User Overview

Followers and Following

Followers
Following
Trendsmap

History

Total Followers - Last Year
Daily Follower Change - Last Year
Daily Tweets - Last Year

Tweet Stats

Analysed 41,796 tweets, tweets from the last 232 weeks.
Tweets Day of Week (UTC)
Tweets Hour of Day (UTC)
Key:
Tweets
Retweets
Quotes
Replies
Tweets Day and Hour Heatmap (UTC)

Tweets

Last 50 tweets from @studentactivism
In reply to @studentactivism
You missed 3 zeros there :)
Replying to @ghaz
I don't think I did. But where do you think I did?
 
In reply to @studentactivism
May I see your methodology? Because I really can't comprehend how that's even possible.
Replying to @Captain0Science
Peaked at $120. Was trading earlier today at less than a thousandth of a cent.
 
In reply to @studentactivism
Your math is wrong,
Replying to @Opinionoforigin
Cool. Show me how, if you like.
 
If my calculations are right, all the Luna coins in the world a month ago were worth a little over $40,000,000. Today, those same coins are worth a little over three bucks.

Not per coin. All of them put together.
 
9 pounds, 1 ounce. Name tbd. Welcome to the world, buddy. (Mom is doing great too.) pic.twitter.com/Qac7Tft7hX
Replying to @atrupar
Hey, what a thing! Tremendous news.
 
In reply to @studentactivism
And we haven't started buying politicians yet.
Replying to @studentactivism
Anyway, that's where I landed. If I were the richest person on earth, and I wanted to live in Belvedere Castle, I suspect the cheapest, most effective way to make that happen would be to break New York City.
 
In reply to @studentactivism
The Concervancy's annual budget is a mere $74 million dollars. Musk could take that on without blinking. Shakespeare in the Park's pre-pandemic budget was $58 million, since slashed—raise it to an even hundred and take that on too.
Replying to @studentactivism
And we haven't started buying politicians yet.
 
In reply to @studentactivism
In 1980, a bunch of rich Manhattanites, tired of watching their backyard suffer from the same budget constraints as poor people's parks, privatized Central Park's upkeep with the Central Park Conservancy.
Replying to @studentactivism
The Concervancy's annual budget is a mere $74 million dollars. Musk could take that on without blinking. Shakespeare in the Park's pre-pandemic budget was $58 million, since slashed—raise it to an even hundred and take that on too.
 
In reply to @studentactivism
No, I think if you were a billionaire, and you wanted to make Belvedere Castle your house, the way to do it wouldn't be to buy it outright.
Replying to @studentactivism
In 1980, a bunch of rich Manhattanites, tired of watching their backyard suffer from the same budget constraints as poor people's parks, privatized Central Park's upkeep with the Central Park Conservancy.
 
In reply to @studentactivism
I think we might still say no. $44 billion is seven months of the city's budget—a lot of money, sure, but barely half a year's operating expenses. And the pressure to preserve the park, the city's public spaces, would be immense.
Replying to @studentactivism
No, I think if you were a billionaire, and you wanted to make Belvedere Castle your house, the way to do it wouldn't be to buy it outright.
 
In reply to @studentactivism
But what if Elon Musk, to pick a name out of a hat, offered the same price he's offered for Twitter? $44 billion dollars, easily an order of magnitude more than the most expensive home in the world. Would we as a city say yes?
Replying to @studentactivism
I think we might still say no. $44 billion is seven months of the city's budget—a lot of money, sure, but barely half a year's operating expenses. And the pressure to preserve the park, the city's public spaces, would be immense.
 
In reply to @studentactivism
If someone offered to buy it from the city for a billion dollars so they could make it into their Wayne Manor, they'd be laughed at. Two billion, even five, would be an insult to the city.
Replying to @studentactivism
But what if Elon Musk, to pick a name out of a hat, offered the same price he's offered for Twitter? $44 billion dollars, easily an order of magnitude more than the most expensive home in the world. Would we as a city say yes?
 
In reply to @studentactivism
Belvedere Castle is a beautiful Victorian structure in the heart of Central Park, overlooking a pond, the Great Lawn, and the theater where they put on Shakespeare in the Park. pic.twitter.com/x7BWj6ch0W
Replying to @studentactivism
If someone offered to buy it from the city for a billion dollars so they could make it into their Wayne Manor, they'd be laughed at. Two billion, even five, would be an insult to the city.
 
This is a great thread, and it reminds me of a thought I had walking through Central Park yesterday: What would it cost someone to buy Belvedere Castle and turn it into their house?
Replying to @studentactivism
Belvedere Castle is a beautiful Victorian structure in the heart of Central Park, overlooking a pond, the Great Lawn, and the theater where they put on Shakespeare in the Park.
 
This is a great thread, and it reminds me of a thought I had walking through Central Park yesterday: What would it cost someone to buy Belvedere Castle and turn it into their house?
In reply to @doctorow
The reality is that we live in a society and other people aren't non-player characters or mere obstacles. Unchecked power can be used for destruction, but it creates very little, besides more destructive power. 37/
 
In reply to @studentactivism
Before I know it I wake up and I’m this guy (Also, hi! Hope you’re well and happy almost-summer) pic.twitter.com/TYpgwaMVc5
Replying to @pebonilla
Doing okay! It's been a rough semester, but I've got some cool stuff going on, and I'm looking forward to summer.
 
In reply to @pebonilla
For the full dad belt-and-suspenders experience, use elasticized, color-coded folders. pic.twitter.com/pyrVaPWVVo
 
Bringing printouts of all my flight/hotel/rental car confirmations in their own folder on my honeymoon is some real strong dad energy I’m channeling
Replying to @pebonilla
For the full dad belt-and-suspenders experience, use elasticized, color-coded folders.
 
In reply to @studentactivism
Civil rights activists, labor activists, jewish activists all have a record of educating & turning out voters, many of whom are moderate or even conservative, for Democrats. Like Clyburn they use that electoral power to guide policy. But first they organize & deliver the votes.
Replying to @tiburke
I'm well aware of all that, and I'm not sure what gave you the impression I wasn't.
 
In reply to @studentactivism
My phrase was "activists holding votes hostage."
Replying to @tiburke
Right. "Bad" activists, like Jim Clyburn.
 
In reply to @studentactivism
Base voters are voters who reliably vote & vote for the party. Ours tend to be moderate Democrats, closer to the center. This is a good place to start: catalist.us/wh-national/
Replying to @tiburke
Ah, that does actually make it clearer. By "activist," you don't mean civil rights activists or labor activists or local community activists, you mean "activists I don't like."
 
In reply to @tiburke
In your two tweets, you've used the term "activist" to mean two opposite things and the term "center" and "base" as synonyms, and insisted that "the center" is an essential electoral bloc but the concept of "centrist" is meaningless. Honestly, I don't even know where to start.
(Also, the idea that Jim Clyburn of all people isn't someone who says "if you want my vote you need to do X, Y, and Z" is hilarious.)
 
In reply to @studentactivism
Biden won every portion of the D base while explicitly running against the left. He catered to & is a labor & civil rights president. Median/centrist/swing haven't been useful categories for >2 decades. Coalition building activists like Clyburn don't hold votes hostage.
Replying to @tiburke
In your two tweets, you've used the term "activist" to mean two opposite things and the term "center" and "base" as synonyms, and insisted that "the center" is an essential electoral bloc but the concept of "centrist" is meaningless. Honestly, I don't even know where to start.
 
Angus Johnston Retweeted ·  
In reply to @studentactivism
Strike "may have", insert "almost certainly has"
 
In reply to @studentactivism
And on the flipside, "never do anything that doesn't appeal to the center" is pretty much always bad advice. You're gonna have to to SOME things that don't appeal to the center every day of your campaign, and every day you hold office. Most days, a lot of things.
Replying to @studentactivism
And all of that is just looking at it from the perspective of a politician. An activist may have legitimate interests that diverge from a politician's.
 
In reply to @JayLJeffers
so does activist disregard of any such device. So the disagreement isn’t fully captured by reference to an infallible Platonic and overriding static rule, either in adherence or disavowal.
Replying to @JayLJeffers
I don't think you and I disagree. My thread is a response to people who, as I said up top, "have no idea how to measure a protest's effectiveness beyond 'would this be popular with the imaginary median voter who lives in my head?'" And yes, I encounter folks like that a lot.
 
Angus Johnston Retweeted ·  
In reply to @studentactivism
Also: if the goal of a "protest" is to persuade or motivate voters as voters, then that's not a protest, it's a campaign rally.
 
In reply to @studentactivism
Biden shored up the Democratic base by catering to the center. Base voters are voters who reliably show up and vote Democratic, they aren't activists holding votes hostage. "Never go outside the expertise of your people."
Replying to @tiburke
The idea that "activists" and "voters who reliably show up and vote Democratic" are distinct categories is silly. And the idea that Biden only catered to "the center," and not for instance to the portion of the base that he relied on to win the nomination, is similarly silly.
 
In reply to @studentactivism
"Appeal to the center" is a component of most—not all, but most—successful electoral strategies. But it's only one component, necessary most of the time but sufficient almost never.
Replying to @studentactivism
And on the flipside, "never do anything that doesn't appeal to the center" is pretty much always bad advice. You're gonna have to to SOME things that don't appeal to the center every day of your campaign, and every day you hold office. Most days, a lot of things.
 
In reply to @studentactivism
And sixth, you need to know, for certain, what that game plan is—what set of policies and messaging will achieve what you hope to achieve.
Replying to @studentactivism
"Appeal to the center" is a component of most—not all, but most—successful electoral strategies. But it's only one component, necessary most of the time but sufficient almost never.
 
In reply to @studentactivism
Fifth, you need everyone—all your candidates, all your party organizers, all your electeds, all the activists on your end of the spectrum, and, ideally, your opponents—to play along with the game plan you've arrived at.
Replying to @studentactivism
And sixth, you need to know, for certain, what that game plan is—what set of policies and messaging will achieve what you hope to achieve.
 
In reply to @studentactivism
Fourth, you need to not care—and, again, as noted above, have a base that doesn't care—what your party platform is, and what policies you actually implement.
Replying to @studentactivism
Fifth, you need everyone—all your candidates, all your party organizers, all your electeds, all the activists on your end of the spectrum, and, ideally, your opponents—to play along with the game plan you've arrived at.
 
In reply to @studentactivism
Third, you need an electorate with clear, consistent politics, ideologically sortable from right to left, so that doing something that appeals to the median voter never flips someone who voted for you last time against you in the next election.
Replying to @studentactivism
Fourth, you need to not care—and, again, as noted above, have a base that doesn't care—what your party platform is, and what policies you actually implement.
 
In reply to @studentactivism
Second, you need a political environment in which there is no need to fundraise, or staff up with volunteers, or keep paid organizers happy. Because again, otherwise you need to worry about demobilizing your base.
Replying to @studentactivism
Third, you need an electorate with clear, consistent politics, ideologically sortable from right to left, so that doing something that appeals to the median voter never flips someone who voted for you last time against you in the next election.
 
In reply to @studentactivism
First, you need a static electorate—same voters every time—so you don't need to worry about depressing turnout in your base by catering to the center.
Replying to @studentactivism
Second, you need a political environment in which there is no need to fundraise, or staff up with volunteers, or keep paid organizers happy. Because again, otherwise you need to worry about demobilizing your base.
 
In reply to @studentactivism
And to be fair, sometimes that's exactly the right strategy—or at least part of the right strategy. But "win over the median voter" only works as a COMPLETE strategy under certain specific conditions.
Replying to @studentactivism
First, you need a static electorate—same voters every time—so you don't need to worry about depressing turnout in your base by catering to the center.
 
In reply to @studentactivism
Some folks are asking why, given what I've laid out above, the right strategy for politicians isn't to pursue the support of the center of whatever electorate they happen to be trying to win, even if that center is to the right of the national electorate.
Replying to @studentactivism
And to be fair, sometimes that's exactly the right strategy—or at least part of the right strategy. But "win over the median voter" only works as a COMPLETE strategy under certain specific conditions.
 
In reply to @studentactivism
Though if you live in, say, Wisconsin, you’re kind of fucked on the state level, too—at least legislatively, and maybe in statewide races too, soon. Things are bad, folks.
Replying to @studentactivism
Some folks are asking why, given what I've laid out above, the right strategy for politicians isn't to pursue the support of the center of whatever electorate they happen to be trying to win, even if that center is to the right of the national electorate.
 
In reply to @studentactivism
…then yes, appealing to whatever the median voter in the relevant electorate wanted would be the right approach. (Assuming, to add to the list in the last tweet, that all voters are arrayed right to left, and grabbing the median voter gets all the ones nearer to you.)
But none of those assumptions are close to correct, and the ways in which they differ from reality reflect just a few of the ways in which smart electoral strategy differs from the strategy they imply.
 
In reply to @studentactivism
If you had a static electorate—same voters every time, each, each with clear, consistent politics cycle to cycle—and there was no need to fundraise, or staff up with volunteers, AND you didn't have strong opinions about which policies you enacted after you won...
…then yes, appealing to whatever the median voter in the relevant electorate wanted would be the right approach. (Assuming, to add to the list in the last tweet, that all voters are arrayed right to left, and grabbing the median voter gets all the ones nearer to you.)
 
In reply to @JayLJeffers
I alluded to that here, but I can answer in more detail.
If you had a static electorate—same voters every time, each, each with clear, consistent politics cycle to cycle—and there was no need to fundraise, or staff up with volunteers, AND you didn't have strong opinions about which policies you enacted after you won...
 
In reply to @studentactivism
Ok, but why isn’t that just more grist for the tactically cautious center-left mill? The Senate and presidency are counter-majoritarian. The latter comes down to a handful of states, then we’re left with something closer to the median voter in the median state.
Replying to @JayLJeffers
I alluded to that here, but I can answer in more detail.
In reply to @studentactivism
And “never do anything that might piss off anyone in the center” is, I’d argue, a not particularly compelling answer.
 
In reply to @studentactivism
I’m not entirely clear how you two believe that the median voter exists as somewhat powerful at the state level, but not at the level of federal elections, when federal elections that determine control of the U.S. Senate and Presidency are just the sum of statewide elections.
Replying to @JayLJeffers
Because of the partisan skew and small-state bias of the Senare and Electoral College. The median voter in the median state is to the right of the median voter nationally.
 
In reply to @studentactivism
This is a good point, and I should have specified that I was talking about federal elections and national policy.
Replying to @studentactivism
Though if you live in, say, Wisconsin, you’re kind of fucked on the state level, too—at least legislatively, and maybe in statewide races too, soon. Things are bad, folks.
 
In reply to @studentactivism
And “never do anything that might piss off anyone in the center” is, I’d argue, a not particularly compelling answer.
Replying to @studentactivism
This is a good point, and I should have specified that I was talking about federal elections and national policy.
I would argue that they DO, but not at the federal level. At city/county/state level they ABSOLUTELY do, which is why I keep beating my head against the "PLEASE GOD VOTE IN YOUR LOCAL/STATE ELECTIONS. PLEASE" wall.
 
In reply to @studentactivism
Wouldn't the implication of this logic be that focus should be on appealing to trumps coalition since they have the most power on a federal scale.
Replying to @Jamesthesnake
If you have a strategy to win over a bunch of Trump voters without sacrificing core values or alienating core Dems, yes. If not, maybe it’s a more complicated question.
 
In reply to @studentactivism
So the question facing the Dems is how to win when holding the support of the median voter isn’t enough. Isn’t close to enough. And that’s a tricky question.
Replying to @studentactivism
And “never do anything that might piss off anyone in the center” is, I’d argue, a not particularly compelling answer.
 
In reply to @studentactivism
If the median voter had her druthers, the D's would have held the White House for 26 of the last 30 years, and would have a supermajority on the Supreme Court and a big cushion in the Senate.
Replying to @studentactivism
So the question facing the Dems is how to win when holding the support of the median voter isn’t enough. Isn’t close to enough. And that’s a tricky question.
 
In reply to @studentactivism
One more thing on all this: The median voter in the US has no power.
Replying to @studentactivism
If the median voter had her druthers, the D's would have held the White House for 26 of the last 30 years, and would have a supermajority on the Supreme Court and a big cushion in the Senate.
 
In reply to @studentactivism
(My internal monologue is less misogynist and homophobic than Pacino's, but otherwise identical.)
Replying to @studentactivism
One more thing on all this: The median voter in the US has no power.
 
 
Free access is provided to the 8 hour timeframe for this page.

A Trendsmap Explore subscription provides full access to all available timeframes

Find out more

This account is already logged in to Trendsmap.
Your subscription allows access for one user. If you require access for more users, you can create additional subscriptions.
Please Contact us if you are interested in discussing discounts for 3+ users for your organisation, or have any other queries.