**** Elections thread *****

[Poopadoop]

Jesus tapdancing Christ!!

It's this kind of group identity mentality that is moving the democratic party further towards the radical left.

Do you not see how fucking dumb this game you're playing is??

Sounds like someone's a bit butthurt about that 26% swing.

[BananaStand]

Sounds like someone's a bit butthurt about that 26% swing.

Sounds like cognitive dissonance.

[Poopadoop]

Sounds like cognitive dissonance.

26% swing.

[BananaStand]

26% swing.

Seems the polls were wrong......AGAIN.

If Lamb wins, it will be by a razor thin margin of a few hundred votes. We're now 13 hours past polls-closing time and it's still "too close to call", though it seems a Lamb win is likely.

Mr. Poopypants seems to think that Lamb's win is tantamount to a rejection of Trump. Except Lamb is pro-gun, pro-tariff, and anti-Pelosi.

I'm not seeing how this looms as some kind of bellwether to a Democrat ascension in the midterms. But if that helps you sleep better for the next 8 months.....go ahead and keep thinking that.

[Poopadoop]

Seems the polls were wrong......AGAIN.

Seems like you don't understand basic statistical concepts like measurement error - again.

Alternatively, you think a 20% swing is a lot different than a 26% swing.

So let me make it simple for you. Regardless of who wins:

20% swing.

Lamb's win is tantamount to a rejection of Trump. Except Lamb is pro-gun, pro-tariff, and anti-Pelosi.

Just a coincidence that Trump won that county by 20% in 2016, and now his approval/disapproval is around 50/50, and the special election is about 50/50.

Just a coincidence that the same blue wave has been showing up in every special election/governor election since Trump became president.

What are the odds of these things happening by chance alone? Can you do the math on that? I mean I know you can't, so just take that as a rhetorical question.

[Poopadoop]

Special elections since Trump:

Kansas: 2016 won by R by 31 points. 2017: Won by R by 7 points. Swing +24% D.
Montana : 2016 won by R by 15 points. 2017: Won by R by 6 points. Swing +9% D.
California: only D candidates ran in 2017 S.E.
Georgia: 2016 won by R by 23 points. 2017: Won by R by 3 points. Swing +20% D.
SC: 2016 won by R 21 points. 2017: Won by R by 3 points. Swing +18% D.
Utah: 2016 won by R 47 points. 2017: Won by R 32 points. Swing +15% D.
PA: 2016 won by R 20 points. 2017: tossup (0 points). Swing +20% D.

See a pattern there?

[BananaStand]

See a pattern there?

Bad science. Go do the same analysis of special elections during the first years of the Reagan, Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama administrations then tell me if anything in your previous two posts amounts to a hill of dogshit

[wufwugy]

Special elections since Trump:

Kansas: 2016 won by R by 31 points. 2017: Won by R by 7 points. Swing +24% D.
Montana : 2016 won by R by 15 points. 2017: Won by R by 6 points. Swing +9% D.
California: only D candidates ran in 2017 S.E.
Georgia: 2016 won by R by 23 points. 2017: Won by R by 3 points. Swing +20% D.
SC: 2016 won by R 21 points. 2017: Won by R by 3 points. Swing +18% D.
Utah: 2016 won by R 47 points. 2017: Won by R 32 points. Swing +15% D.
PA: 2016 won by R 20 points. 2017: tossup (0 points). Swing +20% D.

See a pattern there?

I see a pattern. One that seems to be univariate in a multivariate world, one that probably has some real heteroskedasticity problems, and other statistical jargon I don't know about.

Let's analyze the ongoing PA election.

It has a 20% swing from R to D from 2016 when voting Trump to 2018 and Trump is not on the ballot. The district has a 50k net of D voters normally. It's in a district that won't exist in a few months. The previous R congressman in the district was humiliated and shamed over an affair and (reportedly) attempted abortion. The R in the current race has little personal appeal and poor fundraising. The D in the race ran as an R, specifically as a very Trumpian R.

The 20% swing data by itself tells the wrong story about what actually happened here.