U.S. Politics: Some Of Us Did Warn You, But It Can't Happen Here...

[JGP]

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

Kaepernick shirt used as target for dogs to attack at Navy Seal event last year just come to notice.  The most amazing thing for me isn't that they did it, but that they thought it wouldn't get out, and if it did they feel safe that there will be no consequences.  Can't link for some reason. 

This shit was flying hot on Twitter yesterday. The Seals publicly disavowed it-- claiming it was some group unaffiliated with them. I could be wrong, but I don't recall ever reading or hearing of dogs being a part of the BUD/S program [much less used operationally].

[A Horse Named Stranger]

2 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

Ah...no true Scotsman.

As a matter of fact Mel Gibson is indeed no true Scotsman.

I know, besides the point. But it just amused me on a childish level to throw in our favorite Aussie-American crazy Christian racist into that discussion. And as required by divine law.

They may take our lives, but they can't take our Jebus!

 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Largest half vs. smallest half is arbitrary. Yes, it's 26-24 for the top half and 21-29 for the bottom half. But most states' populations are pretty similar. The US has 4 huge states, like 8 large states, 8 tiny states, 5 small states, and a mass of 25 states in the middle. And trying to distinguish those 25 states by using population to determine partisan lean doesn't seem particularly valid. 

Um, any cutoff is going to be arbitrary.  Cutting it in half is far less ridiculous than the quintiles you were doing earlier.  And most states' populations are "pretty similar?"  Tell that to the apportionment in the House.  With 4.35x more members, and leaving out the 12 huge/large states you're cutting it off at, Washington has 10 times as many seats than the smallest states.  And even if we're talking about the 25 "mass in the middle," it still ranges from 10 seats to 3 seats for New Mexico.  Pretty sure that's an important difference to them.  Even states most people would consider quite small, like Oklahoma or Connecticut, have five seats compared to two in, say, Idaho or Hawaii.  Your flippant attitude towards how population affects relative apportionment is frankly quite galling.

Here's another way to arbitrarily split it up.  Look at each state with at least 2% - or 1/50th of the population.  If they have 1/50th of the population, hard to complain if they have 1/50th of the seats in the chamber.  17 states have 2% or more of the overall population.  Of the remaining 33 states, the GOP holds a 37-29 advantage.  I don't know how you can argue that's not a clear advantage among smaller states.

And the reason partisan lean is very valid is because the GOP's advantage in smaller states allows them to bank on holding the vast majority of far more seats regardless of the electoral environment, or even how many seats they have to defend, in any given cycle.  The GOP can bank on holding the vast majority of seats in about 20 states, and most of those are decidedly smaller.  Other than Texas (which again, is moving into the competitive range), even the relatively larger ones I mentioned above aren't part of your 12 huge/large states cutoff.  In contrast, the Dems only have about 10 states they can similarly rely on - and four of them (CA, NY, IL, NJ) are in that 12 huge/large state cutoff.

So that difference means the GOP can bank on ~40 seats while the Dems can only bank on ~20 seats.  That means of the remaining 40 seats, the GOP usually only has to win around 11 while the Dems usually have to win around 31.  That is the definition of an institutional advantage.  It's really quite shocking you do not grasp this rather fundamental aspect of American government.  And it's hardly anything new!  I suggest you start with Lee's (1999) Sizing Up the Senate.  See particularly chapter 4 ("Electoral Competitiveness, Campaign Fundraising, and Partisan Advantage").  Also of interest would be chapter 6 ("The Small-State Advantage in the Distribution of Federal Dollars") and chapter 7 ("How the Senate Makes Small States Winners").  A couple quotes from chapter 4:

Quote

We find that [population] has an effect independent of the effects of incumbency - the larger the state, the more competitive election, all else being equal. [84]

Frequently one party has won a share of seats disproportionate to its national electoral support because of its success in smaller-population states.  The countermajoritarian effect occurs because of the different weights given to the votes of those living in large- and small-population states.  During certain periods this effect has been decisive in determining partisan control of the Senate.  [122]

 

1 hour ago, Fez said:

And besides that, in my previous scenario of if 2020 goes about as well as it can for Democrats, then next congress it'll be a 29-21 advantage in the top half and a 27-23 advantage in the bottom half. That doesn't seem that different to me.

I don't know why you keep bringing up what could happen in November.  If the Dems win back the Senate, it will be due to two consecutive wave elections in their favor.  I don't think anyone thought the Senate composition after the 2008 elections reflected the true partisan spread across the states, and it won't in that case either.  What happens in November is almost wholly non-germane to the topic of longterm institutional advantages.

[Fez]

20 minutes ago, DMC said:

Um, any cutoff is going to be arbitrary.  Cutting it in half is far less ridiculous than the quintiles you were doing earlier.  And most states' populations are "pretty similar?"  Tell that to the apportionment in the House.  With 4.35x more members, and leaving out the 12 huge/large states you're cutting it off at, Washington has 10 times as many seats than the smallest states.  And even if we're talking about the 25 "mass in the middle," it still ranges from 10 seats to 3 seats for New Mexico.  Pretty sure that's an important difference to them.  Even states most people would consider quite small, like Oklahoma or Connecticut, have five seats compared to two in, say, Idaho or Hawaii.  Your flippant attitude towards how population affects relative apportionment is frankly quite galling.

Here's another way to arbitrarily split it up.  Look at each state with at least 2% - or 1/50th of the population.  If they have 1/50th of the population, hard to complain if they have 1/50th of the seats in the chamber.  17 states have 2% or more of the overall population.  Of the remaining 33 states, the GOP holds a 37-29 advantage.  I don't know how you can argue that's not a clear advantage among smaller states.

And the reason partisan lean is very valid is because the GOP's advantage in smaller states allows them to bank on holding the vast majority of far more seats regardless of the electoral environment, or even how many seats they have to defend, in any given cycle.  The GOP can bank on holding the vast majority of seats in about 20 states, and most of those are decidedly smaller.  Other than Texas (which again, is moving into the competitive range), even the relatively larger ones I mentioned above aren't part of your 12 huge/large states cutoff.  In contrast, the Dems only have about 10 states they can similarly rely on - and four of them (CA, NY, IL, NJ) are in that 12 huge/large state cutoff.

So that difference means the GOP can bank on ~40 seats while the Dems can only bank on ~20 seats.  That means of the remaining 40 seats, the GOP usually only has to win around 11 while the Dems usually have to win around 31.  That is the definition of an institutional advantage.  It's really quite shocking you do not grasp this rather fundamental aspect of American government.  And it's hardly anything new!  I suggest you start with Lee's (1999) Sizing Up the Senate.  See particularly chapter 4 ("Electoral Competitiveness, Campaign Fundraising, and Partisan Advantage").  Also of interest would be chapter 6 ("The Small-State Advantage in the Distribution of Federal Dollars") and chapter 7 ("How the Senate Makes Small States Winners").  A couple quotes from chapter 4:

 

I don't know why you keep bringing up what could happen in November.  If the Dems win back the Senate, it will be due to two consecutive wave elections in their favor.  I don't think anyone thought the Senate composition after the 2008 elections reflected the true partisan spread across the states, and it won't in that case either.  What happens in November is almost wholly non-germane to the topic of longterm institutional advantages.

1. I'm not talking about House apportionment. Of course population matters more there, because we use a flawed formula. I'm talking about a straight correlation between population and partisan strength. Not rural-ness, not demographics, just population.

2. The reason I keep bringing up 2020 is because I don't think the current senate composition particularly reflects the true partisan spread either. Right now it includes 2 wave Republican elections (2014, and 2016 protecting most of the 2010 wave).

Small states of course get over-represented by the senate, I'd never deny that. And that over-representation means that they get substantially more benefits than one might expect. What I disagree with is this idea that Republican partisan strength is based on control of small states.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

11 hours ago, TheMightyKC said:

I did not gather up The Courage To Say It in time to be included in the Cancel Culture thread, but Christians have been getting cancelled for a long time and No One Ever Cares.  

I am not complaining and it is just an observation, but I was afraid I Might Get Piled On.  I asked my wife and she discouraged me from posting but I wanted to Say It.

-KC

 

Howso.  I'm a church going Christian.  Prior to COVID-19 I was in church a couple of times a week.  My church is not a particularly liberal one.  I'm an Orthodox Christian a tonsured reader in the Orthodox Church in America.  None of us have been "cancelled".  

Who are you claiming has been "cancelled".  Not a pile on I'm simply asking for clarification.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

8 hours ago, GrimTuesday said:

But the war on Christmas., and and not allowing school prayer are clearly forcing Christians underground.

Just look at this evil anti-Christian propaganda that was on CNN years ago (posted because I think it funny and any excuse and because if you're a fan of Bob's Burger you can totally hear Hugo's voice whenever Sam says Bob).

It is important to talk about Christian aggrievement in the US when looking politics. It is one of the major driving force for the Republican party and their base, and has been for decades. Canceling culture in regards to Christians is just another instance of Right wing psychos stoking animosity and fear within their base

I remember when I used to teach in public schools and we tried to crush the Christian majority in our school by asking the morning prayer group of students to not hold their morning prayer time in the school but outside. (This was actually a complicated legal issue, and the majority of teachers and administrators were Christians too, but whatever)

What shocked me after we were so successful in squashing Christianity is that it continued to exist just as it had before. 

4 hours ago, TheMightyKC said:

Those people aren't real Christians if they are doing things that aren't Christian.  In this Christian family we wear masks and love our neighbors.

Above, you said you aren't the decider of who is Christian. This is overwhelmingly a Christian country with white Christian people in power. Just because you don't like some of them doesn't mean they aren't Christians. In fact, as an atheist who works at a university, I still don't feel the freedom to discuss this part of who I am in a group of people who, all time time, talk about going to church, praying, etc. I think modern Christians really don't understand what persecution is. Maybe they could read up on some famous examples somewhere. In some book full of that kind of stuff. I don't know where you'd find something like that, but I'm sure it's around.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Fez said:

I'm talking about a straight correlation between population and partisan strength.

And I'm saying there is a straight correlation between population and partisan strength - indeed this correlation has been empirically demonstrated numerous times, and is driven by whichever party has disproportionate strength among smaller states.  Suggesting otherwise is simply ignoring quantitative research and common sense.

2016 definitely was not a "wave" election.  That's absurd.  It's not a wave election when your presidential nominee loses the popular vote by 2%, you lose 2 seats in the Senate, and 6 seats in the House.  And again, going off PVI, of Dem leaning states the GOP holds 2.  Of GOP leaning states the Dems hold 5.  And in the two EVEN states the delegation is split.  I'd say that's a pretty damn - even rather shockingly - accurate reflection of the partisan spread.

Here's another stat that demonstrates you're wrong that the Republican partisan strength is not based on their strength with smaller states that gives them an inherent institutional advantage.  The GOP holds both seats in 22 states, the Dems 19 states.  The GOP's 22 states make up 39.62% of the population.  The Dems' 19 states makes up 42.03% of the population.  So the GOP gets a 6 seat advantage in states that make up 2.4% less of the population - a difference that would be the 13th largest state in and of itself between Virginia and Washington.  I really don't know how you can look at that and not see a correlation between strength among smaller states and disproportionate partisan strength.

[Kalbear]

Actually I'll pile back a bit.

@TheMightyKC, why do you feel like christians are on the verge of being cancelled? Can you clarify your feelings a bit more? And do you think you know when this has happened?

[Fez]

17 minutes ago, DMC said:

And I'm saying there is a straight correlation between population and partisan strength - indeed this correlation has been empirically demonstrated numerous times, and is driven by whichever party has disproportionate strength among smaller states.  Suggesting otherwise is simply ignoring quantitative research and common sense.

2016 definitely was not a "wave" election.  That's absurd.  It's not a wave election when your presidential nominee loses the popular vote by 2%, you lose 2 seats in the Senate, and 6 seats in the House.  And again, going off PVI, of Dem leaning states the GOP holds 2.  Of GOP leaning states the Dems hold 5.  And in the two EVEN states the delegation is split.  I'd say that's a pretty damn - even rather shockingly - accurate reflection of the partisan spread.

Here's another stat that demonstrates you're wrong that the Republican partisan strength is not based on their strength with smaller states that gives them an inherent institutional advantage.  The GOP holds both seats in 22 states, the Dems 19 states.  The GOP's 22 states make up 39.62% of the population.  The Dems' 19 states makes up 42.03% of the population.  So the GOP gets a 6 seat advantage in states that make up 2.4% less of the population - a difference that would be the 13th largest state in and of itself between Virginia and Washington.  I really don't know how you can look at that and not see a correlation between strength among smaller states and disproportionate partisan strength.

1. Prove it. Give me the correlation coefficients and the strength of significance.

2. I didn't say 2016 was a wave, I said it protected the 2010 wave in the senate. Which it did. Republicans held seats in PA, OH, FL, WI, NC, and IA that are all winnable by Democrats. Mostly bigger states actually, so it would make your argument stronger if Democrats had won them.

3. Not relevant precisely because of the current composition of the senate. All these stats you keep bringing up will change dramatically if Democrats do well in 2020. And then they'll likely get worse again 2022, though probably not get close to where they are right now.

 

[DMC]

Just now, Fez said:

1. Prove it. Give me the correlation coefficients and the strength of significance.

I'm not your research monkey and I already cited a book that empirically demonstrates the correlation between advantage in smaller states and partisan strength throughout history.  All that's left is to demonstrate the GOP currently has an advantage in smaller states, and if the numerous descriptive statistics I've cited over the past few posts don't convince you, I doubt running a regression will.

3 minutes ago, Fez said:

2. I didn't say 2016 was a wave, I said it protected the 2010 wave in the senate. Which it did. Republicans held seats in PA, OH, FL, WI, NC, and IA that are all winnable by Democrats. Mostly bigger states actually, so it would make your argument stronger if Democrats had won them.

This doesn't show any impact on the Senate composition reflecting the partisan spread.  OH, FL, NC, and IA are all GOP-leaning states.  Them holding those seats DOES reflect the partisan spread.  As does holding on to PA which maintains a split delegation - which is what you'd intuitively expect if the state's PVI was EVEN.  So you have one example on how 2016 protected the previous Senate cycles "wave."  1 percent of the Senate composition protected.  Wow.

8 minutes ago, Fez said:

Not relevant precisely because of the current composition of the senate. All these stats you keep bringing up will change dramatically if Democrats do well in 2020.

Yes!  And you know how they'll change?  Dems will have even a bigger advantage in the population while barely picking up the majority.  The GOP's population per seat advantage would almost certainly increase - probably dramatically - as North Carolina and maybe Georgia and Iowa would be dropped into the mixed category.  Dems pick up Arizona, Colorado, and maybe even Maine and (heh) Montana from the mixed category.  And the GOP picks Alabama back up. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

46 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

I think modern Christians really don't understand what persecution is. 

In some fairness, this isn't a problem with Christians specifically because of their religion. Groups in power who have to let go of some of it always howl. To do otherwise would, well to also be fair, Christ like, and many Christians fail terribly at that.

[Fez]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

I'm not your research monkey and I already cited a book that empirically demonstrates the correlation between advantage in smaller states and partisan strength throughout history.  All that's left is to demonstrate the GOP currently has an advantage in smaller states, and if the numerous descriptive statistics I've cited over the past few posts don't convince you, I doubt running a regression will.

This doesn't show any impact on the Senate composition reflecting the partisan spread.  OH, FL, NC, and IA are all GOP-leaning states.  Them holding those seats DOES reflect the partisan spread.  As does holding on to PA which maintains a split delegation - which is what you'd intuitively expect if the state's PVI was EVEN.  So you have one example on how 2016 protected the previous Senate cycles "wave."  1 percent of the Senate composition protected.  Wow.

Yes!  And you know how they'll change?  Dems will have even a bigger advantage in the population while barely picking up the majority.  The GOP's population per seat advantage would almost certainly increase - probably dramatically - as North Carolina and maybe Georgia and Iowa would be dropped into the mixed category.  Dems pick up Arizona, Colorado, and maybe even Maine and (heh) Montana from the mixed category.  And the GOP picks Alabama back up. 

If you're making the argument, give the proof. Otherwise, drop it. I'm not your student. Why should I listen to some random on the internet? I only posted in the first place in response to an ongoing debate; I'd have never brought it up otherwise.

Also, for 2020, I already laid out the math. If you assume Democrats win every competitive seat, which is the only neutral way to talk about it this far out, they pickup more seats from the bottom half than the top half.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Fez said:

If you're making the argument, give the proof. Otherwise, drop it. I'm not your student. Why should I listen to some random on the internet?

And this isn't the class it's the internet.  I gave you plenty of descriptive statistics to present my case.  I quoted one of the seminal works on the subject that asserts the comprehensive empirical findings in the book show a correlation between population and partisan strength via a party's strength among small states - and another quote that that backs up why looking at how the partisan lean and "safe" states being bent towards the GOP due to their strength among small states matters the GOP inherent institutional advantage.  I'm not gonna buy the fucking book for you.  If you don't wanna discuss it any further, of course that's fine, but when the fuck has providing correlation coefficients been a standard for providing supporting evidence on a goddamn message board.  Don't act like I haven't provided more support from my argument than 99% of the arguments that go on around here.

8 minutes ago, Fez said:

Also, for 2020, I already laid out the math. If you assume Democrats win every competitive seat, which is the only neutral way to talk about it this far out, they pickup more seats from the bottom half than the top half.

And I already said that such a result would by high skewed towards the Dems due to two consecutive waves, and that composition would almost certainly regress to the mean rather immediately (i.e. 2022).

[Fez]

Okay. I did the math myself, looking at the 2019 US census count and Gallup's 2018 party affiliation by state data (the most recent I could find).

Pearson's R 0.2337; P-Value 0.102381

I'm not particularly impressed. Especially since that isn't even controlling for any variables that could easily change.

ETA: And that excludes DC since they don't get senators currently. If you throw in DC, it changes to

Pearson's R 0.1522; P-Value 0.286331

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Fez said:

Pearson's R 0.2337; P-Value 0.102381

I'm not particularly impressed.

What exactly is the second variable there - the Gallup one?  Also, a P-value of .10 is considered statistically significant.  Weak statistical significance I'd only mention as "almost" statistically significant with my datasets but since the sample is really small those results would probably get you published.  And yeah, just running a bivariate correlation isn't exactly rigorous.  But neither of us know how control variables would affect the correlation - there's just as much potential certain variables would increase coefficient as decrease it.

[Fez]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

What exactly is the second variable there - the Gallup one?  Also, a P-value of .10 is considered statistically significant.  Weak statistical significance I'd only mention as "almost" statistically significant with my datasets but since the sample is really small those results would probably get you published.  And yeah, just running a bivariate correlation isn't exactly rigorous.  But neither of us know how control variables would affect the correlation - there's just as much potential certain variables would increase coefficient as decrease it.

Yeah, second variable is percent of respondents who report an affiliation of Democrat/Lean Democrat according to Gallup.

I tend to stick to .05 for significance in my work, though admittedly I don't know what is standard for this field.

You're right of course about the control variables. I assume education is one of the most important ones, and there's some weird quirks in the education data; like the top 5 states by attaining a high school degree being Montana, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Wyoming, and Alaska.

[Ormond]

18 minutes ago, DMC said:

What exactly is the second variable there - the Gallup one?  Also, a P-value of .10 is considered statistically significant.  Weak statistical significance I'd only mention as "almost" statistically significant with my datasets but since the sample is really small those results would probably get you published.  And yeah, just running a bivariate correlation isn't exactly rigorous.  But neither of us know how control variables would affect the correlation - there's just as much potential certain variables would increase coefficient as decrease it.

Thanks for explaining that because normally one could not get a research article published in psychology with a p-value of .10. You'd need .05. I knew that some branches of medical research require a .01 p for publication, but didn't realize political science went the other way. 

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, Fez said:

I tend to stick to .05 for significance in my work, though admittedly I don't know what is standard for this field.

Right, me too.  Again, it's due to the sample.  .10 isn't gonna get you published in the top three journals, but it could in, say, Electoral Studies or Perspectives on Politics - especially if you're only looking at one cycle of data from an n of 50.  Hell, pretty sure I've seen articles with considerably higher p-values, or ones that don't even publish the p-value (or hide it in the online appendix).

Anyway, I would prefer to use margin of victory in the 2016 presidential election (as a percentage) over party affiliation.  But if Gallup includes leaners I suppose it's not that bad.

[Jace, Extat]

Jesus fucking Christ. Just suck each other off already!!! I thought I was going to get 15 posts about God's Not Dead 4: God Hard With A Vengeance, not squabbling over decimal points in a well settled argument.

[Kalbear]

Daaamn