Timeline for How often do snap elections end up in favor of the side that triggered them?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16 at 5:43 | comment | added | Obie 2.0 | @T.E.D. - True, but if the parties that call snap elections are ones that have high odds of losing later on, perhaps a 50% chance of winning the election is worth the risk, because it is still better than what they would have later. | |
| Jun 15 at 14:17 | comment | added | 264 champagne bottles on ice | It's especially disgraceful for you to try to close a more general (and much older) Q (mine) as duplicate of this where you only answer with UK data! | |
| Jun 14 at 22:37 | history | edited | ohwilleke♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
punctuation
|
| Jun 14 at 14:49 | comment | added | Steve | I think the sense in which "snap" is being used, is when the election seems to have been called under political circumstances where it might have seemed unlikely that the incumbent would want to go to the polls, or appears to be a sudden political gambit. So Sunak is calling a "snap" election, even though the timing is roughly normal, because he could have delayed until December, so dire does it already look for him. | |
| Jun 14 at 14:07 | comment | added | T.E.D. | I'm seeing 4/9 successes. Probably not a statistically significant result, but it looks like the results on a binary scale are roughly the same as flipping a coin. | |
| Jun 14 at 5:31 | history | edited | James K | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 84 characters in body
|
| Jun 14 at 5:26 | history | edited | James K | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 84 characters in body
|
| Jun 14 at 5:15 | history | edited | James K | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 171 characters in body
|
| Jun 14 at 5:08 | history | edited | James K | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 171 characters in body
|
| Jun 14 at 4:59 | history | answered | James K | CC BY-SA 4.0 |