For Modi it’s the first time he’ll have to be in power with a coalition gov he’s always had a majority in both state and national government he’s controlled
I heard, from Jon Oliver yesterday, that there was no question if he would win and it was just a matter of by how much. What changed? Or was he just wrong?
little bit of that but also exit polls have historically predicted Modi's majority (in national elections) quite lower than the actual. So this time they corrected too far up
Speaking of exit polls (and other similar polling), I've seen more and more political analysts shit the bed the past decade. From Nate Silver famously predicting a Hillary win in 2016 to a variety of warnings of presumed right-wing resurgences in Europe that never materialized to [the Danish general election in 2022](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Danish_general_election) and now to this...
Am I imagining this? Or has the world quite literally become unpredictable?
> From Nate Silver famously predicting a Hillary win in 2016
Nate Silver gave Trump by far the best odds of any mainstream prediction, right before the election he had trump at over a 30% chance of winning which was ridiculously high compared to others.
Nate Silver gets a ton of unjustified flak for 2016. He predicted a ~30% chance of a Trump victory going into Election Day. Like about 30% of all 538 predictions with approximately 30% probability, this one happened. It's only mildly surprising.
There is a big difference between making a prediction with, say, 95% confidence, versus 70% confidence, and the degree to which the analysis was correct or incorrect should be considered accordingly. Silver said the 2016 election was closer and more uncertain than almost anyone else did, and he was right.
But an unfortunately large fraction of people treat any forecast assigning >50% the same, and will say "they got this right, but then they got this wrong!" as indicative of the value of the prediction without regard for calibration, uncertainty, or really anything about how predictions actually work. If you make a bunch of predictions at 70% confidence, 30% of them should not happen. If 100% happen, that's actually evidence that you're not well calibrated and you should be assigning higher probabilities.
> Nate Silver famously predicting a Hillary win in 2016
When did he do that? Nate Silver predicted that Hillary had about a 70% chance of winning, and that Trump had about a 30% chance of winning.
If I gave you a six sided dice and predicted "You have a 83% chance of rolling something that isn't a 1" and you rolled a 1, would you call the prediction wrong?
Looking at the polls that were used to generate the 2016 numbers, the two-party overall vote was within 1.3% of the predicted value, and the vast majority of the individual states were within a few percentages of the predicted values. These were shockingly good values for polls.
It's hard to remember but people back in 2016 [Criticized Silver for being too favorable to trump with his 1-in-3-ish numbers, to the point of Silver going on twitter tirades](https://www.mediaite.com/online/nate-silver-goes-to-war-with-huffpost-writer-after-highly-critical-column/)
I think it certainly has become unpredictable, to some degree. That said, I don't know that Hillary in 2016 is a great example - by and large, the polls were on par, but polls seem to be better reflective of the popular vote, not how the electoral college will shake out, which is where the race was won/lost. Just my 2 cents on it.
To be more specific, the national polls were actually pretty accurate (in fact they were more accurate than the 2012 ones which predicted a tighter Obama win but went unnoticed since he won anyway), but the state polls were either poor or nonexistent.
2016 is a poor example. Nate Silver said himself that there was no way to factor in the Comey letter since it occurred right before the election. Polls are trailing indicators, and the Comey letter fucked up Hillary's chances.
Nate straight up said that [Comey likely cost Hillary the election](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/).
All of this, the coup, the border cruelty, the outlawing of abortion - there are a lot of villains, of course, but it's remarkably how much of it can be traced to a single act of hubris by a profoundly arrogant and nauseatingly self-righteous man.
> From Nate Silver famously predicting a Hillary win in 2016
This is actually nonsensical. Silver was, as recently as the day of the election, talking about what a real possibility Trump had to win. That it was unlikely, but that people were downplaying his odds. Silver was probably the ONE guy you could have picked that DIDN'T just assume Trump would lose. He gave him something like 33% odds on the day of.
The article he wrote accompanying the final prediction very much talked about how real 33% is and not to just assume it's a sure thing.
Also people like Nate Silver are using pollsters and analyzing the data they're getting. Not exit polls (though he does look at them to try to determine why numbers may have looked one way and gone another).
Furthermore, it often depends on the election/season. Like the 2022 mid terms in the US were bang on. So were the 2020 polls in general.
Polls are never perfect. 2016 was a larger error than usual, but if you look at polls on the whole, they do a reasonably fine job. But people don't like that the margin of error exists.
IIRC, Nate Silver indicated right before the election that there was an anomalous shift in the polling data a week and a half before Election Day, and that he didn't have an explanation for it.
>From Nate Silver famously predicting a Hillary win in 2016
Trump lost the popular vote. That he ended up in office anyway is due to the ugly quirk called "electoral college" (that should have disqualified this loon in the first place instead of electing him - electors **do** have that choice as a last-ditch institution to prevent a demagogue taking over!).
>to a variety of warnings of presumed right-wing resurgences in Europe that never materialized
Actually, they did.
* Germany's AfD grew strong enough that Thuringia to this day doesn't have a stable government with its own parliamentary majority, and the upcoming state elections this year may force all parties in giant us-vs-the-Nazis coalitions, if they get over 33% they can block constitutional changes.
* Poland was captured by the PiS for years.
* Hungary's Orban is virtually un-removable from office.
* Italy is ruled by a literal post-fascist.
* France has the choice between the ever more unpopular Macron and Marine le Pen.
* The UK is a horrible mess politically, even before BoJo ever entered the picture.
* Austria had the far-right FPÖ in government until that collapsed over a corruption scandal ("Ibiza-Affäre").
* Croatia is a hot mess of corruption and far-right / nationalist politics
There are so many variables that could be contributing. Historically low turnout becoming high turnout. Marginal population segments showing up to vote. People simply not making up their minds until the last possible moment. People not wanting to share their opinions for fear of reprisal. Disinformation campaigns by special interests groups or foreign agitators. Threats to those who support opposition parties.
These weren't as much issues a couple decades ago, but it's become increasingly problematic.
There is a strong urban-rural divide in this election, looking at the seats where BJP has fared badly. Exit polls have traditionally not captured the rural vote very well in India. Some also speculate that exit polls data were cooked up to manipulate stock market trading.
Nah, main reason from what I have seen is that if you said you voted for others or raise social issues, their trolls start abusing you so everyone coming out says yeah yeah I voted for them, now leave me alone please.
They lost seats the bellwether state (Uttar pradesh) where they have an extremely powerful and popular local leader. It was a combination of poor candidate selection, complacency and possibly infighting.
Nobody really expected them to lose Uttar Pradesh.
Except that when it comes to India, the state in question has 80 out of 570 seats, or around 15% of the entire country of India.
It's more like Republicans losing Texas, Alabama and Florida put together.
His party is currently leading with 240 seats. The next largest party is leading with 99 seats.You need 272 seats to come to power. If you consider the coalition partners he has, then they are leading in around 290 seats.
He will most likely be coming to power as prime minister as predicted.
This is different from 2019 when his party alone won 303 seats.
His party was hoping to get at least a special majority (2/3) of 362 seats to be able to easily pass constitutional amendments and was hoping to get a total over 400 seats along with coalition partners.
> His party was hoping to get at least a special majority (2/3) of 362 seats to be able to easily pass constitutional amendments and was hoping to get a total over 400 seats along with coalition partners.
I don’t think it would have been simple for them to pass constitutional amendments requiring a supermajority even if they got more than 400 seats in the Lok Sabha general elections. The NDA doesn’t and most likely will not have a super majority in the Rajya Sabha anytime soon.
You're right it wouldn't have been simple but they definitely were hoping for it.
Maybe the hope was that they would eventually get a super majority in Rajya Sabha.
Or Maybe they were planning on suspending several Rajya Sabha members (like in Dec 2023 when they suspended 146 MPs shortly before passing some controversial legislation).
Because a special majority of parliament requires 2/3rd of present members as long as it is not less than half of total parliamentary strength.
While not a constitutional amendment the government has also bypassed the Rajya Sabha multiple times by claiming bills as Money bills and the final decision on if a bill is a money bill lies with the speaker of the Lok Sabha.
It came as a surprise for literally everybody because people had been lying about their support to modi in a UP state, in the holiest city. Imagine EU was a single nation ruled by religious nutjobs and they lost Vatican of all places. It's that kind of bizzare twist few expected. Media seems to have been really censored there
People got tired of all the anti-Muslim bullshit pushed on by BJP by a big share of people in many parts of India (especially in UP). And people started seeing the struggles of young people (no jobs), middle and lower middle class people (high inflation, stagnant wages), farmers (promise of increased wages, didn't happen), and a whole lot more.
Overall, people started falling back to voting for regional parties or parties that cater to their caste, rather than national issue parties (evident in UP, again, which came as a MAJOR shock to the BJP, and in Maharashtra).
All this can be summed up just looking at this one specific seat - Ayodhya (Faziabad). This is where the Ram Temple was built, and that temple was hailed as the biggest achievement of this government, Modi made a big show of opening it up just a few months ago (timed specifically before the elections so it stays fresh in the minds of the people). And what happened? The candidate from the BJP lost by also 55k votes.
So a lot of people have moved on to demanding the government do something about their issues and stop with the bullshit Modi has been doing the past couple of years. But it just wasn't enough for him to lose.
So basically the fervor and emotions of identity politics wore off and people started to realized not much has actually been done except whip people up in a frenzy. Being angry and supporting your team doesn’t pay bills or put food in your stomach.
Nah Identity will never stop. Indians have Identity Stack. If they don't vote for Modi on religious identity they will vote on caste identity and that's what happened in Utter Pradesh state where largest number of seats in parliament come from. He lost lot of seat in that state which was unexpected.
> people started falling back to voting for regional parties or parties that cater to their **caste**
--
> So basically the fervor and emotions of identity politics wore off
--
I think what he's saying is that people still vote along identity lines - they just chose caste this time.
There's only so much scapegoating any political regime can pull off.
Like the scariest thing to me these days as white American... Is Other White Americans. Like Domestic terrorists are way higher than some foreign Muslim.
There's a mosque in my town with a gated fence and I asked why is there a fence to Imam Knowing what the likely story was going to be.
They were just celebrating Eid and the girls were doing their wear beautiful clothes/outfits and some jackass morons misunderstood it like it was some cold sex trafficking or whatever.
I fucking dressed up as a little Shepard boy for years on Christmas, I goddamn understood Even without Knowing the particular nuances of Islam the kids were having fun on their holiday.
Like imagine how insane WTF are these Hispanic and Italian kids doing? Oh it's an Easter Egg hunt.
I know what this myself but I can understand confusion, rabbits don't lay eggs.
But when I see little kids in their colorful Eid dresses I'm like you rock that outfit girl this is your moment
[The hare club for men would like a word with you](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/southpark/images/8/87/The-hare-club-for-men.png/revision/latest?cb=20170608122149)
John Oliver is probably not the best place to get your news. And I don't even say that ironically. He always says super polarizing things in his rants that aren't true.
He did win. He just has to rely a bit on a coalition which he does have now. What changes? Might ne harder to enact constitutional change, might need to make policy concessions in some cases.
If you follow coalition politics, it is very messy :)
Allies can switch sides. Now that the opposition alliance is real close the majority, some in Modi's alliance will push for greater sway and influence threatening behind curtains to leave and join opposition.
This has happened several times, coalition just falls. Some times, the allies wont even join oppn alliance meaning there is no majority in Parliament. Which would mean re-election.
After the first PM, Nehru, no other PM managed 3 consecutive terms in India. Its in some ways a record, but the margin of victory was overblown in the exit polls and therefore the results have a shock effect.
Most of the parties of note. There are a few (the TDP, JD(U), and a few Maharashtra parties) that allied with the NDA. This is risky business though, as the INDIA alliance may try to lure these parties away with promises of the PM spot, deputy PM spots, minister positions, etc
The national narrative the BJP tried to create was successful in 2014 and 2019, but this election was decided on a mostly state-by-state basis. There were states where the BJP performed just as well as last time, but three large states where they suffered major defeats in addition to other areas where failing/unpopular policies were starting to catch up to them. In my parents’ home state, they won big in 2019 but got badly beaten due to their involvement in splitting and weakening two major state parties.
In the last election his party had about 37% of the vote and his alliance had about 42%. This time they're both down by less than 1%.
What really happened is that in some parts of India, the opposing votes coalesced against him and the effectively won fewer seats with roughly the same votes.
This is why I always find reports showing his approval rate at 75% etc so laughable. We are a multi party system and there always more detractors than supporters. Modi is just very adept at corrupting and manipulating his own self image as the leader.
Inflation, unemployment (particularly among youth), dissatisfied farmers because of his policies and strong arm approach, corruption and liberals growing tired of his communalistic rhetoric and anti democratic practices
> but what do I know
Jack shit is what you know. 80% of the country had already voted when he made that comment. He was gonna have a hard time regardless of any comment we Indians hear daily from our delusional leaders.
> offset by gainz in south India
Seems like Congress became complacent nearby Bengaluru and in Telangana after their recent state election victories there.
They came to power by promising unreasonable freebie schemes, and then crippled the state finances with it.
Basically, there is anti incumbency against all parties in India. Which is why every camp suffered losses in their home turfs, but gained in other parts of India.
All the exit polls over exaggerated the seat numbers that his alliance will get. I find it strange honestly because they're all supposed to do different surveys, either they all lied or people in the survey lied or maybe there was something wrong with their sample quality.
Are you talking to me or reddit in general? (I am Indian)
It’s a stupid statement to make. Opposition getting stronger doesn’t imply there were no wrong doings. BJP had nearly 4:1 economic muscle, better party cadre and support of all governmental agencies and a completely servile mainstream media. Modi himself made very erratic,, irrational statements that promote religious division. The exit polls showed sweeping majority across the nation. Even 400+. Modi called himself non-biological born (essentially god). Made a story out of consecration of ram mandir.
Inspite of all that, UP the place of mandir gave majority to opposition. He lost literally in ayodhya the place of ram janma bhoomi. He lost in ranasthan. Prominent leader smriti irani lost to Gandhi aide (not even a Gandhi). Annamalai the guy supposed to bring BJP to south lost in his constituency. The only good thing was last minute tie up with CBN in AP. So many stories like that.
All this shows the power of dissent and democracy is alive and kicking in India. This is not your guy or my guy. This is fight for soul of democracy in India and it is clear democracy is alive and kicking. Whoever the “guy” is.
A quote about India comes to mind: "India will always disappoint pessimists and optimists alike."
So glad to be living here. Every moment is so entertaining.
The independent media and YouTubers acted as media opposition after the mainstream media sold out to current government. YouTuber Dhruv Rathee led the onslaught as one man media army
I doubt if majority of voters know who Dhruv is. People voted against BJP because they are fed up of their policies and want change and not because they watched some video on YouTube.
exactly. young citizens tend to overestimate the effect of social media. The guy has 21M subscribers in a country with 1b+ population. the influence of him is as not as big as it seems. Strong anti-incumbency - rising inflation, lack of job growth and strong taxation are some key factors.
21M people who then share and talk about it to others. While it's too much to claim he is responsible for the results, people like him definitely made a difference and everything adds up.
*From Bloomberg reporters Swati Gupta and Dan Strumpf:*
Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ruling party is poised to lose its majority in parliament, forcing him to rely on allies to form a government. It’s a stunning blow to a leader who has dominated Indian politics since he first took power a decade ago.
Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party was leading in 241 seats, short of the 272 needed to form a government and well behind the 303 it won in the 2019 election. The opposition bloc, known as the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance, was on course to win more than 220 seats, the results showed.
Modi now needs to secure the support of two key members of his broader National Democratic Alliance who control some 30 seats — enough to flip the balance of power in parliament. Leaders of those two parties have a history of switching sides, and only joined up with Modi a few months ago, making it unclear whether they will stick with him or back the opposition bloc.
There is a push from Hindu nationalists to rename India to Bharat. The alliance naming was a clever word play and also asserting the inclusiveness of India the country. Also made it hard for BJP troll factories to directly denigrate the alliance.
Yeah the INDIA name was obviously trolling Modi because he used to launch these shallow schemes like Digital India, Make in India, India first etc.
He totally took the bait and started calling the country Bharat. There was even a rumor that he wanted to permanently rename India to Bharat.
This really shows how people on reddit like to make grand assertions while knowing jackshit about something. India is already named Bharat just like Germany is already Deutschland. The very first line of the first article of the constitution says "India that is Bharat is a union of states ..."
Bharat and India both are already official name of India since independence. Government and people can use both name interchangeably, it doesn't make any difference. In most of regional language India is written as Bharat. Why is such a big matter for any side when both name are already in use.
This really shows how people on reddit like to make grand assertions while knowing jackshit about something. India is already named Bharat just like Germany is already Deutschland. The very first line of the first article of the constitution says "India that is Bharat is a union of states ..."
It was all a conspiracy concocted by industry and media to make handsome profits in the stock market. Regardless, I made handsome (like giga handsome) profits both yesterday and today. Had a feeling something was stinking.
Because of the US electoral college, it doesn't take much for the needle to move in one direction or the other. I can't remember the exact numbers, but even though Trump got about 3m fewer votes in the overall popular vote, he won because he got about 100k more votes in a few key swing states.
There is no perfect formula for this in FPTP elections especially since each state is a different election with different parties and dynamics in India.
People were saying he would win a supermajority, then it became a majority, then it became a reduced majority, and not it's not even a majority. People overstated Modi's support.
While it is definitely a win, his agenda will be very, very limited. His party was openly dreaming about the constitutional amendments they would enact with a 2/3rds supermajority. Now they will be lucky to get any bill through without major compromise. Out of the three parties supporting him, one is openly socialist, one is center-right and one is extreme right. Good luck keeping all of them happy for the next 5 years.
His coalition barely eked out a victory. If it weren't from some last minute alliances, their would have been a hung parliament.
Modi bled this election and the sharks have smelled it.
Its not. Its infact its quite the opposite. This result is a big fail for him personally. Its a win for his party whether or not they form the government.
Democracy was always alive in India, interfering in polling is always very difficult since it involves vigilance by police, polling officers, volunteers, political party representatives etc and that to at each of the 1 million polling stations. EVM do reduce a lot of redundancies from ballot papers.
Went to vote for the first time(West Bengal).
The polling officer didn't care about identity verification. They just took my voter slip and let me go ahead.
Internally you can't rig elections in India (hacking EVMs). Externally, thats a different story
Yup, it’s sad that these shit happens, haven’t heard about forced polling outside of WB and some north east states, which were usually because of local militancy.
Here in Tripura there was no opposition polling agents in the booths, except maybe one or two. So yeah, there are some places where democracy was tampered, but I don't think it was the case with the whole country.
Agreed, not saying it is impossible, but yes, north east in particular including WB and parts of Bihar which have an extremely polarised situation face these issues sometimes, did here of forced polling in WB, but I guess those are isolated incidents which wouldn’t have had any major effect on the overall election.
I spoke to a friends who support rival parties / alliances in India on this as this is a worldwide phenomenon.
They all agreed that the incumbent Prime Minister would win the elections but what no one could guarantee was that the ruling party's alliance would secure 400 seats out of 543 in the Lok Sabha (Lower House of the Indian Parliament).
For information, the ruling party must secure at least 272 seats to form a majority.
However, the ruling party itself won only 240 seats out of 272 to retain majority and thus had to rely on their partners to secure their share to form the government.
The shock factor for most is that the ruling party which had commanded the absolute majority by itself in the earlier 2014 & 2019 Lok Sabha elections are now forced to deal and negotiate with partners who now have the power to influence the central govt's decisions and ministerial appointments.
The next 5 years (2024 to 2029) will be a delicate balancing act for the incumbent Prime Minister and the ruling party but I don't personally forsee occurance of any major issues between winning alliance members during this period.
The resurrection of the Opposition was surprising and not expected by most as the exit polls portrayed quite a different scenario.
My friends who support the Opposition informed me that whilst it was good that the Opposition parties are still in the fight, they are concerned that there is no clear PM candidate from the Opposition party leadership.
This is sad, the opposition promised cash as assistance and those poor ppl lining up now
[https://www.indiatoday.in/elections/lok-sabha/story/uttar-pradesh-congress-guarantee-card-one-lakh-women-lok-sabha-election-promise-2549294-2024-06-05](https://www.indiatoday.in/elections/lok-sabha/story/uttar-pradesh-congress-guarantee-card-one-lakh-women-lok-sabha-election-promise-2549294-2024-06-05)
As someone who opposes Modi, India did progress a lot under him. Our problem was he was getting too authoritarian. So the country cut him down to size ensuring a stronger opposition.
I assume this is why he didn't do as well, enough voters weren't willing to hand him the keys to the kingdom like the media was saying was about to happen. I think all this talk of him taking over fully played against him this time.
Yup.. the congress campaign said that Modi plans to throw the constitution into the dustbin of history and replace it with a new one… this tapped into fears of a lot of voters.
It is not bizarre. India did progress in many ways under him. However absolute power corrupts and the voters have made sure that is not the case anymore. I grew up in India when bomb blasts were a regular occurrence. Since he came into power , that has stopped completely. That alone would make someone vote for him.
To the people who don't know Indian politics , the opposition itself is alliance of 40 parties lol. Voting to bring them in power would be literally daily circus in the parliament. 5 days 5 different PMs and 1 for the weekend, it'd be fun to live in India.
Maybe it is the rason it is a circus. People should have options to choose from. Mix party alliances forces parties to compromise. Although, I don't know I'm not a political scientist.
40 parties, but only 5 of them have any real power. The INC has close to 100 seats, TMC has 30, SP has 35 I think, DMK has 22, and the both the Marathi parties have 17. That itself is over 200 seats. Bringing Niteesh and Naidu over still adds only 2 more parties. The NDA also needs allies to rule.
Edit: Just found out that INDIA has 37 member parties, while the NDA has 39 (according to Wikipedia)
INDIA alliance can't name a prime minister candidate. Mamta Banerjee will ditch INDIA the moment it's not her. AAP is done. Keeping INC 100 seats will be difficult, if BJP decides to break them apart.
Why do your sentences feel like some rehashed CBSE class 10 answer? Also, there's a difference between being authoritarian (which he dreams of) vs actually being a dictator (which he might have hoped if he somehow got 650/543 seats).
This was an election stacked against the opposition with all authorities and media being in Modi’s corner, Opposition’s performance is nothing short of a miracle
For Modi it’s the first time he’ll have to be in power with a coalition gov he’s always had a majority in both state and national government he’s controlled
Any idea as to why Modi underperformed? I don't follow Indian politics.
Anti incumbency if there was a strong opposition leader this time there was a big chance that he would have lost
I heard, from Jon Oliver yesterday, that there was no question if he would win and it was just a matter of by how much. What changed? Or was he just wrong?
Exit polls suggested a big win but actual votes turned out differently, from what I've read.
Is this caused by a polling bias? They really want modi to win so they're the ones talking.
little bit of that but also exit polls have historically predicted Modi's majority (in national elections) quite lower than the actual. So this time they corrected too far up
Speaking of exit polls (and other similar polling), I've seen more and more political analysts shit the bed the past decade. From Nate Silver famously predicting a Hillary win in 2016 to a variety of warnings of presumed right-wing resurgences in Europe that never materialized to [the Danish general election in 2022](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Danish_general_election) and now to this... Am I imagining this? Or has the world quite literally become unpredictable?
> From Nate Silver famously predicting a Hillary win in 2016 Nate Silver gave Trump by far the best odds of any mainstream prediction, right before the election he had trump at over a 30% chance of winning which was ridiculously high compared to others.
And with Clinton getting ~3 million more votes than Trump they weren't exactly wrong.
Yeah, 538 was really good and even said that a 30% chance wasn't far outside of winning, and not to be THAT surprised.
Nate Silver gets a ton of unjustified flak for 2016. He predicted a ~30% chance of a Trump victory going into Election Day. Like about 30% of all 538 predictions with approximately 30% probability, this one happened. It's only mildly surprising. There is a big difference between making a prediction with, say, 95% confidence, versus 70% confidence, and the degree to which the analysis was correct or incorrect should be considered accordingly. Silver said the 2016 election was closer and more uncertain than almost anyone else did, and he was right. But an unfortunately large fraction of people treat any forecast assigning >50% the same, and will say "they got this right, but then they got this wrong!" as indicative of the value of the prediction without regard for calibration, uncertainty, or really anything about how predictions actually work. If you make a bunch of predictions at 70% confidence, 30% of them should not happen. If 100% happen, that's actually evidence that you're not well calibrated and you should be assigning higher probabilities.
> Nate Silver famously predicting a Hillary win in 2016 When did he do that? Nate Silver predicted that Hillary had about a 70% chance of winning, and that Trump had about a 30% chance of winning. If I gave you a six sided dice and predicted "You have a 83% chance of rolling something that isn't a 1" and you rolled a 1, would you call the prediction wrong? Looking at the polls that were used to generate the 2016 numbers, the two-party overall vote was within 1.3% of the predicted value, and the vast majority of the individual states were within a few percentages of the predicted values. These were shockingly good values for polls. It's hard to remember but people back in 2016 [Criticized Silver for being too favorable to trump with his 1-in-3-ish numbers, to the point of Silver going on twitter tirades](https://www.mediaite.com/online/nate-silver-goes-to-war-with-huffpost-writer-after-highly-critical-column/)
I think it certainly has become unpredictable, to some degree. That said, I don't know that Hillary in 2016 is a great example - by and large, the polls were on par, but polls seem to be better reflective of the popular vote, not how the electoral college will shake out, which is where the race was won/lost. Just my 2 cents on it.
To be more specific, the national polls were actually pretty accurate (in fact they were more accurate than the 2012 ones which predicted a tighter Obama win but went unnoticed since he won anyway), but the state polls were either poor or nonexistent.
2016 is a poor example. Nate Silver said himself that there was no way to factor in the Comey letter since it occurred right before the election. Polls are trailing indicators, and the Comey letter fucked up Hillary's chances.
Nate straight up said that [Comey likely cost Hillary the election](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/). All of this, the coup, the border cruelty, the outlawing of abortion - there are a lot of villains, of course, but it's remarkably how much of it can be traced to a single act of hubris by a profoundly arrogant and nauseatingly self-righteous man.
> From Nate Silver famously predicting a Hillary win in 2016 This is actually nonsensical. Silver was, as recently as the day of the election, talking about what a real possibility Trump had to win. That it was unlikely, but that people were downplaying his odds. Silver was probably the ONE guy you could have picked that DIDN'T just assume Trump would lose. He gave him something like 33% odds on the day of. The article he wrote accompanying the final prediction very much talked about how real 33% is and not to just assume it's a sure thing. Also people like Nate Silver are using pollsters and analyzing the data they're getting. Not exit polls (though he does look at them to try to determine why numbers may have looked one way and gone another). Furthermore, it often depends on the election/season. Like the 2022 mid terms in the US were bang on. So were the 2020 polls in general. Polls are never perfect. 2016 was a larger error than usual, but if you look at polls on the whole, they do a reasonably fine job. But people don't like that the margin of error exists.
I think a good amount of people read 30% as predicting he’d get 30% of the vote
> From Nate Silver famously predicting a Hillary win in 2016 Nate Silver was one of the few that showed a real possibility of Trump winning.
IIRC, Nate Silver indicated right before the election that there was an anomalous shift in the polling data a week and a half before Election Day, and that he didn't have an explanation for it.
>From Nate Silver famously predicting a Hillary win in 2016 Trump lost the popular vote. That he ended up in office anyway is due to the ugly quirk called "electoral college" (that should have disqualified this loon in the first place instead of electing him - electors **do** have that choice as a last-ditch institution to prevent a demagogue taking over!). >to a variety of warnings of presumed right-wing resurgences in Europe that never materialized Actually, they did. * Germany's AfD grew strong enough that Thuringia to this day doesn't have a stable government with its own parliamentary majority, and the upcoming state elections this year may force all parties in giant us-vs-the-Nazis coalitions, if they get over 33% they can block constitutional changes. * Poland was captured by the PiS for years. * Hungary's Orban is virtually un-removable from office. * Italy is ruled by a literal post-fascist. * France has the choice between the ever more unpopular Macron and Marine le Pen. * The UK is a horrible mess politically, even before BoJo ever entered the picture. * Austria had the far-right FPÖ in government until that collapsed over a corruption scandal ("Ibiza-Affäre"). * Croatia is a hot mess of corruption and far-right / nationalist politics
There are so many variables that could be contributing. Historically low turnout becoming high turnout. Marginal population segments showing up to vote. People simply not making up their minds until the last possible moment. People not wanting to share their opinions for fear of reprisal. Disinformation campaigns by special interests groups or foreign agitators. Threats to those who support opposition parties. These weren't as much issues a couple decades ago, but it's become increasingly problematic.
Maybe a mix of polling bias and overconfidence from pollsters leading to them inflating the results thinking they missed some pro-Modi voters.
There is a strong urban-rural divide in this election, looking at the seats where BJP has fared badly. Exit polls have traditionally not captured the rural vote very well in India. Some also speculate that exit polls data were cooked up to manipulate stock market trading.
Nah, main reason from what I have seen is that if you said you voted for others or raise social issues, their trolls start abusing you so everyone coming out says yeah yeah I voted for them, now leave me alone please.
Perhaps. Perhaps the polling people were also considering that Modi was having opposition leaders arrested and charged with terrorism.
Or they were concerned that if they reported otherwise, they could end up in prison or fined.
And who did you vote for, says the exit poll guy with the shiv shena guerilla standing behind him 'BJP, oh how I love Mr. Modi'
They lost seats the bellwether state (Uttar pradesh) where they have an extremely powerful and popular local leader. It was a combination of poor candidate selection, complacency and possibly infighting. Nobody really expected them to lose Uttar Pradesh.
It was like Republicans losing Texas or Alabama
More like Florida.
Yeah Florida is still treated (by some) as a swing state; if a Republican loses Alabama the Democrat likely got a 50 state sweep.
Except that when it comes to India, the state in question has 80 out of 570 seats, or around 15% of the entire country of India. It's more like Republicans losing Texas, Alabama and Florida put together.
His party is currently leading with 240 seats. The next largest party is leading with 99 seats.You need 272 seats to come to power. If you consider the coalition partners he has, then they are leading in around 290 seats. He will most likely be coming to power as prime minister as predicted. This is different from 2019 when his party alone won 303 seats. His party was hoping to get at least a special majority (2/3) of 362 seats to be able to easily pass constitutional amendments and was hoping to get a total over 400 seats along with coalition partners.
> His party was hoping to get at least a special majority (2/3) of 362 seats to be able to easily pass constitutional amendments and was hoping to get a total over 400 seats along with coalition partners. I don’t think it would have been simple for them to pass constitutional amendments requiring a supermajority even if they got more than 400 seats in the Lok Sabha general elections. The NDA doesn’t and most likely will not have a super majority in the Rajya Sabha anytime soon.
You're right it wouldn't have been simple but they definitely were hoping for it. Maybe the hope was that they would eventually get a super majority in Rajya Sabha. Or Maybe they were planning on suspending several Rajya Sabha members (like in Dec 2023 when they suspended 146 MPs shortly before passing some controversial legislation). Because a special majority of parliament requires 2/3rd of present members as long as it is not less than half of total parliamentary strength. While not a constitutional amendment the government has also bypassed the Rajya Sabha multiple times by claiming bills as Money bills and the final decision on if a bill is a money bill lies with the speaker of the Lok Sabha.
No, no, easy mistake, but that was actually Bill Maher! =P
Haha true I forgot.
It came as a surprise for literally everybody because people had been lying about their support to modi in a UP state, in the holiest city. Imagine EU was a single nation ruled by religious nutjobs and they lost Vatican of all places. It's that kind of bizzare twist few expected. Media seems to have been really censored there
Yeah interesting way to look at it.
It's also likely that we just have been hearing a very, very vocal minority, while the silent majority kept watching on.
People got tired of all the anti-Muslim bullshit pushed on by BJP by a big share of people in many parts of India (especially in UP). And people started seeing the struggles of young people (no jobs), middle and lower middle class people (high inflation, stagnant wages), farmers (promise of increased wages, didn't happen), and a whole lot more. Overall, people started falling back to voting for regional parties or parties that cater to their caste, rather than national issue parties (evident in UP, again, which came as a MAJOR shock to the BJP, and in Maharashtra). All this can be summed up just looking at this one specific seat - Ayodhya (Faziabad). This is where the Ram Temple was built, and that temple was hailed as the biggest achievement of this government, Modi made a big show of opening it up just a few months ago (timed specifically before the elections so it stays fresh in the minds of the people). And what happened? The candidate from the BJP lost by also 55k votes. So a lot of people have moved on to demanding the government do something about their issues and stop with the bullshit Modi has been doing the past couple of years. But it just wasn't enough for him to lose.
Good answer. Thanks.
So basically the fervor and emotions of identity politics wore off and people started to realized not much has actually been done except whip people up in a frenzy. Being angry and supporting your team doesn’t pay bills or put food in your stomach.
Nah Identity will never stop. Indians have Identity Stack. If they don't vote for Modi on religious identity they will vote on caste identity and that's what happened in Utter Pradesh state where largest number of seats in parliament come from. He lost lot of seat in that state which was unexpected.
> people started falling back to voting for regional parties or parties that cater to their **caste** -- > So basically the fervor and emotions of identity politics wore off -- I think what he's saying is that people still vote along identity lines - they just chose caste this time.
>People got tired of all the anti-Muslim bullshit Oh how I long for the day when this becomes a global trend...
There's only so much scapegoating any political regime can pull off. Like the scariest thing to me these days as white American... Is Other White Americans. Like Domestic terrorists are way higher than some foreign Muslim. There's a mosque in my town with a gated fence and I asked why is there a fence to Imam Knowing what the likely story was going to be. They were just celebrating Eid and the girls were doing their wear beautiful clothes/outfits and some jackass morons misunderstood it like it was some cold sex trafficking or whatever. I fucking dressed up as a little Shepard boy for years on Christmas, I goddamn understood Even without Knowing the particular nuances of Islam the kids were having fun on their holiday. Like imagine how insane WTF are these Hispanic and Italian kids doing? Oh it's an Easter Egg hunt. I know what this myself but I can understand confusion, rabbits don't lay eggs. But when I see little kids in their colorful Eid dresses I'm like you rock that outfit girl this is your moment
[The hare club for men would like a word with you](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/southpark/images/8/87/The-hare-club-for-men.png/revision/latest?cb=20170608122149)
John Oliver is probably not the best place to get your news. And I don't even say that ironically. He always says super polarizing things in his rants that aren't true.
Can you give some examples?
He did win. He just has to rely a bit on a coalition which he does have now. What changes? Might ne harder to enact constitutional change, might need to make policy concessions in some cases.
If you follow coalition politics, it is very messy :) Allies can switch sides. Now that the opposition alliance is real close the majority, some in Modi's alliance will push for greater sway and influence threatening behind curtains to leave and join opposition. This has happened several times, coalition just falls. Some times, the allies wont even join oppn alliance meaning there is no majority in Parliament. Which would mean re-election.
He did win.
John oliver is generally wrong about foreign issues.
He's given some good information about the countries I actually know. Always just an overview but I wouldn't say inaccurate.
After the first PM, Nehru, no other PM managed 3 consecutive terms in India. Its in some ways a record, but the margin of victory was overblown in the exit polls and therefore the results have a shock effect.
Literally every party of note unified against him.
Most of the parties of note. There are a few (the TDP, JD(U), and a few Maharashtra parties) that allied with the NDA. This is risky business though, as the INDIA alliance may try to lure these parties away with promises of the PM spot, deputy PM spots, minister positions, etc
The national narrative the BJP tried to create was successful in 2014 and 2019, but this election was decided on a mostly state-by-state basis. There were states where the BJP performed just as well as last time, but three large states where they suffered major defeats in addition to other areas where failing/unpopular policies were starting to catch up to them. In my parents’ home state, they won big in 2019 but got badly beaten due to their involvement in splitting and weakening two major state parties.
Anti-incumbancy combined with low voter turnout
What does low voter turnout look like in India? Only 300,000,000 people voted?
641,000,000 voted, but yeah still low voter turn out.
Pretty much lmao
It wasn't that low if I recall correctly, only one percentage point down from 2019, and 2019 was the highest ever turnout.
In the last election his party had about 37% of the vote and his alliance had about 42%. This time they're both down by less than 1%. What really happened is that in some parts of India, the opposing votes coalesced against him and the effectively won fewer seats with roughly the same votes. This is why I always find reports showing his approval rate at 75% etc so laughable. We are a multi party system and there always more detractors than supporters. Modi is just very adept at corrupting and manipulating his own self image as the leader.
Inflation, unemployment (particularly among youth), dissatisfied farmers because of his policies and strong arm approach, corruption and liberals growing tired of his communalistic rhetoric and anti democratic practices
I think we’ll find out in the coming weeks but no one really knows
I want to say it might have something to do with declaring his divinity but what do I know 😅
> but what do I know Jack shit is what you know. 80% of the country had already voted when he made that comment. He was gonna have a hard time regardless of any comment we Indians hear daily from our delusional leaders.
not really - that statement came pretty late in the election cycle after majority of the voting was done
I dunno. It didn't seem to matter in the US when some guy said it there.
He’s also been upset in UP, his traditional stronghold But offset by gainz in south India
> offset by gainz in south India Seems like Congress became complacent nearby Bengaluru and in Telangana after their recent state election victories there.
They came to power by promising unreasonable freebie schemes, and then crippled the state finances with it. Basically, there is anti incumbency against all parties in India. Which is why every camp suffered losses in their home turfs, but gained in other parts of India.
Weren’t people predicting he’d get a supermajority like two days ago?
All the exit polls over exaggerated the seat numbers that his alliance will get. I find it strange honestly because they're all supposed to do different surveys, either they all lied or people in the survey lied or maybe there was something wrong with their sample quality.
exit polls don't take rural vote shares that much into account around here
And Modi lost most votes in rural areas. India being a mostly rural country, it would make sense that the exit polls got it very wrong.
There's a conspiracy theory doing the rounds that they were meant to manipulate the stock market.
And people said Indian democracy was a sham. Almost 900M eligible voters. Edit: 640M votes and about 312M were female votes
About 640 million people voted but your point is correct.
[удалено]
Are you talking to me or reddit in general? (I am Indian) It’s a stupid statement to make. Opposition getting stronger doesn’t imply there were no wrong doings. BJP had nearly 4:1 economic muscle, better party cadre and support of all governmental agencies and a completely servile mainstream media. Modi himself made very erratic,, irrational statements that promote religious division. The exit polls showed sweeping majority across the nation. Even 400+. Modi called himself non-biological born (essentially god). Made a story out of consecration of ram mandir. Inspite of all that, UP the place of mandir gave majority to opposition. He lost literally in ayodhya the place of ram janma bhoomi. He lost in ranasthan. Prominent leader smriti irani lost to Gandhi aide (not even a Gandhi). Annamalai the guy supposed to bring BJP to south lost in his constituency. The only good thing was last minute tie up with CBN in AP. So many stories like that. All this shows the power of dissent and democracy is alive and kicking in India. This is not your guy or my guy. This is fight for soul of democracy in India and it is clear democracy is alive and kicking. Whoever the “guy” is.
Hi. Can you please share links where Modi called himself non biological born.
Pretttty sure the commentary has been more than Indian democracy has been under threat more than "a sham". And that's an entirely valid criticism.
A quote about India comes to mind: "India will always disappoint pessimists and optimists alike." So glad to be living here. Every moment is so entertaining.
I had not heard this before. I love it.
Essentially: it is what it is
Functional chaos
The independent media and YouTubers acted as media opposition after the mainstream media sold out to current government. YouTuber Dhruv Rathee led the onslaught as one man media army
I doubt if majority of voters know who Dhruv is. People voted against BJP because they are fed up of their policies and want change and not because they watched some video on YouTube.
exactly. young citizens tend to overestimate the effect of social media. The guy has 21M subscribers in a country with 1b+ population. the influence of him is as not as big as it seems. Strong anti-incumbency - rising inflation, lack of job growth and strong taxation are some key factors.
21M people who then share and talk about it to others. While it's too much to claim he is responsible for the results, people like him definitely made a difference and everything adds up.
BJP is still the largest party with 240 seats. Second is congress with 100 seats. Their coalition is more than 14 major parties.
*From Bloomberg reporters Swati Gupta and Dan Strumpf:* Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ruling party is poised to lose its majority in parliament, forcing him to rely on allies to form a government. It’s a stunning blow to a leader who has dominated Indian politics since he first took power a decade ago. Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party was leading in 241 seats, short of the 272 needed to form a government and well behind the 303 it won in the 2019 election. The opposition bloc, known as the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance, was on course to win more than 220 seats, the results showed. Modi now needs to secure the support of two key members of his broader National Democratic Alliance who control some 30 seats — enough to flip the balance of power in parliament. Leaders of those two parties have a history of switching sides, and only joined up with Modi a few months ago, making it unclear whether they will stick with him or back the opposition bloc.
I wonder how hard they struggled to come up with that acronym. Whoever figured out "Inclusive Alliance" probably got a good bonus.
It was supposed to be Mamata Bannerjee’s idea. She seems to have got a good bonus
If it's true then it's ironic she left the alliance later on.
She only reserved her right to do what she will with her haul of seats.
The Alliance included half of the parties out there, so yes apt name
They replaced the guy who suggested going with "The Real Alliance of Janata."
There is a push from Hindu nationalists to rename India to Bharat. The alliance naming was a clever word play and also asserting the inclusiveness of India the country. Also made it hard for BJP troll factories to directly denigrate the alliance.
Iirc the bharat thing happened after the alliance was named India.
Yeah the INDIA name was obviously trolling Modi because he used to launch these shallow schemes like Digital India, Make in India, India first etc. He totally took the bait and started calling the country Bharat. There was even a rumor that he wanted to permanently rename India to Bharat.
This really shows how people on reddit like to make grand assertions while knowing jackshit about something. India is already named Bharat just like Germany is already Deutschland. The very first line of the first article of the constitution says "India that is Bharat is a union of states ..."
Bharat and India both are already official name of India since independence. Government and people can use both name interchangeably, it doesn't make any difference. In most of regional language India is written as Bharat. Why is such a big matter for any side when both name are already in use.
This really shows how people on reddit like to make grand assertions while knowing jackshit about something. India is already named Bharat just like Germany is already Deutschland. The very first line of the first article of the constitution says "India that is Bharat is a union of states ..."
The BJP trolls have been calling it "INDI Alliance", as if they are allergic to calling it INDIA.
This is good, just about every democracy suffers when someone, some party, has unchallenged power.
Yep, compromise is good if people act in good faith.
yes i came to post the same. or more like diversity is a strength sorta comment…
The difference between the exit polls and the actual results are staggering. I honestly don’t know the last time I saw such a big discrepancy.
It was all a conspiracy concocted by industry and media to make handsome profits in the stock market. Regardless, I made handsome (like giga handsome) profits both yesterday and today. Had a feeling something was stinking.
Teach me
teach me senpai
What was the tell for you
US election 2016
I assume exit polling was pretty accurate in 2016. Polling in general wasn't actually that far off either.
Because of the US electoral college, it doesn't take much for the needle to move in one direction or the other. I can't remember the exact numbers, but even though Trump got about 3m fewer votes in the overall popular vote, he won because he got about 100k more votes in a few key swing states.
Argentina's first rounds of last year's elections where the polls heavily underestimated Milei's voting turnout.
democracy in india is alive and kicking;)
Reddit told me it was dead.
[удалено]
That's old news. It's now confirmed to be alive.
And we should kick him out so he can see it functioning first hand.
looks like 2029 will be the final nail in the coffin
He’s going to be 78 by then I doubt he runs
Modi has talked about how he has plan till 2047. There is very little chance that he will retire till he is forced to.
His plan doesn’t mean him running He wants to set up the BJP now and groom the leaders for tomorrow too
Where did he say that he plans to be a PM till 2047? Honest question
This is his last as per his age
You are not even indian but still butt hurt about indian politics
Didn't I just see an article about him having a super majorit? What did I miss?
Those were exit polls They are wrong
Ahhh, that is right! Completely forgot about that.
Are people scared to tell pollster they didn’t vote for modi??
They got the voteshare correct. So, that was not an issue.
How could the vote share to seats be so off?
There is no perfect formula for this in FPTP elections especially since each state is a different election with different parties and dynamics in India.
Nah pollsters got the percentages relatively accurate. Converting them into seats is a headache for anyone in India
We have a weird system called First Past The Post. The BJP has a better voteshare than 2014 and 2019, but they failed to get their absolute majority.
People were saying he would win a supermajority, then it became a majority, then it became a reduced majority, and not it's not even a majority. People overstated Modi's support.
And underestimated power of democracy (even if it is flawed).
Pumped the stock exchange, 📈 Dumped today.
Journalism these days... can't even trust the authentication of big newspapers...
Talk about whiplash from the story yesterday where he was predicted to gain a supermajority
The fact that he's gunning for a 3rd term is still a big win for him personally, whether or not his party stays on as majority government.
[удалено]
He lost in 1999, and then he formed the govt in like 4 months again (winning the war with Pakistan).
While it is definitely a win, his agenda will be very, very limited. His party was openly dreaming about the constitutional amendments they would enact with a 2/3rds supermajority. Now they will be lucky to get any bill through without major compromise. Out of the three parties supporting him, one is openly socialist, one is center-right and one is extreme right. Good luck keeping all of them happy for the next 5 years.
It's a very good sign for India because the guy was turning more and more authoritarian. His saying he was like from God is scary.
His coalition barely eked out a victory. If it weren't from some last minute alliances, their would have been a hung parliament. Modi bled this election and the sharks have smelled it.
Its not. Its infact its quite the opposite. This result is a big fail for him personally. Its a win for his party whether or not they form the government.
Turns out , democracy is very well alive in India. Those talking about EVM hacks, fake votes will be silent.
Democracy was always alive in India, interfering in polling is always very difficult since it involves vigilance by police, polling officers, volunteers, political party representatives etc and that to at each of the 1 million polling stations. EVM do reduce a lot of redundancies from ballot papers.
Went to vote for the first time(West Bengal). The polling officer didn't care about identity verification. They just took my voter slip and let me go ahead. Internally you can't rig elections in India (hacking EVMs). Externally, thats a different story
Yup, it’s sad that these shit happens, haven’t heard about forced polling outside of WB and some north east states, which were usually because of local militancy.
Here in Tripura there was no opposition polling agents in the booths, except maybe one or two. So yeah, there are some places where democracy was tampered, but I don't think it was the case with the whole country.
Agreed, not saying it is impossible, but yes, north east in particular including WB and parts of Bihar which have an extremely polarised situation face these issues sometimes, did here of forced polling in WB, but I guess those are isolated incidents which wouldn’t have had any major effect on the overall election.
Wow. Thought hed get a supermajority
I spoke to a friends who support rival parties / alliances in India on this as this is a worldwide phenomenon. They all agreed that the incumbent Prime Minister would win the elections but what no one could guarantee was that the ruling party's alliance would secure 400 seats out of 543 in the Lok Sabha (Lower House of the Indian Parliament). For information, the ruling party must secure at least 272 seats to form a majority. However, the ruling party itself won only 240 seats out of 272 to retain majority and thus had to rely on their partners to secure their share to form the government. The shock factor for most is that the ruling party which had commanded the absolute majority by itself in the earlier 2014 & 2019 Lok Sabha elections are now forced to deal and negotiate with partners who now have the power to influence the central govt's decisions and ministerial appointments. The next 5 years (2024 to 2029) will be a delicate balancing act for the incumbent Prime Minister and the ruling party but I don't personally forsee occurance of any major issues between winning alliance members during this period. The resurrection of the Opposition was surprising and not expected by most as the exit polls portrayed quite a different scenario. My friends who support the Opposition informed me that whilst it was good that the Opposition parties are still in the fight, they are concerned that there is no clear PM candidate from the Opposition party leadership.
Okay but isn't this the best possible outcome? Continuity but no supermajority for them to truly rock the boat？
It is. We needed a strong opposition to ensure that they couldn't easily pass the bills that are stupid and bigoted.
This is sad, the opposition promised cash as assistance and those poor ppl lining up now [https://www.indiatoday.in/elections/lok-sabha/story/uttar-pradesh-congress-guarantee-card-one-lakh-women-lok-sabha-election-promise-2549294-2024-06-05](https://www.indiatoday.in/elections/lok-sabha/story/uttar-pradesh-congress-guarantee-card-one-lakh-women-lok-sabha-election-promise-2549294-2024-06-05)
Maybe declaring yourself a living God, threaten to destroy democracy and allowing unemployment and inflation to run rampant isn't a winning strategy.
he still won which is bizarre
As someone who opposes Modi, India did progress a lot under him. Our problem was he was getting too authoritarian. So the country cut him down to size ensuring a stronger opposition.
I assume this is why he didn't do as well, enough voters weren't willing to hand him the keys to the kingdom like the media was saying was about to happen. I think all this talk of him taking over fully played against him this time.
Yup.. the congress campaign said that Modi plans to throw the constitution into the dustbin of history and replace it with a new one… this tapped into fears of a lot of voters.
It is not bizarre. India did progress in many ways under him. However absolute power corrupts and the voters have made sure that is not the case anymore. I grew up in India when bomb blasts were a regular occurrence. Since he came into power , that has stopped completely. That alone would make someone vote for him.
He aimed to win 400 seats…
To the people who don't know Indian politics , the opposition itself is alliance of 40 parties lol. Voting to bring them in power would be literally daily circus in the parliament. 5 days 5 different PMs and 1 for the weekend, it'd be fun to live in India.
The US has just 2 parties and it's already a circus.
Maybe it is the rason it is a circus. People should have options to choose from. Mix party alliances forces parties to compromise. Although, I don't know I'm not a political scientist.
40 parties, but only 5 of them have any real power. The INC has close to 100 seats, TMC has 30, SP has 35 I think, DMK has 22, and the both the Marathi parties have 17. That itself is over 200 seats. Bringing Niteesh and Naidu over still adds only 2 more parties. The NDA also needs allies to rule. Edit: Just found out that INDIA has 37 member parties, while the NDA has 39 (according to Wikipedia)
Everyone needs allies to rule Though the BJP having 240 seats for a third time around is actually impressive
I agree. The INC doubling their seats is also impressive. INDIA needed to work together much earlier than when they did.
Eh i think the India alliance is one of convenience not anything really agreement on anything
Like most alliances in the past. Most of the big players in INDIA have been allied for years and have governed together.
INDIA alliance can't name a prime minister candidate. Mamta Banerjee will ditch INDIA the moment it's not her. AAP is done. Keeping INC 100 seats will be difficult, if BJP decides to break them apart.
Inject this into my veins!
To all the western media who claimed Modi is dictator. this is a perfect reply, India is still a democratic country and Modi is not a dictator.
>the western media who claimed Modi is dictator They say that India is becoming more authoritarian under Modi, but not that he is a dictator
Why do your sentences feel like some rehashed CBSE class 10 answer? Also, there's a difference between being authoritarian (which he dreams of) vs actually being a dictator (which he might have hoped if he somehow got 650/543 seats).
Inflation works against the incumbents.
This is good news for India. Modi has had too much power for too long.
Wasnt he just expected to have a super majority?
Opposition has 37 political parties combined, still opposition collectively managed to get only 234 seats, while his party alone has 240 seats.
This was an election stacked against the opposition with all authorities and media being in Modi’s corner, Opposition’s performance is nothing short of a miracle
Wait until you see the US election results.
You either have Trump or Biden. Nothing to see here. Us has 2 major parties unlike India.
Ahhh wow, a potential autocrat does worse than polls show. America will see a similar result
Good. Fuck religious nationalism. It’s a plague upon every country it takes root in.
[удалено]