**** Elections thread *****

[BananaStand]

They may be trying to indoctrinate Latinos and make a permanent voting bloc that gives them Florida and eventually Texas.

that is most definitely what they are doing.

The democrats have NOTHING to offer the middle class. They win based on two things:

1) Economic policies that benefit the lower class
2) Divisive identity politics that make republicans seem toxic, regardless of how sensible their policies might be

Immigration expands #1, and #2 expands immigration.

[wufwugy]

Trump could fuck that up though. He's pretty much dared Sessions to take down sanctuary city policies. And Sessions doesn't seem to have much else on his plate. So if he is successful in getting a federal circuit and/or supreme court to declare sanctuary cities illegal (which they most certainly are), then that kinda takes all the bite out of any debate on the issue.

Sanctuary city policies are suicide if Dems attempt to take that message nation-wide. But Trump could pull that sword away before the Dems have a chance to fall on it.

Is it possible that he is just too good of a President to win a second term?

Could be that the Democrats would go on offense in favor of sanctuary cities in that case. Which might be even worse for them.

As it is now, most people don't believe the Democrats support criminality. But if they go on offense in support of criminality, lots of would-be Dem voters might opt not to.

[BananaStand]

Could be that the Democrats would go on offense in favor of sanctuary cities in that case. Which might be even worse for them.

As it is now, most people don't believe the Democrats support criminality. But if they go on offense in support of criminality, lots of would-be Dem voters might opt not to.

They've already crossed an imaginary line, a big one, and it doesn't seem to be hurting their cause.

It's one thing to say "we let our law enforcers choose not cooperate with ICE". It's another thing entirely for the local gov't to tell people "It's illegal to choose to cooperate with ICE"

But no one seems to care.

[wufwugy]

Many don't care in part because they don't know.

[wufwugy]

I have a suspicion that the Democrats using their cookie cutter racism to attempt to turn Texas into California will backfire.

[Poopadoop]

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...lection-454909

So, a swing of 26 points since 2016.

Yup, looks like Trump is really popular all right.

[wufwugy]

Local politics are local.


If you're looking for "which side" has gained nationally since the election, you look at changes in voter rolls. Republicans are winning on that. However, that isn't destiny. Changes in voter rolls mirror other sentiments, and they are fickle and can flip direction on a dime.

[Poopadoop]

You'd think if they loved Trump as much as you guys they'd be willing to vote in any R candidate just to show their love.

[wufwugy]

Given that a pretty bad R is remarkably better than the best D, If I were in the situation to vote between them, I would probably.....abstain.

[wufwugy]

Statistics question: let's say a poll gives somebody a 48% approval rating with a 3 point margin of error. Does this mean that the actual result is anywhere between 51% and 45% at the same probability per each value?

[BananaStand]

You'd think if they loved Trump as much as you guys they'd be willing to vote in any R candidate just to show their love.

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??

[Poopadoop]

Statistics question: let's say a poll gives somebody a 48% approval rating with a 3 point margin of error. Does this mean that the actual result is anywhere between 51% and 45% at the same probability per each value?

There's a likelihood function that is symmetrical and normal-distribution-shaped for normal samples. So if the sampling data are normally distributed, the likelihood is highest around the reported value (48% in this case) and tapers off above and below it in a normal distribution shape. So, e.g., 48% is the most likely value of the approval rating, 47% and 49% are less likely but equal to each other, and so on as you fall further from the mean.

It's not quite appropriate to apply that to percentage data though, and the likelihood distribution should be a bit asymmetrical, and a bit log-linearish as well, but with values close to 50% the difference between the actual shape of the likelihood distribution and one that is symmetrical and normal ought to be negligible. Certainly values closer to the 48% will be more likely than values further from 48% regardless.

The 95% confidence interval used as the standard 'margin of error' is a bit non-intuitive because it relates to sampling, not population means. It implies that 95% of the times you sampled the data, you would get a value of the mean +/- the margin of error. Doesn't necessarily follow that the true value is in there 95% of the time.

[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.

[wufwugy]

There's a likelihood function that is symmetrical and normal-distribution-shaped for normal samples. So if the sampling data are normally distributed, the likelihood is highest around the reported value (48% in this case) and tapers off above and below it in a normal distribution shape. So, e.g., 48% is the most likely value of the approval rating, 47% and 49% are less likely but equal to each other, and so on as you fall further from the mean.

It's not quite appropriate to apply that to percentage data though, and the likelihood distribution should be a bit asymmetrical, and a bit log-linearish as well, but with values close to 50% the difference between the actual shape of the likelihood distribution and one that is symmetrical and normal ought to be negligible. Certainly values closer to the 48% will be more likely than values further from 48% regardless.

The 95% confidence interval used as the standard 'margin of error' is a bit non-intuitive because it relates to sampling, not population means. It implies that 95% of the times you sampled the data, you would get a value of the mean +/- the margin of error. Doesn't necessarily follow that the true value is in there 95% of the time.

Thanks. That makes sense.

[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

[OngBonga]

"hill of dogshit"

Nice.

[Poopadoop]

Special elections first year after Obama 2008 win:

California: 2009: 10% win by D, 2008: 34% win by D, swing: 24% R
Illinois: 2009: 45% win by D, 2008: 51% win by D, swing: 6% R
California: 2009, 29% win by D, 2008: no R candidate (NA)
California: 2009, 10% win by D, 2008: 34% D, swing: 24% R
NY: 2009, 2% win by D, 2008:30% R, swing: 32% D

Average swing first year of Trump was 17.7%, average swing first year of Obama was 5.5%.

Can you do 17.7% - 5.5%? I'll give you a hint: The answer is greater than 10%

[BananaStand]

Special elections first year after Obama 2008 win:

California: 2009: 10% win by D, 2008: 34% win by D, swing: 24% R
Illinois: 2009: 45% win by D, 2008: 51% win by D, swing: 6% R
California: 2009, 29% win by D, 2008: no R candidate (NA)
California: 2009, 10% win by D, 2008: 34% D, swing: 24% R
NY: 2009, 2% win by D, 2008:30% R, swing: 32% D

Average swing first year of Trump was 17.7%, average swing first year of Obama was 5.5%.

Can you do 17.7% - 5.5%? I'll give you a hint: The answer is greater than 10%

It would be one thing if you were just ignorant. But I know you know a thing or two about stats, so the only explanation for your conclusion is a deeply rooted partisan bias and an outright refusal to entertain a thought that challenges your chosen ideology.

I feel like you already know why your analysis is dogshit, but for the folks watching at home, let me explain:

First of all, a 1% swing in Montana isn't nearly the same thing as a 1% swing in New York. DUH!! Secondly, a 17.7% average swing (as if that number means anything) in a handful of purple states is simply not comparable to a 5.5% swing in a handful of DEEPLY BLUE states. Double-DUH.

If I climbed Everest in a month, and you hiked Mt WhoGivesAFuck in a day, would you say you're a better climber than I am?

That's kinda the crux of your argument here. You're saying that Democrats enjoyed more success, but you fail to acknowledge the decidedly lesser amount of challenge involved in their endeavor compared to Republicans in 2009.

[BananaStand]

Also....your numbers seem completely fake.

NY: 2009, 2% win by D, 2008:30% R, swing: 32% D

I'm not even gonna look it up. There is simply no way that McCain won NY by 30% in 2008. Just no way.

[Poopadoop]

Special elections first year after Bush 2 2000 win:

CA 2001: D 55% 2000: D 71% win, swing: 16% R
PA 2001: 2000: R unopposed
VA 2001: R 4% win, 2000: D unopposed (NA)
MA 2001: D 32% win, 2000: D 53% win, swing: 29% R
FL 2001: R 28% win, 2000: R unopposed (NA)
AR 2001: R 13% win, 2000: R unopposed (NA)
SC 2001: R 48% win, 2000: R 16% win, swing: 32% R



So far it's Bush2 +25.7%, Obama -5.5% and Trump -17.7%

[Poopadoop]

Also....your numbers seem completely fake.



I'm not even gonna look it up. There is simply no way that McCain won NY by 30% in 2008. Just no way.

Reductio ad bananum in action.

I'm talking about special elections after the general election here bud.

[BananaStand]

I'm talking about special elections after the general election here bud.

I know exactly what you're talking about. the Politico story you linked cited that the PA-18 district was won by Trump in 2016 by a 20% margin. And then, Politico compared that to a congressional election a year later where the candidate from Trump's party was polling 6% behind his opponent. Hence 26% swing.

Now follow me here...

You said...

NY: 2009, 2% win by D, 2008:30% R, swing: 32% D

If we're comparing apples to apples, then "2008" must refer to the presidential election that year. The republican DID NOT WIN NY BY 30%.


Also...you seem to be cherry picking which special elections "count" in your analysis. For example, you seem to be leaving out a stunning GOP upset in Massachusetts during Obama's first year.

[Poopadoop]

It would be one thing if you were just ignorant. But I know you know a thing or two about stats, so the only explanation for your conclusion is a deeply rooted partisan bias and an outright refusal to entertain a thought that challenges your chosen ideology.

But you've repeatedly proven that you don't know a thing, never mind a thing or two, about stats. Which makes it hard to understand why you think you can criticize the facts. I mean I know you have no qualms with doing it, you do it all the time. But it's just amusing you keep trying to do it when you're arguing with someone who actually has a clue about these things and can step on you like an ant.

First of all, a 1% swing in Montana isn't nearly the same thing as a 1% swing in New York.

1% is still 1%. It doesn't matter if it's in MT or NY or on Jupiter. wtf are you even talking about here?

Secondly, a 17.7% average swing (as if that number means anything) in a handful of purple states is simply not comparable to a 5.5% swing in a handful of DEEPLY BLUE states.

You're finally right about something. 17.7% is roughly 3x as much as 5.5%

If I climbed Everest in a month, and you hiked Mt WhoGivesAFuck in a day, would you say you're a better climber than I am?

What has this to do with anything? Please explain your argument by reference to facts, not imaginary reductio ad bananums.

That's kinda the crux of your argument here. You're saying that Democrats enjoyed more success, but you fail to acknowledge the decidedly lesser amount of challenge involved in their endeavor compared to Republicans in 2009.

Oh is that it? That when you win a congressional race by 45% it's a lot more meaningful to lose 5% of your support than when you win a race by 20%, and lose 15% (or some such shit)?

Tell me, which of those differences is more likely to end up in a change ownership of a seat from one party to the other? The one that changes a gigantic lead into a slightly less gigantic lead, or the one that changes a moderate lead into a toss-up?

[Poopadoop]

I know exactly what you're talking about.

The rest of this post proves otherwise.

the Politico story you linked cited that the PA-18 district was won by Trump in 2016 by a 20% margin. And then, Politico compared that to a congressional election a year later where the candidate from Trump's party was polling 6% behind his opponent. Hence 26% swing.

I'm talking about the congressional candidates in the year of the general election vs. the congressional candidates in the special elections that took place in the following year.

In 2008, the R candidate in PA where the special election was held won by 20% (same as Trump). Sorry if you got confused by the fact the numbers happened to match.

If we're comparing apples to apples, then "2008" must refer to the presidential election that year. The republican DID NOT WIN NY BY 30%.

I'm comparing apples to apples, you're not.

The R candidate in the 23rd NY congressional district won by 30% in 2008; the D candidate won by 2% in 2009 special election in the same district.

Also...you seem to be cherry picking which special elections "count" in your analysis. For example, you seem to be leaving out a stunning GOP upset in Massachusetts during Obama's first year.

You mean the one that took place in 2010, > 1 year after the 2008 election?

Edit: Oh you must be talking about the seat Kennedy vacated? Pretty sure he was a senator bud.

[BananaStand]

Which makes it hard to understand why you think you can criticize the facts.

Cherry picked results used to form a biased presentation does not constitute a fact

But it's just amusing you keep trying to do it when you're arguing with someone who actually has a clue about these things and can step on you like an ant.

This ant is still alive and well. I'm coming for your picnic!!

1% is still 1%. It doesn't matter if it's in MT or NY or on Jupiter. wtf are you even talking about here?

Do you really think anyone is fooled by this? You know exactly what I'm talking about here. Would you rather have 1% of a dollar, or 1% of a truckload of dollars?

You're finally right about something. 17.7% is roughly 3x as much as 5.5%

And one apple has 100x the mass of one blueberry. How does that affect the apple's ability to function as an apple, or the blueberry's ability to function as a blueberry?

What has this to do with anything? Please explain your argument by reference to facts, not imaginary reductio ad bananums.

FACT: It's harder for a republican to win in California and NY, than it is for a Democrat to win in South Carolina and Kansas.

Oh is that it? That when you win a congressional race by 45% it's a lot more meaningful to lose 5% of your support than when you win a race by 20%, and lose 15% (or some such shit)?

It depends on what state/district we're talking about.

Tell me, which of those differences is more likely to end up in a change ownership of a seat from one party to the other? The one that changes a gigantic lead into a slightly less gigantic lead, or the one that changes a moderate lead into a toss-up?

It's kind of a moot question since you're comparing congressional elections with presidential elections.

Scott Brown pulled out a stunning senate victory in MA in 2010. Does that mean Obama should have been worried about losing the state in the 2012 presidential election? Not even a little bit. Fuck, the guy ran against MA's former governor and still won the state easily in 2012

[Poopadoop]

Cherry picked results used to form a biased presentation does not constitute a fact

I reported all the congressional special elections in the one year following each election you mentioned. You're the one who set the parameters here.

This ant is still alive and well. I'm coming for your picnic!!

You may soon find the picnic has moved on without you.

Do you really think anyone is fooled by this? You know exactly what I'm talking about here. Would you rather have 1% of a dollar, or 1% of a truckload of dollars?

Not a valid comparison by any means.

And one apple has 100x the mass of one blueberry. How does that affect the apple's ability to function as an apple, or the blueberry's ability to function as a blueberry?

It doesn't.

FACT: It's harder for a republican to win in California and NY, than it is for a Democrat to win in South Carolina and Kansas.

That's generally correct, yes.

It depends on what state/district we're talking about.

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.

It's kind of a moot question since you're comparing congressional elections with presidential elections.

Nope, I'm comparing congressional elections with congressional special elections that took place a year after a general election.

Scott Brown pulled out a stunning senate victory in MA in 2010. Does that mean Obama should have been worried about losing the state in the 2012 presidential election? Not even a little bit. Fuck, the guy ran against MA's former governor and still won the state easily in 2012

That argument would be a lot more convincing if Trump had smashed PA in 2016. He didn't.

[BananaStand]

Not a valid comparison by any means.

Exactly

It doesn't.

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?

[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.

[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.

[Poopadoop]

I see a pattern.

Me too.

One that seems to be univariate in a multivariate world,

The numbers are a representation of the outcome of the multivariate world. The numbers themselves are 'univariate' because that's the easiest way to summarize the net result of multiple effects. E.g., an average has a simple interpretation, the various numbers that go into the average have no simple interpretation in and of themselves, except as part of a summary figure such as a mean, mode, or standard deviation (among other things one might compute). But you are right to be skeptical of the summary statistics, because they often don't tell the whole story.

one that probably has some real heteroskedasticity problems

Heretoscedasticity refers to variation in an outcome variable changing along the dimension of a predictor variable. This is not relevant here since there is no variance in this particular predictor variable.

and other statistical jargon I don't know about..

Any analysis has assumptions that if not met, can negatively impact the reliability of the analysis. In the case of percentage data, one could test these six 'swing' values in a number of ways, and compute the relative likelihood that they came from a world in which Ds had gained popularity as indexed by these six special elections relative to the same elections held in 2016, to a world in which no change in popularity had occurred.

The easiest test is a simple binomial test, the only assumption of which is that the data are dichotomous (i.e., either x happens or y happens, not both). In this case, all the data show a change from 2016 to 2017, so that assumption is met. The data don't have to be normally distributed and even Taleb couldn't bitch at this test because the tails can be as fat as you like.

The binomial test can be applied to compare two models of the data. First, if no change has occurred, the swing in each election should be equally likely to favour either side. This is termed the 'null' hypothesis (Ho), and we can express this as p(R) = 0.5 and p(D) = 0.5, where p(R) and p(D) represent the probability of a swing favouring the Rs or Ds, respectively. Alternatively, if the swings were influenced by a general increase in D popularity that had happened between 2016 and 2017 in these districts, the predicted results will differ from the null, and we can call this the 'change' hypothesis (Hc)

The actual outcome was p(D) = 1.0 and p(R) = 0, since D support went up in 6/6 districts. One approach then is to base our change hypothesis on the maximum likelihood estimate for the data, which is essentially a model that assumes the real world is most likely to match the outcome (6/6 D swings or p(D) = 1 and p(R) = 0) rather than any other hypothetical situation which we did not observe (such as p(D) = .5 and p(R) = .5, as assumed by the null hypothesis).

You can compute the relative likelihood of 6/6 D swings happening by computing the relative probability of that event given either model and dividing, then applying a penalty for the free parameter in the change Hypothesis.

p(6/6|Ho) = .015625

p(6/6|Hc) = 1

LR Hc:Ho = 1/.015625 * 1/exp(1)

= 23.5

So the data are 23.5 times as likely to occur if Dems were performing better in all six districts in 2017 relative to 2016 than if there was no difference.

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.

Not quite. You are ascribing variables to the outcome of the election that while you may find them plausible, have effects that have not and cannot be measured. My analysis is simply that a change occurred (or is very likely to have occurred, 23.5:1). I am analyzing the data objectively, you are explaining them subjectively. In other words, I am saying what happened, and you are trying to explain why it happened.

There is nothing wrong with subjective analyses, as long as you acknowledge they are subjective.

[BananaStand]

I am analyzing the data objectively, you are explaining them subjectively. In other words, I am saying what happened, and you are trying to explain why it happened.

WRONG

You started this whole conversation by asserting that the 26% swing was ascribable, specifically, to distaste for Trump.

You started with a "why". Now that its debunked, you've retreated to a very narrow island of "what"

Lame

[Poopadoop]

The shortcoming of the above analysis is it doesn't take into account the size of the effect in each sample. When these are close to zero, it would not be prudent to test them based on their sign alone.

More generally, with some reservations, one could do a one-sample t-test and compute the LR that way. A bit problematic since these are percentage data though and t-tests assume a normal distribution. You could transform the values into approximately normally distributed ones using an arcsine transformation.

Probably best would be to do a logit analysis but that involves a lot more work than I'm prepared to do.

There's also no reason to think any of these other analyses would give any less compelling answers than 23.5:1.

[Poopadoop]

WRONG

You started this whole conversation by asserting that the 26% swing was ascribable, specifically, to distaste for Trump.

You started with a "why". Now that its debunked, you've retreated to a very narrow island of "what"

Lame

Nope, I gave a figure and offered an explanation. You started out by trying to dispute the figure, and got spanked. Now you've given up on that and want to argue the explanation has been 'debunked'. My argument is the figure is what the figure is; you can explain it a different way than I do but that doesn't prove anything, nor does it change the figure itself.

[wufwugy]

Heretoscedasticity refers to variation in an outcome variable changing along the dimension of a predictor variable. This is not relevant here since there is no variance in this particular predictor variable.

Is the D changing over the sample not heteroskedastic?

Not quite. You are ascribing variables to the outcome of the election that while you may find them plausible, have effects that have not and cannot be measured. My analysis is simply that a change occurred (or is very likely to have occurred, 23.5:1). I am analyzing the data objectively, you are explaining them subjectively. In other words, I am saying what happened, and you are trying to explain why it happened.

There is nothing wrong with subjective analyses, as long as you acknowledge they are subjective.

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.

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.

[BananaStand]

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?

I'm not sure what you're missing. Moving election results in states with larger populations, or where opposing political views are more entrenched is HARDER. Your analysis doesn't account for that at all. You just say 17 >5....as if that's indicative of anything relevant.

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

Wrong again. I posted that response in response to your implication that all R voters are homogeneous

which I took to imply ....

Doesn't matter. You don't even remember what you said five posts ago

I won the argument through the numbers. You lost.

By cherry picking data and moving the goalpost. It started with comparing Trump's results to Saccone's. Then you changed your mind and decided you were actually comparing Saccone to his predecessor. Then you decided that Scott Brown didn't count because it wasn't within a year from the election. I don't know where you got that idea. I assume shit like that just pops in your head when you're making up the rules as you go along. The passage you quoted challenged you to review elections within the first year of an adminstration. I never declared that the election was when the stopwatch starts. Scott Brown won Kennedy's senate seat 364 days after Obama's inauguration. So go back and put that little nugget into your analysis. But you won't, because for some insane reason you've also decided that Senate races don't count. WTF??

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.

Except the guy that won has policies that most align with Trump. Again, this is part of the dangerous group-identity mentality that you have on the left. You think just cause a guy has a "D" next to his name, that means he's categorically opposed to everything Trump.

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 can't even decide which numbers you're using.

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?

See how idiotic it is when you use objective numbers to represent subjective ideas. I'd say that Trump winning a democratic stronghold is a "smashing" victory. If Trump wins California, even by one vote, I'd call that "smashing" as well.

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.

Well this particular congressional district represents 1 electoral vote. Trump won by 77. Draw whatever conclusions you like.

[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.

[BananaStand]

Scott Brown won by 5%. His predecessor won by 40%. Swing R +45%.

Now how do you quantify the significance of that particular election? That was a massive democrat stronghold. Massive. And Scott Brown broke the Democrat super-majority in the senate. That's MASSIVE as well.

Obamacare still got passed, and Barry still got re-elected.

Now tell me why Trump should be concerned that a republican with more jowels than fundraising lost by a mere few hundred votes.

[Poopadoop]

...

Wuf is the only one of you two trying to have a serious discussion about this. You're just screaming and throwing your toys out of the pram, while pulling any old excuse out of your ass for why the numbers don't mean what you don't want them to mean, and claiming that I'm trying to trick you with simple math.

[Poopadoop]

Scott Brown won by 5%. His predecessor won by 40%. Swing R +45%.

Now how do you quantify the significance of that particular election? That was a massive democrat stronghold. Massive. And Scott Brown broke the Democrat super-majority in the senate. That's MASSIVE as well.

Obamacare still got passed, and Barry still got re-elected.

Now tell me why Trump should be concerned that a republican with more jowels than fundraising lost by a mere few hundred votes.

You're deriving arguments based on a specific example, I'm referring to general trends. There's a difference.

[BananaStand]

Wuf is the only one of you two trying to have a serious discussion about this

Get some rest snowflake. You've had enough cognitive dissonance for one day

[wufwugy]

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.

I'm referring to the change in the D candidates themselves. Lamb is a vastly different D than the 2016 "D" in the sample. Is that heteroskedastic?

That's your subjective opinion.

Another subjective opinion I hold is that scientism is a big problem.

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.

Are you suggesting that your model reliably approximates the truth?

[BananaStand]

You're deriving arguments based on a specific example, I'm referring to general trends. There's a difference.

except you forgot to include that example in your trend. Or rather, you purposefully excluded it based on new rules that you made up.

[wufwugy]

Now tell me why Trump should be concerned that a republican with more jowels than fundraising lost by a mere few hundred votes.

I like this "cuts through the noise" estimation: a tall, white, high-testosterone male whose name instills an idea of Jesus (Lamb), won. Not to be confused with the other tall, white, high-testosterone male whose name instills an idea of winning (Trump).

[Poopadoop]

I'm referring to the change in the D candidates themselves. Lamb is a vastly different D than the 2016 "D" in the sample. Is that heteroskedastic?

Your argument is that, in PA, something besides Trump being president changed between 2016 and 2017 that resulted in the D swing. That's got nothing to do with heteroscedascity. Even if it were possible for one predictor and one outcome varaible to result in heteroscedascity (it isn't), the binomial analysis doesn't assume homoscedascity, so it's not relevant. If it were an ANOVA then that assumption would have to be upheld.

My response to your argument is that explanation only works in PA, it can't explain the other five data points.

Are you suggesting that your model reliably approximates the truth?

I'm suggesting in the absence of a more compelling explanation it does pretty good, yes. For each election, it's obvious that different things are going to factor into what happens. We can't quantify what those things are or how they affect the swings. Certainly Conor's a different candidate than the last guy and that makes a difference. But it only makes a difference in PA, and we don't know how much of a difference it made. Further, all kinds of other things will have effects as well, because lots of things change between 2016 and 2017, not just the candidates in those special elections. Without any systematic reason to think those changes all favoured D candidates, then the appropriate assumption is that the effects of those unknown variables would tend to self-correct, i.e., cancel each other out.

The one common denominator in all these special elections is that they took place since Trump was elected. So that is one variable that arguably should impact all their outcomes. Further a change in the PA S.E should not affect the five special elections other states, and certainly not when those elections occurred BEFORE the one yesterday. So to exclude Trump as a cause, you need to go through each S.E. and make separate arguments for why each of those had the swing it had. Maybe you can do that convincingly, I don't know. But until someone does, I'm holding the simplest, one variable explanation as my model.

[Poopadoop]

except you forgot to include that example in your trend. Or rather, you purposefully excluded it based on new rules that you made up.

I didn't forget to include anything. The topic was a congressional special election, so naturally I analysed all the congressional special elections. The one example you keep referring to was a senate S.E.

But if you want, go and do the digging and make a post that includes all the senate S.E.s as well, and I'll add them to the analysis.

One thing that matters though is Trump has only been prez for 14 months, so to be objective you can only include S.E.s that took place in the first 14 months of other presidents you're comparing him to.

[Poopadoop]

I like this "cuts through the noise" estimation: a tall, white, high-testosterone male whose name instills an idea of Jesus (Lamb), won. Not to be confused with the other tall, white, high-testosterone male whose name instills an idea of winning (Trump).

If this account explains the other five S.E swings as well, you will have a good argument for why it is happening so consistently.

[OngBonga]

Trump is boycotting Oreos. So that means banana should boycott them too, poop should eat them more, and you should argue about it here.

[Poopadoop]

Moving election results in states with larger populations, is HARDER

This is the wrong way to think about % data. You use % data for the very reason that different places have different populations and the only value that matters in winning is who gets a higher % of votes. It doesn't matter if there are 50k voters or 500k voters, it's the % value that matters. So, when comparing elections across different years it makes sense to look at % data.

Thought exercise for you: the next time you look at a poll, try to figure out why they report the values in terms of % favouring X or Y rather than raw number of respondents favouring X or Y. If you can come up with a cogent answer, you're making progress.

or where opposing political views are more entrenched is HARDER.

To analyze this, you need to provide evidence of stability ("entrenchment") in long-term election patterns (in % of victory by one party, not just what party tends to win), and be able to correlate it with the outcomes of the 2017 S.E. So, provide the data and let's see if it works.

My intuition is the idea of entrenchment is confounded with base support. That is, D are more likely to win CA in any given election because D popularity is on average, very high in CA, and it is thus less affected by swings than other states where base D and R popularity are more comparable. It doesn't mean significant swings in opinion don't occur in CA, just that they are much less likely to affect the outcome in CA given what the base %s of R and D voters are.

Your analysis doesn't account for that at all. You just say 17 >5....as if that's indicative of anything relevant.

It also doesn't account for a lot of things I don't find plausible, like whether there was a full moon on the night of the election or not. If you DO find these alternate explanations plausible, then provide the data you think will support your position and I'll be happy to analyse it for you.

By cherry picking data and moving the goalpost. It started with comparing Trump's results to Saccone's. Then you changed your mind and decided you were actually comparing Saccone to his predecessor.

Nope. You're the one who compared Trump to Saccone. I was comparing 2016 congressional candidate R v D % to 2017 figures in the special election. It just so happened 20% was the same margin of victory for both Trump and whoever ran for R in 2016 congressional election in that district. I tried to explain that to you but you seem to prefer to ignore the idea that you were confused and try to blame it on me doing something nefarious instead.

Then you decided that Scott Brown didn't count because it wasn't within a year from the election.

I didn't include any senate S.E. in my analysis because I didn't think of it at the time, also it's a lot of work to go and find all these numbers. But you keep harping on about this ONE case as if it makes all the difference in the world that it's not in the set of data I analysed. So, if you're so convinced that including the senate S.E.s will change the overall conclusion, by all means provide me with the data.

for some insane reason you've also decided that Senate races don't count. WTF??

I'm tired of explaining myself to you over and over and over. So either collect and post all the senate S.E. data or just keep railing about my unfair analysis that doesn't include the one S.E. you cherry-picked out of all the senate S.E.'s that it also doesn't include. Either way is fine with me, but I'm done arguing about it. K, thx.

I'd say that Trump winning a democratic stronghold is a "smashing" victory. If Trump wins California, even by one vote, I'd call that "smashing" as well.

You consider a 6% swing from Obama to Trump a 'smashing victory' in a D stronghold, but you're not impressed by an average 17.7% swing in the other direction a year later. Hard not to see that as biased.

Well this particular congressional district represents 1 electoral vote. Trump won by 77. Draw whatever conclusions you like.

Lol, well if I were you I might conclude that 1 electoral vote is the same as 77 because the views were so entrenched there or some other garbage explanation I have no evidence for.

[Poopadoop]

Trump is boycotting Oreos. So that means banana should boycott them too, poop should eat them more, and you should argue about it here.

Trump also wants to build a space army. I think banana should join.

[BananaStand]

This is the wrong way to think about % data.

No it isn't.

You use % data for the very reason that different places have different populations and the only value that matters in winning is who gets a higher % of votes

False. The only value that matters is who has a higher count of individual votes. You use % data for common-size analysis. But that's really irrelevant if two entities are of vastly different sizes. Again...would you rather have 1% of a dollar, or 1% of a truckload of dollars?

It doesn't matter if there are 50k voters or 500k voters, it's the % value that matters. So, when comparing elections across different years it makes sense to look at % data.

No, it's vote-count that matters.

Thought exercise for you: the next time you look at a poll, try to figure out why they report the values in terms of % favouring X or Y rather than raw number of respondents favouring X or Y. If you can come up with a cogent answer, you're making progress.

They're propagandizing numbers. Those things only ever sample about 1000 people. And it's alot more compelling for some ass-hole pundit to say "60% of people believe X" rather than "600 random douchebags think X"

To analyze this, you need to provide evidence of stability ("entrenchment") in long-term election patterns (in % of victory by one party, not just what party tends to win), and be able to correlate it with the outcomes of the 2017 S.E. So, provide the data and let's see if it works

Dude...Ted Kennedy was a senator FOREVER. He killed a person.....literally....and STILL WON. What more evidence do you need to be convinced that Democratic views are entrenched in Massachusetts?

My intuition is the idea of entrenchment is confounded with base support.

You say "confounded" as if 'entrenchment' and 'base support' are different things. There is at least a ton of overlap.

Nope. You're the one who compared Trump to Saccone. I was comparing 2016 congressional candidate R v D % to 2017 figures in the special election. It just so happened 20% was the same margin of victory for both Trump and whoever ran for R in 2016 congressional election in that district. I tried to explain that to you but you seem to prefer to ignore the idea that you were confused and try to blame it on me doing something nefarious instead.

You linked an article that compared Trump's numbers to Saccone in post 7431. You reiterated the differential again 7438. Then you did it again in 7441. At no time in any of those three posts did you specify that you were comparing Saccone to his predecessor. However, at least once, you did specify that you were comparing Trump to Saccone. Then later in post 7443 you again compared Trump and Saccone again.

It wasn't until you started checking the numbers, and found they didn't suit your argument, that you decided to move the goalpost and throw Trump out of the equation.

I didn't include any senate S.E. in my analysis because I didn't think of it at the time,

Bad science.

also it's a lot of work to go and find all these numbers.

You had no problem doing it when you thought it would support your argument. Now that's crumbling and "it's too hard, waaaah"

But you keep harping on about this ONE case as if it makes all the difference in the world that it's not in the set of data I analysed. So, if you're so convinced that including the senate S.E.s will change the overall conclusion, by all means provide me with the data.

Just the one example I provided means your 5.5% calculation is off by more than 100%, lol.

I'm tired of explaining myself to you over and over and over

Then stop being wrong.

Either way is fine with me, but I'm done arguing about it. K, thx.

Dude....you started this. You're the one who decided to back up his argument with numbers. So it's incumbent on you to use data with integrity. That is, complete data. Your data has been challenged, and now you are abandoning it. So fuck your numbers. The question I asked is "why should Trump be worried if a republican with more jowels than fundraising loses a congressional seat with an 8 month term?"

You consider a 6% swing from Obama to Trump a 'smashing victory' in a D stronghold, but you're not impressed by an average 17.7% swing in the other direction a year later. Hard not to see that as biased.

Stop!! Goalpost is moving too fast!!!! I mean, if we're gonna play this game, then zoom out all the way. Look at Senate, Congress, State Governors, and State Legislatures. Since Obama was elected, republicans are up over 1,000 seats. OVER ONE THOUSAND. Put that into your calculator and cry.

Lol, well if I were you I might conclude that 1 electoral vote is the same as 77 because the views were so entrenched there or some other garbage explanation I have no evidence for.

If I were you I'd get used to the idea of democrats losing.

[Poopadoop]

No it isn't.

Oh well, you got me there professor.

False. The only value that matters is who has a higher count of individual votes. You use % data for common-size analysis. But that's really irrelevant if two entities are of vastly different sizes. Again...would you rather have 1% of a dollar, or 1% of a truckload of dollars?

In an election I'd rather have 60% of 10 votes than 40% of 100 votes, since even though 6 is less than 40, I'd prefer to win the election than have more votes in a larger district and lose.

No, it's vote-count that matters.

Like arguing with a six-year-old again.

And it's alot more compelling for some ass-hole pundit to say "60% of people believe X" rather than "600 random douchebags think X"

Oh is that why they report % rather than raw numbers. Thanks, didn't know that.

Dude...Ted Kennedy was a senator FOREVER. He killed a person.....literally....and STILL WON. What more evidence do you need to be convinced that Democratic views are entrenched in Massachusetts?

Why do you assume Ted Kennedy's case represents the entire state of MA? Why assume the entrenchment was with Democrats rather than with TFK in particular?

Oh I know, 'cause it suits your argument.

...

sorry I dont have the time for the rest of your garbage arguments.

Either provide some data or be ignored. Up to you.

[BananaStand]

Why do you assume Ted Kennedy's case represents the entire state of MA? Why assume the entrenchment was with Democrats rather than with TFK in particular?

Because the terms "Edward Kennedy" and "Bleeding heart Liberal" are synonymous.

Either provide some data or be ignored. Up to you.

1,000+ democratic seats turned Republican since Barry got elected.

[Poopadoop]

1,000+ democratic seats turned Republican since Barry got elected.

Did that all happen in the first year? I'm guessing not. Surely you can see it's not appropriate to compare eight years to one year?

[BananaStand]

Did that all happen in the first year? I'm guessing not. Surely you can see it's not appropriate to compare eight years to one year?

I'm simply exercising my right to move the goalpost however, it suits me. If you want to go back to an analysis where you've arbitrarily enforced cherry-picked parameters like "congress only" and "just one year", then go ahead. But I thought you made it very clear you weren't doing that anymore. Were you lying? Or have you just moved the goalpost again.

If you'd like to continue, the new topic is the democrat loss of over 1000 congressional seats, senate seats, governorships, and state legislature positions in the last decade.

Discuss.

[Poopadoop]

I'm simply exercising my right to move the goalpost however, it suits me. If you want to go back to an analysis where you've arbitrarily enforced cherry-picked parameters like "congress only" and "just one year", then go ahead. But I thought you made it very clear you weren't doing that anymore. Were you lying? Or have you just moved the goalpost again.

If you'd like to continue, the new topic is the democrat loss of over 1000 congressional seats, senate seats, governorships, and state legislature positions in the last decade.

Discuss.

I didn't enforce 'congress only'. Provide me with the senate data as well and I'll do the math for you. What more do you want?

It makes sense to only compare the same period of time across different presidents. Sorry if you can't see the logic in that.

If you'd like to continue, the new topic is the democrat loss of over 1000 congressional seats, senate seats, governorships, and state legislature positions in the last decade.

Discuss.

lol who put you in charge of choosing the topic? Either you provide me with the data for senate s.e.'s from 2016-7, 2008-9 and 2004-5 or admit you already have a pretty good idea it wouldn't change anything.

Then we can start a different topic.

[BananaStand]

lol who put you in charge of choosing the topic? Either you provide me with the data for senate s.e.'s from 2016-7, 2008-9 and 2004-5 or admit you already have a pretty good idea it wouldn't change anything.

Just one example moves your 5.5% average to 12.4%. Are you still saying it doesn't change anything? GTFO

[Poopadoop]

Just one example moves your 5.5% average to 12.4%. Are you still saying it doesn't change anything? GTFO

Every data point changes the mean. That's why you have a mean and don't just pick one data point that is extreme and consider it representative.

So, as i keep saying, give me ALL the senate S.E. data for the years in question and let's see how it falls out.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Like arguing with a six-year-old again.

You're participating voluntarily in these continued dialogues, and must have figured out months ago that it is a fruitless task.

Please take your own advice and refrain from humoring this puerile behavior.
With any luck, if we simply refuse to stoop to his level, he'll either leave or learn to follow the example of civilized conversation.

Our ability to learn and grow by understanding each other's nuanced positions has been gone from our conversations since nanners started posting. I want that vibe back, but I don't know how to make it happen unless people simply refuse to engage in a conversation without mutual respect.

I don't personally believe that nanners has any respect for me or my thoughts, so I refrain from engaging with him.
IDK if this is the best way to deal with it, but I'm frankly fed up with the lack of decency in the tone, and I can either leave FTR or ignore the jerks. Ignoring the jerks is part of life, so I'm rolling with that for a while.

FFS, nanners is leading every conversation and is probably the greatest active contributor to FTR is a long time as far as engagement and quantity. If that's what you all what this site to be, then who am I to disagree? I want something else, and I'm sure I can find it elsewhere.
If you also want something else from FTR, then let's make it happen.

[Poopadoop]

If you also want something else from FTR, then let's make it happen.

yes. The thing is it's hard to that when one person is making 50% of the posts.

[BananaStand]

.......

[CoccoBill]

I agree with the sentiment. I did already leave for a few weeks some weeks ago, though I'm sure no one noticed. Decided to give it another stab, but have to admit nanner peeing over all discussions seems to bring out the worst in me. I'm too old for this shit, I don't need to be boosting my ego here trolling.

[Poopadoop]

If there were a feature here where I could block posts from a particular member (is there?) I would happily switch it on.

[MadMojoMonkey]

If there were a feature here where I could block posts from a particular member (is there?) I would happily switch it on.

I use the scroll wheel. Still, I find myself reading whatever of his is quoted by another poster, so it's hit and miss.

[Poopadoop]

I use the scroll wheel. Still, I find myself reading whatever of his is quoted by another poster, so it's hit and miss.

yea I do that too. Problem is sometimes traffic is low and not many others posting (can't imagine why that is...). So i'm left with a choice of arguing with a potato-head or doing something else. Guess I should just choose option B, but you know what it's like when you're bored.

[BananaStand]

Guess I should just choose option B, but you know what it's like when you're bored.

If you got time on your hands, I hear there is some research into Senate races that needs to be done.

[Poopadoop]

I agree with the sentiment. I did already leave for a few weeks some weeks ago, though I'm sure no one noticed.

Trust me, anyone who i can engage with here without repeatedly getting their poo flung in my face is a refreshing person who is sorely missed when they go away for any length of time.

[Poopadoop]

If you got time on your hands, I hear there is some research into Senate races that needs to be done.

I'm waiting for you to do your share of the legwork.

[BananaStand]

I'm waiting for you to do your share of the legwork.

1000+ seats lost by democrats

[OngBonga]

Look at you all.

I don't like what he's saying I wish I could turn him off I wish he would just go away waa waa.

Doesn't anyone remember when he first turned up? I didn't like him either. Then I realised he's just aggressive in tone, but actually if you can look past it there is substance. You don't have to agree with him, you just have to filter out the shite and find the substance, and debate it.

In the recent case, it really was as simple as replacing the word wizard with shrink.

You guys seem to think that debate is better when it's a circle jerk of people agreeing with each other. It's not, and I'm glad that's not what goes on here. It would be if banana fucked off.

[BananaStand]

In the recent case, it really was as simple as replacing the word wizard with shrink.

It's bad enough that people seem to think that hyperbole isn't a valid method of communication.

But it's 10x worse that they're actually offended by it.