Tessera
Folgen

Chris Faricy

@faricy.bsky.social

Director, Campbell Public Affairs Institute at Syracuse University. Detroiter, Midwestern dad. Michigan & UNC alum. Author of Welfare for the Wealthy and Other Side of the Coin. Opinions are my own.

198 Posts1668 Follower941 Folgt
Bill Grueskin@bgrueskin.bsky.social · last mo.

US media: Why in the world are people voting for democratic socialists? Financial Times: “US corporate profits have hit a record high while workers’ slice of the pie has sunk to historic lows.”

BildBild
Michael Shepherd@mshepruralpolitics.bsky.social · 2mo ago

💥 My book Rural Pain, Republican Gain is officially released today!! 💥 The book is an outgrowth of my dissertation work that I started in 2016. Indescribable feeling to be able to hold it in book form just under a decade later. press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/bo...

Rural Pain, Republican Gain

An eye-opening look at how Republican policies have affected health outcomes in rural communities and why poor, rural white voters are turning to the Republican Party—not despite this harm, but becaus...

press.uchicago.edu

Chris Faricy@faricy.bsky.social · 2mo ago

we provide evidence that policy preferences are shaped by rewarding “deserving” ingroups while punishing “undeserving” outgroups. A politics polarized on identity is also polarized along the dimension of who government is meant to serve.

Chris Faricy@faricy.bsky.social · 2mo ago

Ellis and Faricy write: “partisans temper ideological commitments in favor of rewarding copartisans. Democrats become more supportive of business tax cuts or school vouchers when the benefits accrue to ingroups, while Republicans temper a desire to cut spending if the spending is on ingroups.”

Bild
Chris Faricy@faricy.bsky.social · 2mo ago

"Second, when asked to rate different groups in terms of two dimensions – selfish/selfless and lazy/hardworking – Democrats and Republicans tended to rate groups more favorably depending on their presumed partisanship."

BildBild
Michael Shepherd@mshepruralpolitics.bsky.social · 3mo ago

🚨New Book Alert 🚨 Thrilled to announce the publication of my first book: Rural Pain, Republican Gain by @uchicagopress.bsky.social ‼️ Officially released in one month but at the warehouse and ready to ship to you and yours! press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/bo...

Rural Pain, Republican Gain

An eye-opening look at how Republican policies have affected health outcomes in rural communities and why poor, rural white voters are turning to the Republican Party—not despite this harm, but becaus...

press.uchicago.edu

Barack Obama@barackobama.bsky.social · 9mo ago

The killing of Alex Pretti is a heartbreaking tragedy. It should also be a wake-up call to every American, regardless of party, that many of our core values as a nation are increasingly under assault.

Bild
Adam Bonica@adambonica.bsky.social · 9mo ago

If there's one empirical insight I'd want everyone to understand about American politics, it's this: America's problems are solved problems. Just not here. What would change if the US simply matched the average of 31 peer democracies? Not Denmark or Norway. Just the middle of the pack. 🧵

Screenshot of a data visualization titled “The Cost of American Exceptionalism,” subtitled “What would change if the U.S. matched the OECD average?” The page explains that each card shows how outcomes would change if the U.S. matched the average of 31 peer democracies. Below, a section labeled “Economy & Inequality” displays eight cards comparing U.S. figures to OECD averages. Highlights include: +$19K per household per year in redistributed income and +$96K in redistributed wealth if the top 1% matched OECD shares; a 71% lower CEO-to-worker pay ratio (from 354× to 101×); 50 million more workers with union coverage; 26 million more people with health insurance; $2.1 trillion saved annually in healthcare spending; $691 less per person per year in prescription drug costs; and intergenerational economic mobility being twice as high. Each card shows the U.S. value alongside the OECD average.
Adam Bonica@adambonica.bsky.social · 11mo ago

Hungary’s Orban seemed undefeatable a year ago. Then Peter Magyar broke through with a powerful anti-corruption platform, rapidly consolidated the fractured opposition, and now leads Fidesz comfortably. Anti-corruption defeats authoritarianism worldwide. It will work here, too.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Hungarian polling trends 2023-2026 showing Fidesz (orange line) declining from ~55% to ~40% while TISZA party (dark red line) rises from near 0% in early 2024 to ~44% by late 2025, surpassing Fidesz. Other opposition parties (DK, MM, Jobbik, etc.) remain below 10% throughout the period.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​