**** Elections thread *****

[Poopadoop]

Is the D changing over the sample not heteroskedastic?

The D swings are the outcome variable, the predictor variable is 2016 vs. 2017. If, say, you measured the swings across a number of years, say 2008, 2010...2016, and the variability in the swings differed depending on which two years you were comparing (i.e., which two years you examined a number of swings over) that would be an example of heteroscedacity.

That's fine. Per the definitions you use, the objective analysis, while perhaps objective, is insufficient enough as to not provide much confidence in the conclusion.

That's your subjective opinion.

I'm not attempting to explain that I understand what conclusion the data converges on, though I am saying that if the claim is that if there was a swing away from Trump because there was an R to D swing yet the D in this swing ran as a very Trumpian R, the data showing the swing is ill used when used to claim there was a swing away from Trump and/or R.

The claim though is a bit more general than this particular special election in PA. To 'debunk' it you would typically be expected to provide an alternative explanation for every one of those 6 swings. Arguably, these would become more and more complicated until your model includes several extra variables to explain each case. My model only has one variable, Trump. Doesn't mean the more complex model can't be true, but in scientific inference generally the simpler model is preferred.