2022 Midterm Elections - Results and Post Mortem

[Swammerdami]

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]

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

Kemp will be helping Walker.

McConnell turns to Brian Kemp to help save Herschel Walker in Georgia runoff

The Georgia governor is loaning his get-out-the-vote machine to the McConnell-aligned super PAC, Senate Leadership Fund, ahead of the Dec. 6 vote.

www.politico.com

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

OK, Santa Monious.

 

[Metaphor]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

 

[Metaphor]

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.

 

[Metaphor]

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]

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.