|
|
 Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Not a valid comparison by any means.
Exactly
Right
That's generally correct, yes.
Good. Now try considering that in your analysis
Only inasmuch as the swing makes a meaningful difference. An election is winner-takes-all. The impact of a swing that changes a safe district into a toss up is meaningful. The impact of a swing that has no potential outcome on the election is not.
So....why is the Lamb victory meaningful? There's going to be a whole new election in November for ALL of PA's congressional districts in November. The district that Lamb just won won't even exist by then. This special election doesn't have any effect on the outcome of anything. So why are you so emboldened by this 26% swing?
Nope, I'm comparing congressional elections with congressional special elections that took place a year after a general election.
Maybe that's what you're doing now. But that was definitely NOT the aim of the Politico article you linked originally. Maybe I should coin a phrase "reductivio al poopicus". I doubt it will catch on because this already has a name. It's called "moving the goalpost".
That argument would be a lot more convincing if Trump had smashed PA in 2016. He didn't.
You don't think he did? What do you consider "smashing"??
Didn't you just get through saying how impressive it is when a candidate makes gains in an opposing party's stronghold? How would you describe Trump's victory in PA then?
|
Reply With Quote