**** Elections thread *****

[Poopadoop]

Exactly


Right


Good. Now try considering that in your analysis

You said nothing of note nor provided any argument about anything related to my reporting of the results of congressional special elections. And now you advise me to apply these non-sequiturs to my analysis. Tell you what - they're your statements, why don't you apply them and make a logical case for how they alter the conclusions?

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?

I never said I was emboldened by it. Your response to me posting the 26% figure for PA was:

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??

which I took to imply that you thought such a figure had little significance. I then went on to argue that it represents a general trend against Trump, for which I provided evidence from all the special congressional elections that have taken place since he became president. Your response to that was:

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

Which I did for the previous two presidents, showing again it was something other than a hill of dogshit.

I won the argument through the numbers. You lost.

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".

Actually this is another reductio ad bananum. I never said I agreed with everything written in the Politico article, those are your assumptions. My argument has been and continues to be that Trump is facing a severe drop in popularity since he became president, and this is evident in the results of these special elections.

If you want to argue with what's in the Politico article, go write a letter to Politico. I was only quoting it as a source for the numbers I was using.

You don't think he did?

He won by .7% in 2016. No I don't consider that 'smashing'.

What do you consider "smashing"??

Winning by a comfortable margin at the very least. Barely scraping a victory by < 1 % doesn't qualify. You see, < 1% is a very small margin of victory. 10% is larger and 20% is very large. See how easy it is to think with numbers?

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?

Romney lost in PA in 2012 by ~6%. So, Trump's gain in PA relative to Romney in 2012 was ~6%. Now his nominal popularity has gone down in one PA county by 20%. Draw whatever conclusions you like.

You see, if Trump had won PA by 40% then a swing of 20% would be a lot less threatening to him, because there would still be a cushion. If you win by a small amount like .7% then even a tiny swing can change ownership of the state.