Demo-Math
This post makes no sense. It reminds me of the popular illogical that Al Gore had more popular support in 2000, except it's far less logical.
There's no way to actually know it, because of the fact that people in different states vote for actually different things. The most important factor is that people in different states have far different liklihoods of their chosen candidate being elected, which in some cases directly impacts how they vote (for example, people might be less likely to vote in Texas, where Bush was a lock). But there's also different candidates (some states have Green and Libertarian candidates, some don't), too.
But in this case, they are doing something far worse, because they are comparing votes for a completely different and unrelated slate of Senators. A vote for Ted Kennedy (very senior, and essentially unopposed) is not the same as a vote for Maria Cantwell (freshman, and strongly opposed), and you can't reasonably compare the two. Add in the fact that the Democrats have many of their most popular Senators up for election this year, and the Republicans very few of theirs. And don't forget that a full third of the nation (by state) doesn't even get to vote at all because they have no Senators up for election in the first place.
So the actual numbers here are completely and utterly meaningless as an indication of support for Democrats. Yes, it shows Democrats have more support, but not by any particular percentage. A far more important number is simply the fact that the Democrats did not lose any seats, and the Republicans lost several. But you can't glean from these numbers any meaning about by "how much" the Democrats are favored, because there is no reasonable way to group them together to quantify it.
There's no way to actually know it, because of the fact that people in different states vote for actually different things. The most important factor is that people in different states have far different liklihoods of their chosen candidate being elected, which in some cases directly impacts how they vote (for example, people might be less likely to vote in Texas, where Bush was a lock). But there's also different candidates (some states have Green and Libertarian candidates, some don't), too.
But in this case, they are doing something far worse, because they are comparing votes for a completely different and unrelated slate of Senators. A vote for Ted Kennedy (very senior, and essentially unopposed) is not the same as a vote for Maria Cantwell (freshman, and strongly opposed), and you can't reasonably compare the two. Add in the fact that the Democrats have many of their most popular Senators up for election this year, and the Republicans very few of theirs. And don't forget that a full third of the nation (by state) doesn't even get to vote at all because they have no Senators up for election in the first place.
So the actual numbers here are completely and utterly meaningless as an indication of support for Democrats. Yes, it shows Democrats have more support, but not by any particular percentage. A far more important number is simply the fact that the Democrats did not lose any seats, and the Republicans lost several. But you can't glean from these numbers any meaning about by "how much" the Democrats are favored, because there is no reasonable way to group them together to quantify it.
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Leave a comment