Nikhil T wrote:1971 GE elections happened 9 months before the war. So the war couldn't have influenced the election anyway.
People vote someone who won a war, and can win an imminent war - everyone in 1971 was aware there was a war coming - IG was elected to ensure political leadership would be united following the turmoil of the late 1960s. Old-timers from that period here would confirm this.
Nikhil T wrote:More generally, I don't know why you would not accept that Pulwama impacted the elections. Its a well established notion that wars unite the country under a strong leader (e.g. Falkland war and Thatcher). That leader was Modi and he reaped full political advantage of it.
Because it's a common fallacy with no data to support it. Wars win elections sure. Sympathy to a terrorist attack wins votes. Even doles win votes.
NONE of these have any history of ever having caused an incumbent anywhere in the world to be re-elected by margins that make FPTP redundant, from a turnout that breaks historical records twice in a row, for an incumbent. Please look for it. I've searched essentially all of the western world and Japan. There's no evidence.
Thatcher was relected with a substantially lower turnout in
1983, and a 1.5% negative swing in voteshare - her gains were FPTP because #3 ate from #1 and #2. Reagan was elected in 1984 with a piddling 53% turnout, just 0.5% up from 1980. More people turned out to vote for Trump in 2016 than Reagan in 1984. ABV saw a drop in turnout in 1999 weeks after Kargil War. Despite the Mumbai attacks, GE 2009 turnout was only 58%, just slightly above long term average. 2019 saw 68% turnout, an enormous 5 pp higher than in 1984 after IG's assassination, the previous high water mark in turnout.
Sops: Rs.2000 a year earned 303 seats, 50% voteshare in almost 20 states with 68% turnout but the far more expansive MNREGA in 2009 earned 206 seats, far lower turnout and a whole 10pp lower turnout ?
Nikhil T wrote:Suraj wrote:
No one gets that kind of a result due to a single terrorist event, or a sop. There's no record to back any such thing up.
The source is above. What Dr Patil said on a tweet or whether this is "what media wanted us to believe" as @sudarshan said is upto you to believe. The source (Republic TV) is anyway the most "reliable" that RW accepts.
I followed PP very closely during GE2019, and contributed to him multiple times despite the controversy about his methods then (Do you remember it ? He was accused of being a fraud and many stopped donating), and I remember his posts very well. He repeatedly hammered home the development message,
far more than Pulwama or any Rs.2K payouts to farmers. Please look for his posts on "Labharthi" , feel free to count how many times he refers to that vs Pulwama or even the PM Kisan yojana. You'll find the former being mentioned 1-2 orders of magnitude more.