**** Elections thread *****

[Poopadoop]

Cherry picked results used to form a biased presentation does not constitute a fact

I reported all the congressional special elections in the one year following each election you mentioned. You're the one who set the parameters here.

This ant is still alive and well. I'm coming for your picnic!!

You may soon find the picnic has moved on without you.

Do you really think anyone is fooled by this? You know exactly what I'm talking about here. Would you rather have 1% of a dollar, or 1% of a truckload of dollars?

Not a valid comparison by any means.

And one apple has 100x the mass of one blueberry. How does that affect the apple's ability to function as an apple, or the blueberry's ability to function as a blueberry?

It doesn't.

FACT: It's harder for a republican to win in California and NY, than it is for a Democrat to win in South Carolina and Kansas.

That's generally correct, yes.

It depends on what state/district we're talking about.

Only inasmuch as the swing makes a meaningful difference. An election is winner-takes-all. The impact of a swing that changes a safe district into a toss up is meaningful. The impact of a swing that has no potential outcome on the election is not.

It's kind of a moot question since you're comparing congressional elections with presidential elections.

Nope, I'm comparing congressional elections with congressional special elections that took place a year after a general election.

Scott Brown pulled out a stunning senate victory in MA in 2010. Does that mean Obama should have been worried about losing the state in the 2012 presidential election? Not even a little bit. Fuck, the guy ran against MA's former governor and still won the state easily in 2012

That argument would be a lot more convincing if Trump had smashed PA in 2016. He didn't.