# 2022 Midterm Elections - Results and Post Mortem

#### Swammerdami

Staff member
Fivethirtyeight.com still shows the House as 211-206. Supposing the 18 undecided races are coin-tosses, this gives the Ds a 12% chance of keeping the House (if my arithmetic is correct).

Don't give up!

#### blastula

##### Contributor
Despite Stacy's loss, I think she will probably work to get out the vote for Warnock.

Kemp will be helping Walker.

Kemp is loaning his get-out-the-vote machine to the Senate GOP’s voter turnout efforts, giving the party entrée to a political team that is increasingly viewed as one of the GOP’s most formidable state operations.

And it's coming up fast, less than 4 weeks. Last time it was 2 months after.

#### Swammerdami

Staff member
Fivethirtyeight.com still shows the House as 211-206. Supposing the 18 undecided races are coin-tosses, this gives the Ds a 12% chance of keeping the House (if my arithmetic is correct).

Don't give up!

By "coin-toss" I mean that there is no systemic bias, and the GOP's chance for each of the 18 races is 0.50. If instead the GOP's chance of winning each given race is 53%, then the Demo's chance of keeping the House is only 7.5% as shown in this table:

p_GOP = 0.53 7.5%
p_GOP = 0.52 8.8%
p_GOP = 0.51 10.3%
p_GOP = 0.50 11.9%
p_GOP = 0.49 13.7%
p_GOP = 0.48 15.6%
p_GOP = 0.47 17.8%

#### Elixir

Fivethirtyeight.com still shows the House as 211-206. Supposing the 18 undecided races are coin-tosses, this gives the Ds a 12% chance of keeping the House (if my arithmetic is correct).

Don't give up!

By "coin-toss" I mean that there is no systemic bias, and the GOP's chance for each of the 18 races is 0.50. If instead the GOP's chance of winning each given race is 53%, then the Demo's chance of keeping the House is only 7.5% as shown in this table:

p_GOP = 0.53 7.5%
p_GOP = 0.52 8.8%
p_GOP = 0.51 10.3%
p_GOP = 0.50 11.9%
p_GOP = 0.49 13.7%
p_GOP = 0.48 15.6%
p_GOP = 0.47 17.8%
Oh goodie, a pre-fabricated case for claiming fraud if they win!

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Stop. Your appeal to "any pollster" is meaningless. You have not produced the confidence intervals on the polls because each of them have different margins of error.

No. The problem lays in statistics. Polls typically have a 3% margin of error because that's a reasonable compromise between cost and accuracy. I no longer recall the equations and I'm not going to take the time to dig them out but driving the error margin lower really blows up the sample size and thus the cost. Thus everyone uses about the same sample size.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
I have a question.

With the dems taking the senate, can they next year vote on the two voting rights bills previously blocked there or would they have to be voted on again in the house?
It might be worthwhile to pass those bills in the Senate, just to force the House to declare their allegiances.
Right now it looks like casting doubt on the integrity of elections is a powerful poison pill. Certainly at the National level, and in most cases at the State level as well. Refusal to endorse reinforcement of voting rights could be pretty awkward for MAGAts, and it would take very few aisle-crossers to cause it to pass.

How would it force them to declare their allegiance? If the scum don't like the bill it will never come to a vote in the first place. (Which is something I would like to see changed--if one house passes something it should at least warrant a vote from the other house.)

#### Metaphor

##### Čarobnjak iz Oza

Stop. Your appeal to "any pollster" is meaningless. You have not produced the confidence intervals on the polls because each of them have different margins of error.

No. The problem lays in statistics. Polls typically have a 3% margin of error because that's a reasonable compromise between cost and accuracy. I no longer recall the equations and I'm not going to take the time to dig them out but driving the error margin lower really blows up the sample size and thus the cost. Thus everyone uses about the same sample size.
The problem lies in pood's dishonest framing.

pood clearly thought I did not or do not understand margins of error. I do understand them and have taught them to behavioural science students.

Even if I accepted, on faith, that the margins of error were wide enough on all the comparisons pood counted for his 'equivalent to' claim (even though pood did not provide the margins of error), his 'or higher' subterfuge implies Biden was found to be more popular than at least one president--and there is no evidence of that, either. Who the fuck knows what the polling numbers were for the Truman comparison? The margin of error might have been huge. Conversely, a look at fivethirtyeight shows that pollsters most often sample 1,000 or 1,500 people but some poll many more. These polls would have different margins of error.

Also, pood was also wrong to say 'equivalent'. If two numbers are 'equivalent' in the way pood implies, it is more correct to say 'there is no evidence of a difference'. Indeed, with small sample sizes (poor precision) you have a much lower chance of finding evidence of a difference, even if there really is one.

But, people simply bought pood's dishonest framing hook, line and sinker, and he has doubled and tripled down on his dishonest framing. Good luck to him and his supporters.

#### pood

##### Veteran Member
Actually, I am doubling and tripling down on pointing out your dishonest framing of my honest framing. The polling facts speak for themselves. You just don’t like them. Just like you don’t like the fact that your boy Oz got his ass whupped.

#### Metaphor

##### Čarobnjak iz Oza
Actually, I am doubling and tripling down on pointing out your dishonest framing of my honest framing. The polling facts speak for themselves. You just don’t like them. Just like you don’t like the fact that your boy Oz got his ass whupped.
Sure Jan.

#### pood

##### Veteran Member
OK, Santa Monious.

#### Metaphor

##### Čarobnjak iz Oza
OK, Santa Monious.
What was the margin of error on the Truman poll, and the margin of error on the Biden poll, that you claim as evidence that Biden rated higher than Truman somewhere around this time in their presidencies?

#### Elixir

If the scum don't like the bill it will never come to a vote in the first place.
I'm thinking of a bill that some non-MAGAt Republicans might want to support - maybe one or two of them would stop asking Trump's permission this go-round.

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
OK, Santa Monious.
What was the margin of error on the Truman poll, and the margin of error on the Biden poll, that you claim as evidence that Biden rated higher than Truman somewhere around this time in their presidencies?
The margin of error is only relevant as to ascertaining the reliability or level of confidence about the estimates. Either the point estimates is unbiased or not. If it is not, then the margin of error is useless. If the point estimates are unbiased, then if one is different than the other, that is an unbiased result.

#### Metaphor

##### Čarobnjak iz Oza
OK, Santa Monious.
What was the margin of error on the Truman poll, and the margin of error on the Biden poll, that you claim as evidence that Biden rated higher than Truman somewhere around this time in their presidencies?
The margin of error is only relevant as to ascertaining the reliability or level of confidence about the estimates. Either the point estimates is unbiased or not. If it is not, then the margin of error is useless. If the point estimates are unbiased, then if one is different than the other, that is an unbiased result.
laughing dog, I know you absolutely cannot resist responding to everything I write, but I have asked pood a specific question, and your 'contribution' here is entirely irrelevant.

#### pood

##### Veteran Member
OK, Santa Monious.
What was the margin of error on the Truman poll, and the margin of error on the Biden poll, that you claim as evidence that Biden rated higher than Truman somewhere around this time in their presidencies?

I have no idea what the margin of error was. Do you? Why don’t you ask Fivethrityeight whether it knows? After all, they are the ones putting up the data. It‘s not unreasonable to assume they think the data is meaningful.

But notice how you have shifted the goalposts. Initially you were bitching that I claimed Biden’s approval relating was equivalent to, or better than, seven of 13 presidents for whom such data is available. Now you are focusing on Truman. Why? I will take this as your concession that there is no meaningful distinction between Reagan’s 43.0 and Biden’s 41.5 on day 661 of both of their presidencies, because, well, there isn’t. That is what that three-point margin of error thingie means, you know.

I don’t know this for certain, but I believe modern polling is not relevantly different now from what it was dating all the way to the Eisenhower administration, which means that if modern popularity polling means anything for Biden, then it means pretty much the same thing for all the presidents surveyed dating at least to Eisenhower. And my point stands.

Truman MAY be a bit of an outlier in terms of polling because I’m not sure polling was fully developed then, and polling is based on science. The Truman polls in question were taken in 1947. The next year, 1948, the polls, including Gallup, pretty much unanimously called the presidential race for Dewey over Truman, but Truman won handily. HOWEVER, I don’t think this happened because the polls were conducted in some manner relevantly different from the way they are now. The difference was that all the pollsters, thinking the election was settled, stopped polling about two weeks before election day. They did not realize then, as is well understood now, that public opinion can shift dramatically in the final two weeks of a political race.

I hope that answers your questions. It is tiresome to keep wiping the egg of your face. You should try doing it for yourself some time.

#### Metaphor

##### Čarobnjak iz Oza
OK, Santa Monious.
What was the margin of error on the Truman poll, and the margin of error on the Biden poll, that you claim as evidence that Biden rated higher than Truman somewhere around this time in their presidencies?

I have no idea what the margin of error was. Do you?
No.

So I'm curious. Since you don't know, why would you be confident that Biden rated higher than Truman, and repeatedly defend that notion?

Why don’t you ask Fivethrityeight whether it knows? After all, they are the ones putting up the data. It‘s not unreasonable to assume they think the data is meaningful.

But notice how you have shifted the goalposts. Initially you were bitching that I claimed Biden’s approval relating was equivalent to, or better than, seven of 13 presidents for whom such data is available. Now you are focusing on Truman. Why?
I've already explained why, multiple times. But I'll do it again.

I will take this as your concession that there is no meaningful distinction between Reagan’s 43.0 and Biden’s 41.5 on day 661 of both of their presidencies, because, well, there isn’t.
No. That is not a concession. Biden's rating might be lower (a lower point estimate where the 95% confidence intervals do not overlap), or there might be no evidence of a difference (the confidence intervals overlap).

For all the comparisons where Biden might be lower or there's no evidence of a difference, I have left these comparisons 'on hold', because we do not know the margins of error and your argument appears to be based on no evidence of a difference.

You touted the Truman comparison as the one where Biden is higher (the 'or higher' part of your statement), presumably because whatever two figures you compared had a difference of at least 6 percentage points (using your 'three point margin' shortcut).

I don't know what those two figures were, but even a difference of 6 percentage points might have overlapping confidence intervals, because the confidence interval on the Truman poll might be very much larger than the short cut 'three point margin' established in more recent decades.

That is what that three-point margin of error thingie means, you know.
fivethirtyeight lists dozens of polls with all sorts of margins of error, and pools those polls for their headline figure. When they are pooled, the margin of error on the point estimate would go down. I don't know what it goes down to, but it is smaller than the margins of error in the individual polls.

And so I think some of your comparisons where you claim there is no difference are probably wrong, and if we knew the real margins of error, it could show Biden to be lower (given the point estimates are lower). Not for the Trump-Biden comparison, though, as the ratings are very, very close and the margin of error on each poll would need to be tiny to show a difference if there really was one.

I don’t know this for certain, but I believe modern polling is not relevantly different now from what it was dating all the way to the Eisenhower administration, which means that if modern popularity polling means anything for Biden, then it means pretty much the same thing for all the presidents surveyed dating at least to Eisenhower. And my point stands.

Truman MAY be a bit of an outlier in terms of polling because I’m not sure polling was fully developed then, and polling is based on science. The Truman polls in question were taken in 1947. The next year, 1948, the polls, including Gallup, pretty much unanimously called the presidential race for Dewey over Truman, but Truman won handily. HOWEVER, I don’t think this happened because the polls were conducted in some manner relevantly different from the way they are now. The difference was that all the pollsters, thinking the election was settled, stopped polling about two weeks before election day. They did not realize then, as is well understood now, that public opinion can shift dramatically in the final two weeks of a political race.

I hope that answers your questions. It is tiresome to keep wiping the egg of your face. You should try doing it for yourself some time.
It of course does not answer my questions, except that perhaps it is relevant to say your Biden-Truman comparison is not a solid comparison for all sorts of social and technical reasons, and your statement should be 'using a three point margin of error as a stand-in, there is no evidence of a difference between Biden's approval ratings and five of the last 12 presidents'.

That statement is far more honest than where you say 'no difference or higher', which is ambiguous as to how many have no difference and how many are higher.

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
OK, Santa Monious.
What was the margin of error on the Truman poll, and the margin of error on the Biden poll, that you claim as evidence that Biden rated higher than Truman somewhere around this time in their presidencies?
The margin of error is only relevant as to ascertaining the reliability or level of confidence about the estimates. Either the point estimates is unbiased or not. If it is not, then the margin of error is useless. If the point estimates are unbiased, then if one is different than the other, that is an unbiased result.
laughing dog, I know you absolutely cannot resist responding to everything I write, but I have asked pood a specific question, and your 'contribution' here is entirely irrelevant.
Please, I do not respond to everything you write. No rational person who even partially valued their sanity would do such a thing. [removed]

If the point estimate of the popularity of Biden and Truman are unbiased, then pood's statement is true regardless of margin of errors. Margin of errors refer to the confidence in the unbiased estimate and nothing else. One can legitimately use the margin of errors to make judgments about the reliability of the comparison but nothing else. Your specific question is irrelevant. I find your dismissal rather alarming coming from someone implicitly touted epistemelogical privilege with your teaching statistics to students.

You are engaging in a public discussion. Anyone can enter at anytime (as you did). If you don't like others contributing, you have three options: discuss in private, ignore the "intrusions", [removed]

Last edited by a moderator:

#### Metaphor

##### Čarobnjak iz Oza
OK, Santa Monious.
What was the margin of error on the Truman poll, and the margin of error on the Biden poll, that you claim as evidence that Biden rated higher than Truman somewhere around this time in their presidencies?
The margin of error is only relevant as to ascertaining the reliability or level of confidence about the estimates. Either the point estimates is unbiased or not. If it is not, then the margin of error is useless. If the point estimates are unbiased, then if one is different than the other, that is an unbiased result.
laughing dog, I know you absolutely cannot resist responding to everything I write, but I have asked pood a specific question, and your 'contribution' here is entirely irrelevant.
Please, I do not respond to everything you write. No rational person who even partially valued their sanity would do such a thing. [removed]
[removed for consistency]
If the point estimate of the popularity of Biden and Truman are unbiased, then pood's statement is true regardless of margin of errors.
Um, no.

Margin of errors refer to the confidence in the unbiased estimate and nothing else.
laughing dog, I do not know what you think you are talking about, but all polls have sampling and non-sampling error. Asking anything less than the entire population (that is, a census) means there will be sampling error. A margin of error is built around the point estimate to reflect that sampling error.

There are also other kinds of error that increasing the sample size will not help with.

One can legitimately use the margin of errors to make judgments about the reliability of the comparison but nothing else. Your specific question is irrelevant. I find your dismissal rather alarming coming from someone implicitly touted epistemelogical privilege with your teaching statistics to students.
You don't understand what I mean when I talk about others invoking epistemological privilege, which I did not do.

Last edited by a moderator:

#### Metaphor

##### Čarobnjak iz Oza
For the people being misled by laughing dog's incorrect assertions, an 'unbiased estimator' does not mean that any individual point estimate statistic is the population parameter (the true value). Any individual statistic (like the estimate from a poll) might be above or below the true value, but the long-run expected value of the estimates is not biased to be towards higher or lower than the real value (and therefore the expected value of an infinite set of such estimates is in fact the true value).

#### southernhybrid

##### Contributor
I have seen speculation that the original turnout was for Kemp. If so the runoff should be less popular among the gop
That is my hope too, but sadly, there have been a lot of Walker sings scattered throughout my neighborhood that weren't there prior to the November election. WTF are people thinking that they will advertise they support such an unqualified candidate as Walker? The ones that really piss me off say, "Women for Walker". My neighbor and I have been jokingly plotting to put a banner over those signs that say, "He will pay for your abortions". While my area is somewhat racially diverse, most of the white people are likely still Republicans.

#### Politesse

##### Lux Aeterna
My phone is getting overloaded with political spam texts about the Georgia election, begging me to give money to one side or the other. It really annoys me, I've never given money to any political candidate, and I'm not about to start, let alone by funneling money into someone else's state election. If someone wants to represent Georgia, they can do it by convincing Georgians, not Californians or Russsians oror whoever.

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
laughing dog, I do not know what you think you are talking about, but all polls have sampling and non-sampling error. Asking anything less than the entire population (that is, a census) means there will be sampling error. A margin of error is built around the point estimate to reflect that sampling error.
Your response is evidence you do not know what is going on, because my point is that sampling error is not relevant to the issue at hand.

=Metaphor]
You don't understand what I mean when I talk about others invoking epistemological privilege, which I did not do.
Sure Jan, keep telling yourself that your audience doesn't understand what you write.

#### Jimmy Higgins

##### Contributor
I have seen speculation that the original turnout was for Kemp. If so the runoff should be less popular among the gop
That is my hope too, but sadly, there have been a lot of Walker sings scattered throughout my neighborhood that weren't there prior to the November election. WTF are people thinking that they will advertise they support such an unqualified candidate as Walker? The ones that really piss me off say, "Women for Walker". My neighbor and I have been jokingly plotting to put a banner over those signs that say, "He will pay for your abortions". While my area is somewhat racially diverse, most of the white people are likely still Republicans.
It will be interesting. Is the self-interest of voting for an African American rubber-stamp idiot in order to keep the Senate 50-50 going to drive enough demand for a decent right-wing turnout over those, including African Americans, seeking to re-elect Warnock.

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
That Herschel Walker did not lose outright is a damning indictment of blind partisanship.

##### Veteran Member
That Herschel Walker did not lose outright is a damning indictment of blind partisanship.
Mitch McConnell has been openly supporting blind partisanship for at least 15 years.

#### Swammerdami

Staff member
As others pointed out, "Margin of Error" ignores many possible sources of error; it ONLY deals with the "sampling error" due to extrapolating from a smallish sample. If I was a rational voter in a red-neck district I might be tempted to lie — why bring danger on my family? — were a stranger with a white Southern drawl to ask me whom I'm voting for.

It is VERY easy for a pollster to get unwanted bias. Making afternoon phone calls? Maybe it is Rs rather than Ds who are most likely to answer by the 8th ring. I think that's one reason polling is expensive. Instead of just calling a different number, the pollster may spend time trying to contact the guy who didn't answer his phone.

The sampling error is easy to calculate with a simple formula:
. . . . . . Margin_of_Error = 1.96*sqrt(p*(1-p)/n)
or if we set p = 0.5, simply
. . . . . . Margin_of_Error = 0.98*sqrt(1/n)
Set n = 1067 and the latter formula yields Margin_of_Error = 0.03. This means that, ignoring all biases except sampling error, and supposing you got 50% of the pollees agreeing with "Yes, Pelosi is a crook," there is a 95% chance that the correct percent for the total population is in the range 47% to 53%.

0.98 is very close to 1 so Margin_of_Error = sqrt(1/n) is a good-enough formula. The margin of error is 10% for a n=100 sample, 1% for a n=10,000 sample, and 0.1% for a n=1,000,000 sample.

Pollsters usually set p = 0.50 and describe that as the Margin of Error for all the questions answered. But in fact, if the result on a certain question is 87%/13% instead of 50%/50%, then p = 0.13 (or p = 0.87) should be substituted in the formula. This would give a ±2% margin of error instead of ±3%. (Anyway the simple formula breaks down when the poll result is VERY lopsided.)

#### Metaphor

##### Čarobnjak iz Oza
laughing dog, I do not know what you think you are talking about, but all polls have sampling and non-sampling error. Asking anything less than the entire population (that is, a census) means there will be sampling error. A margin of error is built around the point estimate to reflect that sampling error.
Your response is evidence you do not know what is going on, because my point is that sampling error is not relevant to the issue at hand.
Your response is evidence you do not know what pood and I are talking about.

#### Swammerdami

Staff member
I have been remiss in my Moderator's duties and waited unto there were 135 off-topic posts in this thread to do a Split. I should have nipped it in the bud.
laughing dog, I do not know what you think you are talking about, but all polls have sampling and non-sampling error. Asking anything less than the entire population (that is, a census) means there will be sampling error. A margin of error is built around the point estimate to reflect that sampling error.
Your response is evidence you do not know what is going on, because my point is that sampling error is not relevant to the issue at hand.
Your response is evidence you do not know what pood and I are talking about.

If anyone needs to discuss whether Metaphor has evidence that laughing dog does or does not know what pood and Metaphor are talking about, Please start a new thread.

#### Elixir

If anyone needs to discuss whether Metaphor has evidence that laughing dog does or does not know what pood and Metaphor are talking about, Please start a new thread.
Perhaps it would be good to have a whole new forum dedicated to letting M explain how and why everyone who fails to grasp his lofty points, fails to grasp his lofty points.
Perhaps he can then help them (us) improve their (our) comprehension so that they (we) might benefit from his introspective wisdom?

#### Metaphor

##### Čarobnjak iz Oza
If anyone needs to discuss whether Metaphor has evidence that laughing dog does or does not know what pood and Metaphor are talking about, Please start a new thread.
Perhaps it would be good to have a whole new forum dedicated to letting M explain how and why everyone who fails to grasp his lofty points,
"Lofty"?

It's a "lofty" point to say understanding the speech of others is not irrelevant to the job of a Senator?

#### Bomb#20

##### Contributor
We can call it... The Metaphorum!
Too ambiguous -- this phorum is already pretty meta.

#### blastula

##### Contributor
So they have tried to pull Cueller over.

Kevin McCarthy’s allies have attempted to sway at least one moderate Democrat to the GOP side of the aisle in recent days, according to a person with knowledge of the situation — a sign of desperation as he searches for the 218 votes he’ll need to become House speaker next year.

Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) has received calls from multiple people close to McCarthy, including one current and one former member, as the California Republican attempts to lock down support amid a burgeoning conservative rebellion, the person said. Cuellar repeatedly rejected the idea.

But WSJ says he's refused.

It doesn't look like the GOP will need any defections for a majority now, as they have all but locked it up, with the seat margin the only question now. But McCarthy may still need some help to win the speakership vote. The Politico article goes into the jockeying going on in their caucus.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
laughing dog, I do not know what you think you are talking about, but all polls have sampling and non-sampling error. Asking anything less than the entire population (that is, a census) means there will be sampling error. A margin of error is built around the point estimate to reflect that sampling error.
Your response is evidence you do not know what is going on, because my point is that sampling error is not relevant to the issue at hand.
Your response is evidence you do not know what pood and I are talking about.
I need to change batteries in my universal translator. It is translating everything to Klingon.

#### Toni

##### Contributor
If anyone needs to discuss whether Metaphor has evidence that laughing dog does or does not know what pood and Metaphor are talking about, Please start a new thread.
Perhaps it would be good to have a whole new forum dedicated to letting M explain how and why everyone who fails to grasp his lofty points,
"Lofty"?

It's a "lofty" point to say understanding the speech of others is not irrelevant to the job of a Senator?
It is ignorant and libelous to assert that Fetterman is unable to understand the speech of others.

#### Metaphor

##### Čarobnjak iz Oza
If anyone needs to discuss whether Metaphor has evidence that laughing dog does or does not know what pood and Metaphor are talking about, Please start a new thread.
Perhaps it would be good to have a whole new forum dedicated to letting M explain how and why everyone who fails to grasp his lofty points,
"Lofty"?

It's a "lofty" point to say understanding the speech of others is not irrelevant to the job of a Senator?
It is ignorant and libelous to assert that Fetterman is unable to understand the speech of others.

#### Gun Nut

##### Veteran Member
If anyone needs to discuss whether Metaphor has evidence that laughing dog does or does not know what pood and Metaphor are talking about, Please start a new thread.
Perhaps it would be good to have a whole new forum dedicated to letting M explain how and why everyone who fails to grasp his lofty points,
"Lofty"?

It's a "lofty" point to say understanding the speech of others is not irrelevant to the job of a Senator?
Wrapping an interrogative statement in a double negative with reversed subject and verb is one way to "loft" ones point, init'it?

#### Metaphor

##### Čarobnjak iz Oza
If anyone needs to discuss whether Metaphor has evidence that laughing dog does or does not know what pood and Metaphor are talking about, Please start a new thread.
Perhaps it would be good to have a whole new forum dedicated to letting M explain how and why everyone who fails to grasp his lofty points,
"Lofty"?

It's a "lofty" point to say understanding the speech of others is not irrelevant to the job of a Senator?
Wrapping an interrogative statement in a double negative with reversed subject and verb is one way to "loft" ones point, init'it?
No.

#### Patooka

##### Contributor
Back on topic,

Trump as Speaker? That would be glorious. The two things everyone knows about Trump is that he's a hard worker and is great at making deals.

#### Elixir

“Lofty?”

Meaning “important”, because it would be foolish to create a whole new forum for trivial points.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
The takeaway is that there is a slight shift in power if republicans get the house, but we remain a pretty much 50/50 political split.

#### crazyfingers

##### Supermagnon
Staff member
Trump as Speaker? That would be glorious.

If republicans were really stupid enough to make Trump speaker it would be a spectral to behold. When he wasn't golfing or watching TV Trump would be on a vendetta against members of his own party. You could even see some moderates become democrats to get rid of him.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
By "coin-toss" I mean that there is no systemic bias, and the GOP's chance for each of the 18 races is 0.50. If instead the GOP's chance of winning each given race is 53%, then the Demo's chance of keeping the House is only 7.5% as shown in this table:
Moreover, even at coin toss 50-50, probability of getting 219 or more drops to 5%. Which means even in the unlikely case Dems hold the House, they will be unlikely to have any wiggle room.
GOP is also only likely to have a thin margin. Working from the same numbers for called races as above, and assuming coin tosses, GOP has 88% to have at least 218, 76% to have at least 219, still 60% to have at least 220, but 41% to have at least 221 and only 24% for 222 or more.

#### Patooka

##### Contributor
Trump as Speaker? That would be glorious.

If republicans were really stupid enough to make Trump speaker it would be a spectral to behold. When he wasn't golfing or watching TV Trump would be on a vendetta against members of his own party. You could even see some moderates become democrats to get rid of him.
Imagine if someone like Pete Buttigieg said on FOX news it would be a terrible idea if the Republicans elected Trump as Speaker, followed by a few tweets from The Squad saying it would be the end of America...

#### crazyfingers

##### Supermagnon
Staff member
Imagine if someone like Pete Buttigieg said on FOX news it would be a terrible idea if the Republicans elected Trump as Speaker, followed by a few tweets from The Squad saying it would be the end of America...

Then they would elect Trump in a disasterously self-destructive move to own the libs.

Are there 10 moderate republicans left in the House who would switch sides, or at least become independent, to get rid of Trump?

#### blastula

##### Contributor

Despite the Kari Lake War Room's bravado, the NV gov race has been called for Katie Hobbs.

#### repoman

##### Contributor
What I don't get about Kari Lake is that to guarantee a high turnout of rabid MAGA she needed to only lay it on to a small degree and then pretend (wink wink for the MAGA base) to not be that extreme to the general non MAGA electorate.

This would have still gotten most of the MAGAs to vote for her, the tacit understanding that she is a smart MAGA (oxymoron?) riding the line til in power. I am sure most here are happy she seems not to know how to dog whistle.

I still think my joke about her doing testosterone and cocaine might be true. Being that roid raging and grandiose is interesting in small doses, but she got way too one note - only Trump could get away that in 2016 and by 2020 it was old. And she dragged down the Repubs for the senate as well.

#### Swammerdami

Staff member
I'm undecided. If the Speaker vote is between Pelosi and Trump, should we hope a few Rs defect and make Nancy Speaker again?

Or would it be better for the Ds to throw all their support behind Trump, make him Speaker, and let the Orange Laughingstock be on full display for all the world to laugh at?

#### Swammerdami

Staff member
The takeaway is that there is a slight shift in power if republicans get the house, but we remain a pretty much 50/50 political split.

"Slight change"??

The J6 Committee uncovered and published details of a major plot of treason and sedition.

If the House changes hands — putting some of those very traitors in a position of power — much of the J6 work will be undone. Instead expect the House to focus on trumped-up "scandals" and the impeachment of Joe Biden. There may even be more hearings on Benghazi.

And the Rs will use devices like the Debt Ceiling to hold the country hostage.

The "Big Red Wave" didn't happen, but loss of the House is still disastrous. (Fivethirtyeight.com isn't updating its Election results. What is the present status of the 18 undecided House seats?)

#### blastula

##### Contributor
Over in CO-03, they're back counting today. Frisch has had an excellent ballot curing operation going, and Boebert's lead of 1100 has been cut 550, but it looks like he's going to run out of ballots soon. It is close enough to go to an automatic recount, but will be too much to make up that way.

Meanwhile, Pelosi announced that she won't be running for leader.