/B076YBL1WS

u/[deleted] · 7 pointsr/politics

Actually by and large swing voters do not exist. If you want to find out a little bit more about how people vote I suggest Unconventional Wisdom: Facts and Myths about American Voters. They have a chapter devoted to swing voting. A very basic explanation is that the media over hypes swing voters, thus many people believe that there is this mysterious group of people that vote on a whim. It's largely not true. People vote mostly vote along party lines.

u/Malort_without_irony · 6 pointsr/chicago

While Royko is very readable, it's his columns that really have the meat there. The columns get at the love/hate relationship, the real mixture of pride and disgust. He's also not a historian (for that, see American Pharaoh ). I'd recommend Rakove's We Don't Want Nobody Nobody Sent over it for understanding the Machine in general.

u/Kekkonshiki · 6 pointsr/tucker_carlson

This was an amazing overview. I need to read his book.

I think this is the one he refers to:
Spygate: The Attempted Sabotage of Donald J. Trump Post Hill Press https://www.amazon.com/dp/1642930989/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_awdo_t1_uJf.BbABPDKE2

Spez: link

u/TheFryingDutchman · 5 pointsr/skeptic

I highly recommend that you read Demosclerosis

u/Guygan · 5 pointsr/internetparents

Believe it or not, there are books that can help you.

Start here:

https://www.amazon.com/Politics-Dummies-Ann-DeLaney/dp/0764508873

Looks like a really good book.

Go here and watch some videos. This channel has playlists for US history (which you will need to know to understand politics) and civics/government/politics:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yK90u3DQIK0&list=PLSQl0a2vh4HAmesA2mzILc6gghrr4jl5L

u/cplusequals · 5 pointsr/Conservative

I'm not sure I'm getting through to you, son. I'll try one last time. The left is being hypocrites about Trump pulling troops out of Syria. They've wanted to pull out troops from Syria for a long time. Trump did it. They should be happy but aren't because Trump. They obviously think it's the correct move due to their defiance of their beloved president who deployed the troops in the first place.

It's pretty straightforward. I might suggest some intro reading if you're still confused because that's as plain English as I can lay out for you, sorry.

u/casualfactors · 5 pointsr/Ask_Politics

Typically you vote the way your parents voted. National leadership of the Republican Party worked to integrate libertarians into the party throughout the mid-20th century, taking advantage of growing concerns about corruption stemming from the New Deal and from the economic alternatives to Keynesianism that began to blossom following the then-shocking success of a little-known, mostly-theoretical economist named F.A. Hayek (the link is to a really fun podcast detailing the rise of Hayekian thought in the US). Modern American libertarianism largely coalesced in its infancy around critiques of the theory and practice of the public policies put into place by the Democratic Party, which enjoyed uninterrupted rule for twenty years prior.

Libertarianism had been around in the United States a long time before this but not as a serious part of party politics until the mid-20th century. So essentially you get a generation of libertarians welcomed with open arms into the Republican Party. They came to conflict with pretty much every other wing of the party soon ( though they were mobilized as Republicans a whole generation before, say, Evangelicals ), but mostly I would say the momentum starts from there. The first generation of modern Libertarians were Republicans, and so their kids naturally will be, too.

u/doom_halo · 3 pointsr/unitedkingdom

There's an interesting chapter in this book about that survey and public opinion:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sex-Lies-Ballot-Box-elections/dp/1849547556/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1425402914&sr=8-1&keywords=sex+lies+and+the+ballot+box

They basically talk about studies that show that while people's actual grasp on the numbers is quite poor, there's a direct link between what's delivered and public opinion on that thing - so for example, if education spending increases, the percentage of people thinking more needs to be spent on education decreases. One of the things they mentioned was unemployment - people were way off on what they thought unemployment was, but if you plot the proportion of people who in surveys responded saying that unemployment was the greatest issue over time, it follows very closely the official unemployment figures over the last 40 years.

u/Lynoctis · 3 pointsr/The_Donald
u/SubtleProductPlacer · 2 pointsr/politics

I'm not sure if I'd be more disappointed if the people upvoting this article did so based on the title or actually read the article and thought it was worth upvoting.

u/FleshyDagger · 2 pointsr/europe

> really awesome

Only to those with very limited understanding of electronic voting and trustworthy computing. See Broken Ballots for background. In short, there are fundamental issues that cannot be overcome on today's PCs as they are so trivially easy to compromise. Once a PC has been compromised, there is absolutely no guarantee that it casts a ballot as intended, or that it casts a ballot at all.

In Estonia's case, blind eye has been turned to these issues in the name of PR. There's no substance behind all the hype.

u/Numero34 · 2 pointsr/metacanada

Yeah.

There's actually a book on this topic, iirc it was called Demosclerosis, and it was supposedly (haven't read it myself) how civilizations fail as government becomes more complex because of continued expansion, which ultimately results in an inability to respond to a disaster situation, eg economic, natural, etc., when they arise, resulting in the destruction of that civilization. Or something to that effect.

https://www.amazon.ca/Demosclerosis-Silent-Killer-American-Government/dp/0812926323/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1474740487&sr=8-1&keywords=demosclerosis

Actually, I think it may be this book The Collapse of Complex Societies by Joseph Tainter

Also the effect of creating an irrelevant barrier to entry for other businesses to meet the demand for said business.

Typical prog-think though.

u/Fatkungfuu · 2 pointsr/worldpolitics

https://www.amazon.com/Spygate-Attempted-Sabotage-Donald-Trump/dp/1642930989

There you go, I've gone down this road too many times with people who are too entrenched in their beliefs. If you think the Obama admin was capable of something like that I encourage you to check it out, if not then I will never be able to sway you.

u/igrokyourmilkshake · 2 pointsr/politics

I believe the image is pulled from a book “Gaming the Vote” by William Poundstone, using results from a 2000 paper by Warren Smith, hopefully someone can provide better links than I was able to.

u/hookedupphat · 2 pointsr/arizona

Ah, got it. What's in it for me by Joseph Stedino. Looks like I was wrong it wasn't written recently.

u/mikecsiy · 2 pointsr/politics

If you think outfits like Fox News have ever made a serious attempt at being legitimately accurate and balanced you need to read David Brock's book The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How it Disrupts Democracy.

The guy is a former writer for right-wing newspapers and magazines that participated in dozens of orchestrated attacks on Democratic politicians and mainstream media over the years until he finally got sick of it all around 1998.

u/Psyk0Tripp · 2 pointsr/conspiracy

If you're really interested. That should get you up to speed.

https://youtu.be/cs6MaloWMpg

Check out his channel

Dan Bongino has been great and ahead of this more than any other that I have come across.

He's got a few books. This one is his latest

Spygate: The Attempted Sabotage of Donald J. Trump

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1642930989/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_5ZiWDbCDFCZC8

u/MatthewHerbst · 1 pointr/politics

I highly recommend reading Halderman's (one of the computer scientists) book if you are interested in electoral history in the US: Broken Ballots: Will Your Vote Count?

https://www.amazon.com/Broken-Ballots-Center-Language-Information/dp/1575866366

u/omaolligain · 1 pointr/AskSocialScience

Legislatures polarize. People do not.


And yes, legislatures (and the congress) have polarized substantially. DW-NOMINATE data on legislative voting behavior demonstrates a recent trend towards a highly polarized congress. Not all state legislatures are as polarized (see Shor-McCarty) but nationally this is certainly the case. DW-NOMINATE has put out this great video (you can see it on youtube here) that demonstrates the ideological movement of legislators in congress over time (from the 1st to the 111th legislature).

What we see amongst the voter however is maybe more of a faux-dealignment. Which is to say that people claim to identify less with either political party thusly, reporting themselves as being "independent". We can see this trend clearly in the surveys (see 2015 Gallup Poll).

However the prevailing models of electoral behavior cast a great deal of doubt on this being anything more than the electorate signally displeasure (perhaps over legislative polarization) while otherwise doing what they've always done. Campbell et al.'s The American Voter (which is the seminal electoral behavior work in contemporary american political science) argues that partisan identification is so stable that it is essentially inherited via a process of socialization and from one's own parents. They then go on to point out that all political preferences and decisions are then viewed through that inherited partisan lens. So while we see people self-reporting less affiliation with either party than we did before we don't see people behaving any differently. In fact, when we consider partisan leanings amongst independents (meaning: whether independents "lean democrat" or "lean republican") we don't see any added likelihood of the voters "switching" parties. In fact, we see most independents consistently vote for one party or the other based on their leanings in precisely the way Campbell's model suggested they would.


Sources:

DW-NOMINATE - national polarization data

Shor-McCarty - state polarization data

Campbell et al. 1960. The American Voter

Additional reading:

V.O. Key. 1966. Responsible Electorate

u/ThisExchange · 1 pointr/rant

>that’s why they’ve denuclearized like 3 separate times now right?

How many times did they denuclearize in the last 50 years?

>Trade wars with our allies is objectively one of the fastest ways to piss off our allies. Guaranteed.

I don't care about our allies if they can't handle reciprocal tariffs. Same way they can't pay their shares of NATO or rise up to the Paris Climate Accord they all agreed to

>Trump winning the RNC isn’t a measure of his political negotiation skills. That’s just appealing to the largest portion of the stupidest population in the country.

So if it was so easy why didn't 16 of the RNC candidates do it after being in politics their whole lives? Your logic is only consistent in that it's completely inconsistent.

>Blaming Obama by citing a quote. Neato.

Correct, a quote where Obama claims that there's no way to rig an election, right before he flip flopped and began accusing Trump of rigging an election. Who was in control of the intelligence at the time Trump was still a candidate? (hint: It was Obama)

>If that were even remotely true, start your own investigation. You could have done that at any point in the last 2 years, that it hasn’t happened should tell you that they can’t. But that would require logic.

Why would Trump do that when he can wait for Mueller to come out with the report finding Trump didn't collude, and then start doing his own investigations? Meanwhile while Trump has come out on top of you clowns every time, there have been people doing that investigation. Although I know how people like you work, and you'll simply refuse to accept new facts that go against your views.

https://www.amazon.com/Spygate-Attempted-Sabotage-Donald-Trump/dp/1642930989

Oh and there's a sequel coming up

https://www.amazon.com/Exonerated-Failed-Takedown-President-Donald/dp/1642933414/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=EJCR20TMJYACQC2EJFGQ

Oh look that same ex-secret service member who wrote the books on the collusion between the Obama admin and foreign/domestic intelligence also has a daily podcast where he covers these same topics. Bet you will never allow yourself to listen to it

lol


u/jenpalex · 1 pointr/TheMotte

This book, recently published includes the history of Compulsory Voting in Australia.

https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Ballot-Democracy-Sausage-Compulsory-ebook/dp/B07HP8VH1F/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Judith+Brett&qid=1554879015&s=books&sr=1-1

TLDR: we think it is great.

It’s funny how sometimes something that is wrong in principle or theory, works well in practice.

When that happens, there is something wrong with the principle or theory.

u/BCSWowbagger2 · 1 pointr/PoliticalDiscussion

Based on his Twitter feed, he seems to lean more Trump than Cruz, but honestly I think he just wants to be at the RNC because he lives for the idea of a contested convention that sticks it to The Man. He literally wrote the book on it.

u/amazon-converter-bot · 1 pointr/FreeEBOOKS

Here are all the local Amazon links I could find:


amazon.co.uk

amazon.ca

amazon.com.au

amazon.in

amazon.com.mx

amazon.de

amazon.it

amazon.es

amazon.com.br

amazon.nl

amazon.co.jp

amazon.fr

Beep bloop. I'm a bot to convert Amazon ebook links to local Amazon sites.
I currently look here: amazon.com, amazon.co.uk, amazon.ca, amazon.com.au, amazon.in, amazon.com.mx, amazon.de, amazon.it, amazon.es, amazon.com.br, amazon.nl, amazon.co.jp, amazon.fr, if you would like your local version of Amazon adding please contact my creator.

u/paperclipzzz · 1 pointr/redacted

>Keep hammering partisan divides though, because that's gonna solve everything,

he said, without a hint of irony or self-awareness.

Again, you fundamentally fail to grasp my point: it isn't about "association," it's about rhetoric and electoral strategy.

But hey, don't let the lack of any substantial research get in the way of your very-serious opinions. I mean, not when there are paparazzi photos that can tell you what to believe.

u/treerat · 1 pointr/politics

Its an old article. In 1995 the right wing noise machine was still fairly new.

Also, from 2004:

The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy

u/ReRo27 · 1 pointr/ask_political_science

Could you link the original studies here? I'd love to take a look since I spent a ton of my undergrad researching this exact topic. One variable I noticed that was interesting was education (I.e. eurosceptic in France for example were overwhelmingly the most educated (Masters/Phd's by in large. I also would reccomend these two books, i've read both and while they are focused primarily on Britain and UKIP the first is a good primer while the second is riddled with data, graphs, number sets, trends, and scatter graphs!

1)Revolt on the Right: Explaining Support for the Radical Right in Britain (Extremism and Democracy)Mar 18, 2014
by Robert Ford and Matthew J Goodwin

http://www.amazon.com/Revolt-Right-Explaining-Extremism-Democracy/dp/0415661501/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1462988605&sr=8-1&keywords=revolt+on+the+right

2) UKIP: Inside the Campaign to Redraw the Map of British Politics 1st Edition
by Matthew Goodwin (Author), Caitlin Milazzo (Author)

http://www.amazon.com/UKIP-Inside-Campaign-British-Politics/dp/0198736118/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1462988668&sr=8-1&keywords=ukip

u/fordflux · 1 pointr/politics

Does he like to read? Maybe you could get in a subtly political informational book. Maybe his lack of interest roots from lack of knowledge about the matter.

Or you could go right for the kill

u/ineedhelpwithmath · 1 pointr/Colorado

gaming the vote


^^
an awesome read detailing the advantages that numerous voting systems (including instant runoff) have over the plurality voting system that is commonly used in elections

u/Rolf_Dom · 1 pointr/eFreebies

The Russia Probe: What Did Trump Know and When did He Know It?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07L46G65X

FREE on February 20th

> The one question that has been upper most in the minds of millions of Americans in the aftermath of Russia’s proven meddling in America’s 2016 presidential election is: What did Trump know, and when did he know it? In a penetrating hard-hitting, wide ranging look at the events surrounding the scandal, The Russia Probe: What Did Trump Know and When did He Know It?, noted political analyst Earl Ofari Hutchinson asks and seeks to answer that compelling question.

>In the process he examines and debunks the major lies and myths that Trump, Trump administration officials, Trump family members, GOP investigators, and Trump apologists have put forth to the media and the public to make the issue go away.

---

FOR WOMEN ONLY: 300 Funny Jokes about Men

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07L7H194R

FREE until February 24th

> These affectionate, honest jokes will have you laughing out loud- and calling your girlfriends to share the fun! New for 2019, this book will make a great present for friends having a tough time with their men- and aren't we all!? It's full of knee-slappers, head shakers, and groan makers mostly written and chosen by women like yourself.

>This book contains no swear words, so you won't have to hide it from your kids. And its many one-liners are easy to remember, easy to tell at parties, easy to use to spice up your conversations.

u/madeinacton · 1 pointr/unitedkingdom

I put it down to a really poor interpretation of polling data. I've literally just been reading about this "tough on crime" question in this book. It basically says when asked what the biggest problems the country faces as an open question very few people answer crime, but when its suggested it polls very high. What Labour have failed to grasp is that people that have smoked weed or do smoke weed feel very strongly about this to a point that it could very easily sway their vote towards Lib Dems, even if these people are a smaller proportion than those who generally oppose it, not many people would decide their election on crime generally.

u/Str8DonLemon · 1 pointr/politics

They do. But look to the FBI and IG's report which confirms everything I am saying. Dan Bongino did a good job of cataloging all public releases from the FBI in his book. The obama admin engaged in textbook crime and they are getting a pass. They shouldn't. Not to mention a constitutional crisis. 4th Amendment violations.

​

https://www.amazon.com/Spygate-Attempted-Sabotage-Donald-Trump/dp/1642930989

u/djscrub · 0 pointsr/politics

Are you positing the premise that most voters select a candidate based on the relationship between their views and the policies the candidate espouses? In fact, only a tiny percentage of people vote this way. Most people vote strictly along party lines, even if they claim to be "independent," and during primaries respond only to name recognition and one or two valence issues, which are typically very abstract (e.g., small government, gun control reform, lower taxes). In addition, they are often wrong about their chosen candidate's actual opinions on these valence issues.

Academic sources:

Baldassarri & Gelman, "Partisans Without Constraint: Political Polarization and Trends in American Public Opinion"
Fenno, Senators on the Campaign Trail: The Politics of Representation
Jacobson, A Divider, Not a Uniter: George W. Bush and the American People
Mair, Party System Change: Approaches and Interpretations

This view, that issues have very little impact on the decisions of individual voters absent a rare systemic shock (such as the Great Depression, the Civil War, etc.), is called the Michigan Model, after its origin in the National Election Studies at the University of Michigan and the seminal text The American Voter. Some modern scholars have attempted to criticize this model, but statistically, it has generally held true. For a look at some of these attempts, one decent source is "Choice, Context, and Consequence: Beaten and Unbeaten Paths Toward a Science of Electoral Behavior" by Paul Allen Beck, excerpts from which are available on Google Books here.

u/MayorMcCheese59 · 0 pointsr/news

[here] (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Politics-Dummies-Ann-DeLaney/dp/0764508873) read this so you can understand what you are saying next time.

u/slinky783 · -1 pointsr/bestof

Well, that would be a longwinded reply.

If you have a half hour, listen to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aevtHHULag

Read these two books with an open mind:

https://www.amazon.com/Russia-Hoax-Illicit-Hillary-Clinton/dp/0062872745

https://www.amazon.com/Spygate-Attempted-Sabotage-Donald-Trump/dp/1642930989

I understand these take some logical leaps as well, but I feel they're closer to the truth of the matter.

All I know is that this investigation impacted the mid-term results far more than any Russian interference impacted the 2016 election, and they better have something BIG for the damage that this has done to the country.

u/HeyZeusChrist · -2 pointsr/politics

Every single source is in his book Spygate.
But you don't really care about sources do you?

Spygate: The Attempted Sabotage of Donald J. Trump https://www.amazon.com/dp/1642930989/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_QJU.BbD9W0QEC

u/eviltuo · -3 pointsr/NorthCarolina

If you wanna know the truth

Spygate

u/Landotavius · -3 pointsr/SeattleWA

>Not hard to win a game rigged in your favor

Hahaha how you say that with a straight face is beyond me.

u/Theeeantifeminist · -13 pointsr/ThatsHowThingsWork

SpyGate is the name given to the attempted coup of President Trump that is becoming public more and more each day. It's a very, very complicated topic but also probably more fascinating than any spy novel because it's not even believable how stupid, wreckless, and emotional the people involved were throughout.

I would suggest picking up a copy of Dan Bongino's book on the subject. It's pretty much the definitive book on the subject for anyone who is new to it, and even those who are well versed. Bongino is a former Secret Service agent who served under several Presidents as well as being a former NYPD officer. He so far has yet to be wrong about anything on this subject and he is about to publish his second book on it which I can't wait to read.

https://www.amazon.com/Spygate-Attempted-Sabotage-Donald-Trump/dp/B07HXKL3V3/

I'm more than happy to provide more information and sources if you're actually interested. This is going to go down in history as the biggest political scandal in America's entire history, by far.

Good thing downvoting won’t change reality. You folks are in for a rude awakening.

u/OwlEyes312 · -20 pointsr/videos

> you just made me feel really good about the apocalypse. I'm stealing your supplies first

Common down to Chi Town... We're always here for you at the City that Works

Just remember, We Don't Want Nobody Nobody Sent

So, Come Get Yours

u/azasinner · -20 pointsr/worldnews

He doesn't have shit, if he had he would've released it BEFORE the midterms. He's hoping for a blue wave which is not coming because the figureheads of the left are all either incompetent, corrupt, or both. Meanwhile on the trump side of the court we have this. Also don't forget the real collusion.