Blue Wave 2018

[JohnStOnge]

The aggregate overall popular vote in non national elections is meaningless. You are beating a flawed argument to death

It was an overall victory for the Dems but using the popular vote to illustrate it is incorrect


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The overall popular vote is part of the picture. There are problems with going with seats gained as well. If a Party is way down in seats it can gain a fair number of seats even though it's still the case that most of the people favor the other Party.

In off year elections the overall popular vote for House elections is the best indicator of overall national sentiment. In that regard the Democrat performance in terms of overall popular vote does not make 2018 look as good as the seats gained figure does. As noted, it's the most seats gained by Democrats since 1974. The Democrats got more in terms of the popular vote margin in mid terms as things stand now in 2006 (8%).

I actually think looking at the popular vote tamps down the perception. But it's still the case that the Democrat popular vote margin for this election exceeds any achieved by the Republican Party in my 61 year lifetime. And that's not just for mid terms. It's for any year.

[JohnStOnge]

Ok I looked it up and there were a lot more Districts such that there was no Republican opposition than there were Districts without Democrat opposition:

https://ballotpedia.org/U.S._House_elec ... date,_2018

But I really don't think it makes much difference. If there was a district where no Republican ran I think we can all pretty much agree that if a Republican HAD run he or she would've been overwhelmingly defeated. It wouldn't make much difference in the national percent margin.

Also it's the kind of thing that has always been a factor. So when you're looking at things in historical terms there's probably no reason to think it's a big factor.

[Baldy]

Ok I looked it up and there were a lot more Districts such that there was no Republican opposition than there were Districts without Democrat opposition:

https://ballotpedia.org/U.S._House_elec ... date,_2018

But I really don't think it makes much difference. If there was a district where no Republican ran I think we can all pretty much agree that if a Republican HAD run he or she would've been overwhelmingly defeated. It wouldn't make much difference in the national percent margin.

Also it's the kind of thing that has always been a factor. So when you're looking at things in historical terms there's probably no reason to think it's a big factor.

I think we all can pretty much agree that was the smartest part of your post.

[CID1990]

The aggregate overall popular vote in non national elections is meaningless. You are beating a flawed argument to death

It was an overall victory for the Dems but using the popular vote to illustrate it is incorrect


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The overall popular vote is part of the picture. There are problems with going with seats gained as well. If a Party is way down in seats it can gain a fair number of seats even though it's still the case that most of the people favor the other Party.

In off year elections the overall popular vote for House elections is the best indicator of overall national sentiment. In that regard the Democrat performance in terms of overall popular vote does not make 2018 look as good as the seats gained figure does. As noted, it's the most seats gained by Democrats since 1974. The Democrats got more in terms of the popular vote margin in mid terms as things stand now in 2006 (8%).

I actually think looking at the popular vote tamps down the perception. But it's still the case that the Democrat popular vote margin for this election exceeds any achieved by the Republican Party in my 61 year lifetime. And that's not just for mid terms. It's for any year.

No, John, it isn't.

The aggregate popular vote across multiple elections is meaningless. Find a different indicator.

Your logic is exactly the reverse of looking at a national map of counties and concluding that 95% of the country is red.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HI54UNI]

Another problem with looking at the House popular vote thing is that it doesn't take into account people splitting their tickets. In Iowa we ousted 2 Republican House members yet we re-elected our Republican governor, increased Republican control of the State Senate, and while losing a few seats Republicans retained control of the State House. So does that mean Iowa is a blue state now? Or is it still a red state?

[CAA Flagship]

NUMBERS!!!!!!!
Geesh.

Here's what I want to see.
Number of red seats at risk.
Number of blue seats at risk.
Number of red seats won.
Number of blue seats won.

Let's look at that data over the last few decades.
That is the only (macro)data that will provide a decent measure.

Telling me that you scored 10 points in a basketball game is nice, but how many shots did you take?

[JohnStOnge]

Ok I looked it up and there were a lot more Districts such that there was no Republican opposition than there were Districts without Democrat opposition:

https://ballotpedia.org/U.S._House_elec ... date,_2018

But I really don't think it makes much difference. If there was a district where no Republican ran I think we can all pretty much agree that if a Republican HAD run he or she would've been overwhelmingly defeated. It wouldn't make much difference in the national percent margin.

Also it's the kind of thing that has always been a factor. So when you're looking at things in historical terms there's probably no reason to think it's a big factor.

I think we all can pretty much agree that was the smartest part of your post.

It does not make much difference. The reason Republicans didn't run in those districts is because they are overwhelmingly Democrat districts. If Republicans would have run in them they would have been blown out by overwhelming margins. Having Republicans run in those districts would have made very little difference in the overall popular vote percent margin.

Also, when you're looking at the margin in historical context, it's reasonable to assume that the same sort of thing has happened in the past. It was probably more of a factor in some years than in others. But it was also probably always a factor.

[JohnStOnge]

The aggregate popular vote across multiple elections is meaningless.

It is not. It is one of several indicators. And it is not meaningless. It is the closest thing you are going to get to a reflection of overall popular sentiment about the national government during years when there is no Presidential election.

If I were interested in just trying to play up the Democrats doing well I would just stick with seats gained in historical context. But I think it important to also look at the popular vote margin in historical context.

[CID1990]

Pure fantasy, John.

For someone so statistically inclined you should see the flaw in your position on the overall popular vote across state lines and multiple races




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Baldy]

I think we all can pretty much agree that was the smartest part of your post.

It does not make much difference. The reason Republicans didn't run in those districts is because they are overwhelmingly Democrat districts. If Republicans would have run in them they would have been blown out by overwhelming margins. Having Republicans run in those districts would have made very little difference in the overall popular vote percent margin.

Also, when you're looking at the margin in historical context, it's reasonable to assume that the same sort of thing has happened in the past. It was probably more of a factor in some years than in others. But it was also probably always a factor.

Not that the popular vote matters in multi-representative multi-district races, it makes a tremendous difference regarding this myth you and other Leftist call the "popular vote".

I don't really care, but I'll play this game just once because I get a kick out of proving you wrong.

I'll pick a handful of races at random:
Arizona's 7th Congressional District. The Donk was unopposed in 2018, but in 2016, the Conk lost by 50 points. He still got 40K votes.
Florida's 21st Congressional District. Unopposed in 2018. The Conk lost by 27 points in 2016, but still got 118K votes.
Massachusetts' 4th Congressional District. Unopposed in 2018. The Conk lost by 40 points (to a Kennedy) in 2016, but he still got over 113K votes.
Georgia's 5th Congressional District. Unopposed in 2018. The Conk lost by 70 points (to John Lewis) in 2016, the poor Conk got 47K votes.
Pennsylvania's 18th Congressional District. Unopposed in 2018, but in 2016, the Conk ran unopposed and captured over 293K votes.

In just those 5 random districts, there were over 600K votes for the R's that didn't count in 2018. Run those numbers for the 30 other uncontested races as an average, and you will add another 3.6 MILLION votes for a grand total of about 4.2 MILLION additional votes for the Republicans that weren't there in 2018. Add that 4.2 million to the 46.2 million total votes and the Republicans 'would' have gotten 50.4 million votes. Only a fraction less than what the Donks got in 2018.

To make you happy, lets drop the outliers and factor in the strange way California does elections and cut that 4.2 million in half, to 2.1 million votes. That is still plenty enough votes to destroy your stupid little hypothesis and blow it out of the water.

[AZGrizFan]

Pure fantasy, John.

For someone so statistically inclined you should see the flaw in your position on the overall popular vote across state lines and multiple races




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He most certainly does not, and I don’t feel like explaining it to him. He’s still trying to figure out the stock market thingy, the economy & GDP, and unemployment.

[houndawg]

Incorrect. The GOP won multiple elections in Arizona fair and square. But we didn't have a Sec of State who was running for Governor who purged millions of voters from the rolls, closed hundreds of polling places in minority areas, discarded thousands of new voter registrations, forgot to send voting booths to minority areas, etc.


Open your eyes to the reality of what the GOP is doing to attack democracy in Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, Wisconsin, etc. it's revolting and should concern all Americans.

Thank you for showing your ignorance John.
"Millions of voters were purged."
The facts are 1.5 million registrations were purged because people died, moved, haven't voted in five consecutive elections, convicted of a felony, etc, etc, etc.
Was grandma's vote suppressed even though she's been dead for 20 years, or because Uncle Earl moved to Kalamazoo?

"Closed hundreds of polling places in minority areas."
Another often repeated lie. The facts are that local election officials are the ONLY ones who can decide where and how many polling places there will be, and the ONLY ones who can close and consolidate polling places. The Secretary of State's office has absolutely no say so in those decisions...none.

"Discarded thousands of new voter registrations."
Why are you lying again, John? 47,000 registrations were put on "HOLD" because they were unable to verify their identity, there were discrepancies in their information, etc. The only thing these people had to do to vote with a normal ballot on election day was to show up at the polling place and show proper ID.

"Forgot to send voting booths to minority areas, etc."
Lies and more lies. Due to a frivolous lawsuit filed by the Donks, 700 voting machines have been locked up in a state warehouse sequestered because of a court order.

Georgia has 22 days of early voting and provides online voter registration. If we are trying to suppress the vote, we're not doing a very good job.

You're making yourself look more ignorant than usual.

Sounds like Jon touched a nerve here.

Georgia.

[Ivytalk]

Thank you for showing your ignorance John.
"Millions of voters were purged."
The facts are 1.5 million registrations were purged because people died, moved, haven't voted in five consecutive elections, convicted of a felony, etc, etc, etc.
Was grandma's vote suppressed even though she's been dead for 20 years, or because Uncle Earl moved to Kalamazoo?

"Closed hundreds of polling places in minority areas."
Another often repeated lie. The facts are that local election officials are the ONLY ones who can decide where and how many polling places there will be, and the ONLY ones who can close and consolidate polling places. The Secretary of State's office has absolutely no say so in those decisions...none.

"Discarded thousands of new voter registrations."
Why are you lying again, John? 47,000 registrations were put on "HOLD" because they were unable to verify their identity, there were discrepancies in their information, etc. The only thing these people had to do to vote with a normal ballot on election day was to show up at the polling place and show proper ID.

"Forgot to send voting booths to minority areas, etc."
Lies and more lies. Due to a frivolous lawsuit filed by the Donks, 700 voting machines have been locked up in a state warehouse sequestered because of a court order.

Georgia has 22 days of early voting and provides online voter registration. If we are trying to suppress the vote, we're not doing a very good job.

You're making yourself look more ignorant than usual.

Sounds like Jon touched a nerve here.

Georgia.

Sounds like Poundpud had nuthin’. As usual.

Egypt.

[AZGrizFan]

Thank you for showing your ignorance John.
"Millions of voters were purged."
The facts are 1.5 million registrations were purged because people died, moved, haven't voted in five consecutive elections, convicted of a felony, etc, etc, etc.
Was grandma's vote suppressed even though she's been dead for 20 years, or because Uncle Earl moved to Kalamazoo?

"Closed hundreds of polling places in minority areas."
Another often repeated lie. The facts are that local election officials are the ONLY ones who can decide where and how many polling places there will be, and the ONLY ones who can close and consolidate polling places. The Secretary of State's office has absolutely no say so in those decisions...none.

"Discarded thousands of new voter registrations."
Why are you lying again, John? 47,000 registrations were put on "HOLD" because they were unable to verify their identity, there were discrepancies in their information, etc. The only thing these people had to do to vote with a normal ballot on election day was to show up at the polling place and show proper ID.

"Forgot to send voting booths to minority areas, etc."
Lies and more lies. Due to a frivolous lawsuit filed by the Donks, 700 voting machines have been locked up in a state warehouse sequestered because of a court order.

Georgia has 22 days of early voting and provides online voter registration. If we are trying to suppress the vote, we're not doing a very good job.

You're making yourself look more ignorant than usual.

Sounds like Jon touched a nerve here.

Georgia.

Funny how you view Jon posting fake news and getting his ass handed to him “touching a nerve”.

[JohnStOnge]

I'll pick a handful of races at random:
Arizona's 7th Congressional District. The Donk was unopposed in 2018, but in 2016, the Conk lost by 50 points. He still got 40K votes.
Florida's 21st Congressional District. Unopposed in 2018. The Conk lost by 27 points in 2016, but still got 118K votes.
Massachusetts' 4th Congressional District. Unopposed in 2018. The Conk lost by 40 points (to a Kennedy) in 2016, but he still got over 113K votes.
Georgia's 5th Congressional District. Unopposed in 2018. The Conk lost by 70 points (to John Lewis) in 2016, the poor Conk got 47K votes.
Pennsylvania's 18th Congressional District. Unopposed in 2018, but in 2016, the Conk ran unopposed and captured over 293K votes.

In just those 5 random districts, there were over 600K votes for the R's that didn't count in 2018. Run those numbers for the 30 other uncontested races as an average, and you will add another 3.6 MILLION votes for a grand total of about 4.2 MILLION additional votes for the Republicans that weren't there in 2018. Add that 4.2 million to the 46.2 million total votes and the Republicans 'would' have gotten 50.4 million votes. Only a fraction less than what the Donks got in 2018.

To make you happy, lets drop the outliers and factor in the strange way California does elections and cut that 4.2 million in half, to 2.1 million votes. That is still plenty enough votes to destroy your stupid little hypothesis and blow it out of the water.

First of all, I doubt that you really randomly selected those five districts from among the ones where a Republican didn't run. To have randomly selected five districts from among the ones where Republicans didn't run you would have had to do something like number all the districts where Republicans didn't run then use a random numbers table or random numbers generator to pick five numbers and go from there. I suspect you know what I"m talking about. Did you really randomly select five districts?

Secondly, running unopposed changes the dynamic. You can't just assume that a Democrat would've gotten the same number of votes running unopposed as they would've gotten running opposed. That sort of thing.

[JohnStOnge]

In just those 5 random districts, there were over 600K votes for the R's that didn't count in 2018. Run those numbers for the 30 other uncontested races as an average, and you will add another 3.6 MILLION votes for a grand total of about 4.2 MILLION additional votes for the Republicans that weren't there in 2018. Add that 4.2 million to the 46.2 million total votes and the Republicans 'would' have gotten 50.4 million votes. Only a fraction less than what the Donks got in 2018.

Wikipedia has the Dems with a little more of an edge but I'll go with the numbers at https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/electi ... te-n938996 since Wikipedia has had issuse in the past. That article had the popular vote as of Wednesday this past week at Democrats 58,990,609 and Republicans at 50,304,975. So if we go with adding 4.2 million votes for the Republicans while assuming having a Republican run would do nothing to change what the Democrat got we'd be at Democrats 58,990,609, Republicans 54,504,975. That'd be a 4 percentage point margin for the Democrats.

[Baldy]

Thank you for showing your ignorance John.
"Millions of voters were purged."
The facts are 1.5 million registrations were purged because people died, moved, haven't voted in five consecutive elections, convicted of a felony, etc, etc, etc.
Was grandma's vote suppressed even though she's been dead for 20 years, or because Uncle Earl moved to Kalamazoo?

"Closed hundreds of polling places in minority areas."
Another often repeated lie. The facts are that local election officials are the ONLY ones who can decide where and how many polling places there will be, and the ONLY ones who can close and consolidate polling places. The Secretary of State's office has absolutely no say so in those decisions...none.

"Discarded thousands of new voter registrations."
Why are you lying again, John? 47,000 registrations were put on "HOLD" because they were unable to verify their identity, there were discrepancies in their information, etc. The only thing these people had to do to vote with a normal ballot on election day was to show up at the polling place and show proper ID.

"Forgot to send voting booths to minority areas, etc."
Lies and more lies. Due to a frivolous lawsuit filed by the Donks, 700 voting machines have been locked up in a state warehouse sequestered because of a court order.

Georgia has 22 days of early voting and provides online voter registration. If we are trying to suppress the vote, we're not doing a very good job.

You're making yourself look more ignorant than usual.

Sounds like Jon touched a nerve here.

Georgia.

That was just the sound of a flimsy argument being destroyed.

You wanna take a shot at it there, soydawg?

[Baldy]

I'll pick a handful of races at random:
Arizona's 7th Congressional District. The Donk was unopposed in 2018, but in 2016, the Conk lost by 50 points. He still got 40K votes.
Florida's 21st Congressional District. Unopposed in 2018. The Conk lost by 27 points in 2016, but still got 118K votes.
Massachusetts' 4th Congressional District. Unopposed in 2018. The Conk lost by 40 points (to a Kennedy) in 2016, but he still got over 113K votes.
Georgia's 5th Congressional District. Unopposed in 2018. The Conk lost by 70 points (to John Lewis) in 2016, the poor Conk got 47K votes.
Pennsylvania's 18th Congressional District. Unopposed in 2018, but in 2016, the Conk ran unopposed and captured over 293K votes.

In just those 5 random districts, there were over 600K votes for the R's that didn't count in 2018. Run those numbers for the 30 other uncontested races as an average, and you will add another 3.6 MILLION votes for a grand total of about 4.2 MILLION additional votes for the Republicans that weren't there in 2018. Add that 4.2 million to the 46.2 million total votes and the Republicans 'would' have gotten 50.4 million votes. Only a fraction less than what the Donks got in 2018.

To make you happy, lets drop the outliers and factor in the strange way California does elections and cut that 4.2 million in half, to 2.1 million votes. That is still plenty enough votes to destroy your stupid little hypothesis and blow it out of the water.

First of all, I doubt that you really randomly selected those five districts from among the ones where a Republican didn't run. To have randomly selected five districts from among the ones where Republicans didn't run you would have had to do something like number all the districts where Republicans didn't run then use a random numbers table or random numbers generator to pick five numbers and go from there. I suspect you know what I"m talking about. Did you really randomly select five districts?

Secondly, running unopposed changes the dynamic. You can't just assume that a Democrat would've gotten the same number of votes running unopposed as they would've gotten running opposed. That sort of thing.

Jeezus Christ, John...could you be any more nuts?

No, I went to ballotpedia.com, looked at the list of uncontested Donk races and clicked five random hyperlinks. It was really that easy.

[JohnStOnge]

First of all, I doubt that you really randomly selected those five districts from among the ones where a Republican didn't run. To have randomly selected five districts from among the ones where Republicans didn't run you would have had to do something like number all the districts where Republicans didn't run then use a random numbers table or random numbers generator to pick five numbers and go from there. I suspect you know what I"m talking about. Did you really randomly select five districts?

Secondly, running unopposed changes the dynamic. You can't just assume that a Democrat would've gotten the same number of votes running unopposed as they would've gotten running opposed. That sort of thing.

Jeezus Christ, John...could you be any more nuts?

No, I went to ballotpedia.com, looked at the list of uncontested Donk races and clicked five random hyperlinks. It was really that easy.

Ok. From looking at your posts over time I concluded you know what random selection is. But this is what I'm talking about:

According to the info at https://ballotpedia.org/U.S._House_elec ... date,_2018, there were 38 races without a Republican candidate. To randomly select 5 of those races you would number them from 1 through 38. Then you would either use a random numbers table or a random numbers generation site such at https://www.random.org to randomly generate five integers in the range 1 through 38. You would then pick the five races corresponding to the five integers on the list. You would use the random sequence generator at random.org because you are sampling without replacement.

So like if I do that now I go to the sequence generator at https://www.random.org/sequences/. I indicate I want the 38 numbers 1 through 38 arranged in random order with the intent to pick the first five numbers in the sequence. I hit "Get Sequence" and the first five numbers are 35, 27, 10, 1, 22. If we've numbered the subject Congressional districts 1 through 38 in the order in which they appear these are the districts that are selected:

1 - Alabama 7
10 - California 44
22 - Michigan 13
27 - New York 8
35 - Virginia 3

That's if I counted right on the list of Districts. But anyway that's what "at random" looks like. "At random" is not kind of eyeballing things then picking a race here and a race there.

Also, if one doesn't really do "at random" or some other probability sampling approach, one cannot infer anything about the overall list from the selected races.

[AZGrizFan]

You have gone completely off the rails.

[JohnStOnge]

You have gone completely off the rails.

No, I'm just telling you how it works. That's what "at random" is.

In any case it was clearly a big win for the Democrats. The number of seats they're going to hold isn't big compared to the numbers they usually held when they controlled the House for about 40 straight years 1955 through early 1995. But since the Republicans "Contract With America" win in 1994 to take control in 1995 this could turn out to be the second most seats the Democrats have held. If it turns out to be 234 like it's looking like it could be that'd be second during that period behind the 257 they got riding Obama's coat tails in 2008.

[CID1990]

You have gone completely off the rails.

No, I'm just telling you how it works. That's what "at random" is.

In any case it was clearly a big win for the Democrats. The number of seats they're going to hold isn't big compared to the numbers they usually held when they controlled the House for about 40 straight years 1955 through early 1995. But since the Republicans "Contract With America" win in 1994 to take control in 1995 this could turn out to be the second most seats the Democrats have held. If it turns out to be 234 like it's looking like it could be that'd be second during that period behind the 257 they got riding Obama's coat tails in 2008.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

No, I'm just telling you how it works. That's what "at random" is.

In any case it was clearly a big win for the Democrats. The number of seats they're going to hold isn't big compared to the numbers they usually held when they controlled the House for about 40 straight years 1955 through early 1995. But since the Republicans "Contract With America" win in 1994 to take control in 1995 this could turn out to be the second most seats the Democrats have held. If it turns out to be 234 like it's looking like it could be that'd be second during that period behind the 257 they got riding Obama's coat tails in 2008.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seriously, CID, what random sampling really is is not unimportant. I've seen people invest their life savings in things because they read something represented as based on random sampling when it wasn't really random sampling. Seen them uproot their lives and move to where they thought a big financial windfall awaited. "Random sampling" has a specific meaning. Having people refer to sampling efforts that are not random as "random" is very common. And it causes problems.

[CID1990]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seriously, CID, what random sampling really is is not unimportant. I've seen people invest their life savings in things because they read something represented as based on random sampling when it wasn't really random sampling. Seen them uproot their lives and move to where they thought a big financial windfall awaited. "Random sampling" has a specific meaning. Having people refer to sampling efforts that are not random as "random" is very common. And it causes problems.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

I just got it. The Blue Wave are leftist tears...


Sorry..I don't know why it took me so long to get that.