Quote (thundercock @ Jun 29 2016 07:47pm)
I think the issue is that he denies that he's wrong.
When their shit reading comprehension is getting them into trouble, and causing them to misrepresent something, why wouldn't I? It's not difficult for me to do what I did at the time and say "Interesting, 60-year low for turnout, that didn't show up anywhere in the polling, early voting, or advertising, so I don't really know how that could have pushed things into less-likely outcomes." But I can't rewrite the laws of mathematics just because a couple of people are unhappy, or don't understand them. I think I learned the basics of probability when I was in high school.
Quote (Santara @ Jun 30 2016 10:20am)
Let's talk about pesky little math details. 9 is smaller than, or greater than 13? Baby steps before we move on.
There's no need to reframe the discussion. This is the fifth indication you've made that you just fundamentally do not understand what's being measured, and when that's the case there's not going to BE a way to reframe the discussion to make the two ends meet: this is a principle of mathematics you simply never learned. Regardless, it doesn't matter. We would still be up a river of shit based on the two unbelievably stupid things you said about the House.
Quote (cambovenzi @ Jun 29 2016 06:15pm)
Backfire #1: "There's nothing about the four-way race in South Dakota that's a lock." Republican won my 20 points.
Backfire #2: "To put it simply: there's no evidence to suggest that a net gain of 8 seats is possible for the Republicans at present. "
What's hysterical is that the wall of trash you wrote validates exactly what I said (I'll remove the garbled nonsense so that you can read it).
I told you earlier that all you managed to accomplish was demonstrating that you were completely oblivious to the existence of the universal swing and to how polls are merely snapshots in time, and that's exactly what you just preserved in that post.
These are really elementary concepts. You didn't understand them then and you just showed you still don't understand them. Either you don't know what "at present" means, or you don't understand the very simple concept that races move back and forth over time depending on how they are influenced. One influence, the universal swing, can move all races in one direction at the same time. Remember the Kansas example, when I told you with absolute certainty that the Republicans were not going to lose the KS Senate seat and still somehow magically perform better in bluer territory like CO/IA/NH, that if they could win in those areas that they would perform better in KS? You know, the exact thing that ended up happening? That's the universal swing in action. It's how elections work.