this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2025
830 points (99.5% liked)

News

33143 readers
3242 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The Democrats were furious Monday over eight senators who caved to support a deal to end the government shutdown that does not include the Affordable Care Act subsidies their party had spent weeks fighting for.

The offending lawmakers include Democratic Senators Dick Durbin, Tim Kaine, Jacky Rosen, John Fetterman, Catherine Cortez Masto, Maggie Hassan, Jeanne Shaheen, and independent Senator Angus King, who claimed that they’d ensured a Senate vote on extending the tax credits. Their capitulation comes after House Speaker Mike Johnson insisted for weeks that he wouldn’t promise them a vote on anything, and even if he does follow through with a vote, it’s unlikely such a measure will pass the House.

Democratic lawmakers slammed their colleagues for forfeiting health care coverage for an estimated 5.1 million Americans by 2034 and increasing premiums across the marketplace.

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders railed against the deal while speaking before the Senate Sunday. “If this vote succeeds, over 20 million Americans are gonna see at least a doubling in their premiums in the Affordable Care Act,” he said. “For certain groups of people, it will be a tripling and a quadrupling of their premiums. There are people who will now be paying 50 percent of their limited incomes for health care. Does anybody in the world think that makes sense?”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] khannie@lemmy.world 16 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Only 13 Dem senators are up for re-election in 2026, so I don't think its that surprising that none of the 8 that voted for this aren't.

There are only 48, right? And of those 13 are up for re-election. That's better than 1 in 4. To look at 8 defectors and none of them be up seems..... Highly coincidental at best.

[–] zarenki@lemmy.ml 12 points 4 days ago (1 children)

For this to happen by pure chance, that 8 randomly selected people from a group of 48 includes none of the 13 that are up for re-election, the odds are 6.2%. Not impossible but unlikely enough to doubt it's a coincidence.

(For math people: this can be modeled as a hypergeometric distribution with N=48, K=13, n=8, k=0.)

[–] monotremata@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 days ago

(For math people: this can be modeled as a hypergeometric distribution with N=48, K=13, n=8, k=0.)

I suspect most people haven't heard these terms. But they should have studied basic combinatorics in high school, and that's all it really is. You had a pool of 48 people from whom to choose 8, but you happened to choose them from the specific pool of 35 not up for reelection. So the likelihood of that happening randomly is just 35 choose 8 / 48 choose 8, which is indeed 6.2%.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 4 points 4 days ago

its probably those 13, schumer is shielding.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Simple random samples (uniform probability for each individual) without replacement follow the hypergeometric distribution. However, humans aren't random, know when they go up for re-election, and decide accordingly, so the probability for each individual is not uniform. We could expect a much higher probability for this outcome than that of a simple random sample.

[–] MajorasTerribleFate@lemmy.zip 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I ran the numbers on the "purely random" scenario, and it's a 5.77% chance that none of 8 randomly selected from a group of 47 would be from a subgroup of 13 (34/47 * 33/46 * 32/45...)

I ran them again under the Totally Accurate Wild Guess of those 13 being 3 times as likely to cave as the others, and the odds of all 8 being from that set is 34.4%.

Ramping it up to 10 times as likely, 71.5%.

The 50% mark happens around 4.73 times as likely.

None of these numbers are meant to convince anyone of anything, they're just provided for whatever anyone wants them for.

[–] khannie@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

That's exactly my point. :)