Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Morgan's avatar

As you note in today's Agenda, "Of course, there’s a simpler answer:" ... if readers happen to not be familiar with it, they should look up "Occam's Razor." Although this principle is described in a number of different ways, the basic idea is simple: if there are multiple ways that you could explain the same result, pick the simplest one. Or if you are a fan of probability theory, consider that the probability of multiple independent events is the product of the probability of each of them - so if a conspiracy theory is true to its moniker, and requires many unlikely things to all happen, the probability of the whole theory is miniscule.

As you explained, there are plenty of relatively conservative voters in Arizona who are not election deniers, but who tend to vote Republican when the candidate seems reasonable. This is often reflected in results here. So having a group of fairly outrageous candidates lose statewide is not a shocker, and elaborate explanations are not credible (including implying a much larger number of election anomalies than results suggest). Applying Occam's Razor, the alternate explanations are shaved away. It's really pretty simple. A majority of Arizonan voters voted against these performative extremists.

Expand full comment
Jim Lippard's avatar

"The outrage and doubt that Republican leaders are sewing" .. I think you mean sowing, unless you're trying to shift us from agricultural to crafts metaphors.

Expand full comment
9 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?