Catie Bailard

Looked at my data collections for state-backed activity. If the report were a picture:

These spaces also deliberately prey on young men who are looking for identity and belonging and meaning.

A lot of these people’s political beliefs hold very little coherence or logic as a whole, particularly to not-very-online outsiders. The question is where were they exposed to the “debates” that created this incoherent belief system. Most of the time, those are staunchly rightwing online spaces.

The quotes on the bullet casings, if reported accurately, have a clear link to Groyper discourse online. There is a lot of rightwing meme brainrot that is familiar to people who study those spaces. As more empirical evidence comes out, we’ll see. But so far a lot of hallmarks there.

Agreed, but he also appears to be a Groyper. (At least based on what we know so far.) Which, although not MAGA, is in the same information ecosystem. So, yes, don’t conflate the two. But, also don’t ignore their proximity.

Charlie Kirk’s Legacy Deserves No Mourning The white Christian nationalist provocateur wasn’t a promoter of civil discourse. He preached hate, bigotry, and division

This is the take. I am sad for his family and for the tragic loss of life to violence. But that does not prevent us from being clear-eyed about who he was & the effect he had, especially on the vulnerable populations who were his primary targets. You can hold both in your heart and mind.

Q & A with the New Co-Directors of GW’s Institute for Data, Democracy and Politics | GW Today | The George Washington University As co-directors, Bailard and Porter aim to strengthen IDDP’s role in supporting informed public dialogue.

Curious to know about where IDDP is headed? In a Q&A with GW Today, @catiebailard.bsky.social and @ethanvporter.bsky.social spoke about their vision for the Institute. Read it at gwtoday.gwu.edu/q-new-co-directors-gws-institute-data-democracy-and-politics.

…martyr to inspire more acts of violence. By laundering or ignoring this part of who he was, you are enabling those who seek to leverage his death to call for more violence. If they want to hold him up as a martyr and inspiration, make them fully and publicly own what he stood for.

You can feel sympathy for his family & view this act of political violence as tragic—not only for the loss of life, but for everything that brought us here—WITHOUT sanitizing or downplaying his hateful, divisive, & violent rhetoric.

There is a coordinated effort underway to turn him into a…

About | Institute for Data, Democracy & Politics (IDDP) | Columbian College of Arts & Sciences | The George Washington University IDDP’s mission is to help the public, journalists, and policymakers understand digital media’s influence on public dialogue and opinion.

Our first post! And what better way to mark this occasion than by announcing the start of a new chapter at IDDP. Last month @catiebailard.bsky.social and @ethanvporter.bsky.social stepped in as the Institute's Co-Director's. Read their full statement at iddp.gwu.edu/about.

I endorse this statement.

Interesting that this is also the day they’ve scheduled Trump’s statement for.

According to your 5_to_Philly buddy, you’ve reached the level of name-calling. I am open to honest conversations with empirical substance. Your approach shares the hallmarks of a computational propaganda campaign. Don’t have all that much need for bad faith conversations.

Yes, I have said that I find the ETA analysis compelling as a quantitative political scientist. And, I have welcomed an equally in-depth analysis that debunks their core findings. You have yet to provide one.

The reason the mail-in discrepancy is meaningful is that they were not as vulnerable to manipulation. That is actually the crux of the analysis. Relatedly, I find it interesting that Trump is currently going all in on banning mail-in votes.

But, what actual evidence is there of that, aside from the vote data? If it is manipulated, of course that is what it would show. So, you need another verifiable source to support the claim of a surge in day-of election. I have not seen it yet.

You have 9 followers and seem oddly fixated on debunking the ETA analysis. In fact, it seems the vast majority of your 62 posts are about this very thing. Deeply concerning, indeed.

I’ve yet to see any substantial data analysis that provides a more compelling explanation of these aberrant electoral results. I’m open to the idea that there may be, I’d welcome it—but so far it reads like a bit of hand-waving and nit-picking that deliberately misses the forest for the trees.

If you have the data or analyses that substantiates this, I’d be really happy to read it. Please do share, because I would frankly sleep a lot better if they are wrong.

Yeah, I can see that. I think it’s why so many people are shying away from this subject. Sounds like tin hat stuff, & all the rhetoric around 2020 ensured Ds would feel this way about ?ing the election. I’m a skeptic, but I also know data. Happy to read data analyses that show something different.

I’ll think about this more, thank you. On face value, these critiques don’t explain why this election was such an outlier compared to so many other elections (US and other functioning democracies). Or why it looks a lot more like Russia’s. I just don’t think a Trump effect credibly explains this.

What alternative electoral data (or analyses) have you seen that disputes or discredits their findings? Sincerely asking, I’d really appreciate seeing a different take on the data. But, as a quantitative political scientist, I know what human data looks like, and that ain’t it.

I’d also recommend taking a deep dive into the ES&S’s 5.2.4.0 software tweak.

But they only needed the swing states, which for the first time all swung in favor of the challenger, by margins that just exceeded what would require a hand recount. I recommend watching @electiontruthalliance.org video summarizing their NC analysis. The data is not reflective of human behavior.

All correct. But, it does also matter if the vote count was manipulated. Free & fair elections (or at least the semblance of them the US has had) are the lynchpin for a functional democracy. Statistical analyses by Election Truth Alliance are eye-popping. We can’t afford not to do our due diligence.

Purely speculative theory: He’s the one the police were called about after an incident with a woman, he fled when the police arrived, the police gave chase, and they ended up hitting him from behind in a tactical maneuver. Only thing that makes that non-sensical statement make sense.

Exactly. Comparative politics told us everything we needed to know about how it plays out. (It’s still telling us.) Just took some time, and it still does, to convince people the same can happen here. It really was so predictable, to the day.

We are still good friends. I also begged her not to go into the office on Jan 6, luckily she listened to me.

Got in an argument with one of my best friends at the Niners bar during the 2020 Super Bowl in January. Told her the electoral violence was coming. She told me I needed to get out of my political science bubble. I told her the Senate Dems needed to get their heads out of their asses.