|
|
 Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The D swings are the outcome variable, the predictor variable is 2016 vs. 2017. If, say, you measured the swings across a number of years, say 2008, 2010...2016, and the variability in the swings differed depending on which two years you were comparing (i.e., which two years you examined a number of swings over) that would be an example of heteroscedacity.
I'm referring to the change in the D candidates themselves. Lamb is a vastly different D than the 2016 "D" in the sample. Is that heteroskedastic?
That's your subjective opinion.
Another subjective opinion I hold is that scientism is a big problem.
The claim though is a bit more general than this particular special election in PA. To 'debunk' it you would typically be expected to provide an alternative explanation for every one of those 6 swings. Arguably, these would become more and more complicated until your model includes several extra variables to explain each case. My model only has one variable, Trump. Doesn't mean the more complex model can't be true, but in scientific inference generally the simpler model is preferred.
Are you suggesting that your model reliably approximates the truth?
|
Reply With Quote