Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 23, 2014, 09:49:30 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 247
1  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Racism Powered Republican Triumph on: Today at 06:36:32 pm
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87   (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10   (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9   (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24   (85–15%)

The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20   (5–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1   (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45–1   (98–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27–5   (84–16%)

Not a single Southern Republican voted for the Civil Rights Act; 7 Southern Democratic Senators and 1 Southern Democratic member of the House, however, did. In the North, more Republicans voted against the Act than Democrats.

At the end of the day, both a higher percentage of Northern Democrats voted for CRA than Northern Republicans, and a higher percentage of Southern Democrats voted for CRA than Southern Republicans. To simply combine the two groups and aggregate the numbers to fit your point is hilariously foolish from a historical perspective.


You got your numbers flipped in the second to the last paragraph.

Care to specify? I'm not seeing an error.

You said House had 1 while the House had 7.

Ah, I reversed House/Senate Southern Dems. Thanks.
2  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Elections / Re: Does the Midwest deserve Governor FitzGerald? on: Today at 06:04:03 pm
Considering that it's effectively two separate elections (one for the recall and one for the replacement), I'm willing to bet that Gass decided to run under the assumption that the Governor would/should not be able to run as his own replacement in the event he were recalled. In addition, I would highly doubt that 60%+ of the region supports a recall and then simultaneously votes to put the Governor back into office, so if I were a Laborite or leftist in the Midwest, I'd be happy to know that I would have someone on the ballot to represent me in the event the recall is successful.
3  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Racism Powered Republican Triumph on: Today at 05:41:59 pm
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87   (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10   (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9   (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24   (85–15%)

The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20   (5–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1   (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45–1   (98–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27–5   (84–16%)

Not a single Southern Republican voted for the Civil Rights Act; 7 Southern Democratic Senators and 1 Southern Democratic member of the House, however, did. In the North, more Republicans voted against the Act than Democrats.

At the end of the day, both a higher percentage of Northern Democrats voted for CRA than Northern Republicans, and a higher percentage of Southern Democrats voted for CRA than Southern Republicans. To simply combine the two groups and aggregate the numbers to fit your point is hilariously foolish from a historical perspective.


You got your numbers flipped in the second to the last paragraph.

Care to specify? I'm not seeing an error.
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: #HillarysLosers on: Today at 05:24:09 pm
5  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Nat Geo labels Oklahoma City as a must-see place in the United States on: November 22, 2014, 11:06:23 pm
Quote
“We’re such a blank canvas that even people from Austin are moving here,” says Hunter Wheat, who launched MidTown’s Blue Garten last year, a one-block food truck complex with open-air movies and live bands.

“I’m just happy to see it’s growing into the city I always knew it could be,” Wheat said.

LOL
6  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: How much do you like or dislike Oklahoma? on: November 22, 2014, 09:23:30 pm
Google "Oklahoma people" images. One-quarter of the results are celebrities/rather irrelevant; half of the results are pictures of people crawling through natural disaster debris.  

Some of my favorites:











7  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Update XIX: Melancholy and the Infinite Napping on: November 22, 2014, 08:13:19 pm
But see, that nonsense would never fly in Real America.  Ό of the plate is reserved for f*gg*ts?  Not in Oklahoma, pal!

Actually half, if you count the protein.
8  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Maximizing geography of losing candidates on: November 22, 2014, 08:09:12 pm
I took your statement that followed the quote to be your method, rather than the problem itself. As clarified, the problem becomes a brute force math exercise of moving through the sequence of counties from narrowest to widest percentage. My math solves the problem in the quote above, but not by a percentage margin basis, nor by your sequence. It creates the opportunity to explore individual county results with especially large vote margins.

Ah, then maybe I'll be eating my words on the previous post. I'm going to give this a try later.
9  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Maximizing geography of losing candidates on: November 22, 2014, 08:08:19 pm
This results may look interesting, but they don't really tell us very much. As muon was saying, you basically just flip every county except for a few high vote margin counties for the winner, such that this is equivalent to the margin of victory the loser had in the counties that they won. The maps are not at all realistic because they have utterly bizarre non-uniform swings.

Can we do uniform swings for every county? For example, the only counties that would flip are the counties that have a lesser margin than the state margin. I think that would be more interesting.

I've done that before as well (though I never made a thread); would be interesting.

To be fair, any scenario like this is going to be unrealistic in reality and quite predictable since we're dealing with basic math here. Flipping counties by their percentage margins isn't realistic in the confines of a campaign, nor is flipping counties by their nominal margins (whether you start from smallest margin or largest margin). And of course doing a uniform swing isn't going to be realistic, either, but we all love to make maps anyway. Tongue
10  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Maximizing geography of losing candidates on: November 22, 2014, 07:52:26 pm
Perhaps the confusion was mine. Is your OP about percentage margin or vote margin? When margin is used without an adjective it usually means vote margin. Your revised MN map suggests that you mean percentage margin.

Yes, sorry: I meant percentage margin. I figured that would be more realistic for such a scenario (relatively speaking).
11  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Maximizing geography of losing candidates on: November 22, 2014, 07:30:51 pm
Is there another combination of Ramsey + something smaller that also holds for Dayton? Hennepin supplied about 60K more votes than needed.

Maybe I'm not following, but the general idea was to flip each county based on the margin of victory for the winning candidate, starting with the counties with the smallest margins of victory and ascending from there. The secondary goal is to see how many counties that would result in the losing candidate winning, while still ultimately losing, but keeping the counties that flip in line with that first goal was the idea.

However, I just realized that I messed up Minnesota by flipping Cook County and St Louis County, both of which had larger margins of victory for Dayton than Hennepin. Unfortunately, after subtracting these from Johnson's total and then adding Hennepin in, Johnson would be ahead by 20,000 or so, so this is the actual map based on the criteria I outlined instead:

Mark Dayton 989,100 49.43%
Jeff Johnson 904,543 45.21%

12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Gary Peters in the future? on: November 22, 2014, 07:18:18 pm
He strikes me as horribly generic, irrespective of any of his talents.
13  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Government / Re: Confirmation Hearing: Potus 2036 for SoEA/SecState on: November 22, 2014, 07:16:19 pm
I hope all of the Senators who voted Aye are fine with the inevitable public shaming that will come when this nominee drops out of sight for the third time in the span of just a few months as an officeholder.
14  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Maximizing geography of losing candidates on: November 22, 2014, 07:07:59 pm
Oregon, Governor:

Actual:

John Kitzhaber 730,715 49.89%
Dennis Richardson 646,411 44.13%



Alternate:

John Kitzhaber 730,715 47.97%
Dennis Richardson 704,924 46.28%

15  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Maximizing geography of losing candidates on: November 22, 2014, 06:31:01 pm
Pennsylvania, Governor:

Actual:

Thomas W. Wolf 1,912,003 54.87%
Thomas W. Corbett 1,572,382 45.13%



Alternate:

Thomas W. Wolf 1,912,003 51.11%
Thomas W. Corbett 1,828,882 48.89%

16  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Maximizing geography of losing candidates on: November 22, 2014, 06:18:43 pm
Mathematically, there is an equivalent, simpler procedure. Take the margin of victory for the loser in those counties won by the loser, call it L. Count the number of counties won by the winner, call it C. L+C is the winning margin for the loser if all of the winner's counties just flipped to the loser by one vote. To solve the problem select the smallest number of counties that voted for the winner (n < C), such that the total margin of victory w in those counties is greater than L+C-n.

Since C and n are generally going to be small compared to the difference between w and L they can be usually be neglected. Then the problem simplifies to finding the smallest set of counties that gives a value for w that is larger than L.

For example, for IA Gov, Hatch only won Johnson county and the margin was 10,568 (Politico). Branstad won the other 98 counties. The only county Branstad won by more than that was Scott, with a margin of 15,073 (Woodbury was just short with 10,245). So flipping all other counties except Scott to Hatch would give Branstad a margin of 15,073 - (10,568 + 98 - 1) = 4,408.

Very interesting! Now I'll just have to read it over about seven more times before I get it, since I'm so bad with equations. Tongue



Minnesota, Governor:

Actual:



Mark Dayton 989,100 50.07%
Jeff Johnson 879,249 44.51%

Alternate:



Mark Dayton 989,100 49.43%
Jeff Johnson 904,543 45.21%

EDIT: Messed up original alternate map.
17  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Update XIX: Melancholy and the Infinite Napping on: November 22, 2014, 05:50:36 pm


Bushie you're missing like 3/4 of the plate!

You're making it too hard for him! Let's simplify things a bit:

18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Former Virginia Senator Jim Webb launches exploratory committee! on: November 22, 2014, 07:03:31 am
This is Tim and Eric's strangest project yet.

wwwwebb2016dotcom
Let's fix our country






together
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Discuss with maps: Bush/Portman vs Webb/Warren on: November 22, 2014, 07:01:09 am


Webb/Warren - 270
Bush/Portman - 268
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Opinion of Jim Webb's 2016 website. on: November 22, 2014, 06:50:19 am
Websites (in terms of aesthetics) often are indicative of a candidate's traits. Considering that this site is bland, anachronistic and without consistency...
21  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Maximizing geography of losing candidates on: November 22, 2014, 05:09:14 am
South Carolina, Governor:

Actual:



Nikki R. Haley 696,645 55.90%
Vincent Sheheen 516,166 41.42%

Alternate:



Nikki R. Haley 696,645 49.01%
Vincent Sheheen 691,243 48.63%
22  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Racism Powered Republican Triumph on: November 22, 2014, 04:07:11 am
I hate to bump this, but I just noticed so much nonsense that I couldn't resist.

So you need six seats to win the majority, you win nine, three out of which are in the South (Confederacy defined) and it is because South is racist that Democrats lost the Senate?

Sure. The Republican electorate of this country nowadays is for all intents and purposes part of the South, because their present-day ideology has been irreversibly shaped by the dominance of Southerners in the Republican Party and its media. Southern culture as a whole is now altering the entire country's culture (much more so than vice-versa) as we become a larger share of the nation; why on God's green earth would that not apply to the politics of the region's dominant party? As I'm sure I don't have to tell you, there was a time in which Republicans from the North varied considerably from Republicans in the South and Republicans in the West; this really is no longer the case by and large (I'm talking about the electorate here, so please don't go into giving examples like Charlie Baker to refute). Republicans in Iowa and Colorado now respond in the same way to dog-whistling tactics as Republicans in Alabama respond to them. The Republican Party's belief system has been nationalized, and the Republican Party is now Southern.

Quote
Well the GOP would have to actually do something for civil rights first to test that little theory of yours, oldies.

Yes, like voting for the Civil Rights Act back in 1964 by a margin80+ Percent.

As for tokenism the score in the south, since reconstruction, is:

Republicans 1:0.

Democrats dominated the south for nearly 100 years and not a single southern state elected a democrat Black man. Not one. Bupkis.

Shut up.

The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87   (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10   (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9   (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24   (85–15%)

The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20   (5–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1   (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45–1   (98–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27–5   (84–16%)

Not a single Southern Republican voted for the Civil Rights Act; 7 Southern Democratic Senators and 1 Southern Democratic member of the House, however, did. In the North, more Republicans voted against the Act than Democrats.

At the end of the day, both a higher percentage of Northern Democrats voted for CRA than Northern Republicans, and a higher percentage of Southern Democrats voted for CRA than Southern Republicans. To simply combine the two groups and aggregate the numbers to fit your point is hilariously foolish from a historical perspective.

And how convenient of you to cut off the time period so that it fits your narrative, but let me oblige your timeline for just a minute. How many blacks were elected to statewide or federal office between the end of Reconstruction and 1964? Zero. Not a single one from the North; at least the South elected some during Reconstruction. Furthermore, the first black elected Senator post-Reconstruction was elected by a very Democratic electorate.

Douglas Wilder became the first black Governor in the South in 1990, in Virginia and as a Democrat.

Mike Thurmond ran for Labor Commissioner and won 43% of the white vote in 1998 against a very well-known white candidate, becoming the first newly-elected black Democrat in Georgia.

Thurbert Baker was appointed to AG in Georgia, sought election in 1998, and won 42% of the white vote. He won 48% of the white vote in 2002 and 53% of the white vote in 2006.

I'm not sure how the party that elected the first black senator in the south since reconstruction is defind as the party of 'racism'.

With 82% of the white vote too.

Uh, South Carolina would have elected a black Senator no matter what, considering that the Democratic opponent was black, too. I'm sure had it been a white Democrat against a black Republican, many current Republicans wouldn't have hesitated for a second to split their tickets.
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Projected 2016 Voter Demographics at the State Level? on: November 22, 2014, 03:16:19 am
Based on some math I did awhile back (several instances of it complete with charts floating around here somewhere), Georgia will likely be 58-59% white and 31% black.
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Projected 2016 Voter Demographics at the State Level? on: November 22, 2014, 03:14:20 am
It's literally going to be 110% non-white and -10% white because "Muh Presidential Turnout" and literally every state except Colorado will be won by the Great Female Hope.

Stop race-baiting.

LOL. Your president just gave legal status to 4-5 million people just because they would most likely be Democrats and you're telling me I'm race-baiting?

Because they can totally vote. Roll Eyes Seriously, shut up: that's not what this thread is about.
25  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Update XIX: Melancholy and the Infinite Napping on: November 22, 2014, 02:50:54 am
You could find a replacement tenant. If it's hard to find one at the current rate, you could reduce the rate and pay the difference.

This is obviously the smartest thing to do, but that would take effort, and so we all know the resolution. This is the guy who isn't allowed to use the stove we're talking about here.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 247


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines