Judges overturn Virginia gerrymanding, redraw congressional map

[DGuller]

It might seem that way from Languish, but the DGs are the exception more than the rule.

I don't understand why you have the constant need to post such dumb provocative posts.

[grumbler]

Oh, and re-election rates are not at "historic highs."  The 2010 election saw the lowest re-election rate in the last 50 years, and rates for 2014 were lower than at least half-a-dozen elections in that span.  I know the narrative says otherwise, but the narrative is wrong.  As usual.
https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php

[Razgovory]

It might seem that way from Languish, but the DGs are the exception more than the rule.

I don't understand why you have the constant need to post such dumb provocative posts.

Because he's a jackass, that's why.  Party loyalty typically doesn't carry as much weight in local elections since "big issues" are not relevant.  The Sheriff or judge doesn't have much say on foreign policy or federal issues.

[DGuller]

Oh, and re-election rates are not at "historic highs."  The 2010 election saw the lowest re-election rate in the last 50 years, and rates for 2014 were lower than at least half-a-dozen elections in that span.  I know the narrative says otherwise, but the narrative is wrong.  As usual.
https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php

It plateaued for the last couple of decades, and it's natural since you can't go much higher than 90% anyway, people want to die or cash in eventually.  But if you look back further, it's actually historically very high:  http://research.policyarchive.org/265.pdf.

[grumbler]

Oh, and re-election rates are not at "historic highs."  The 2010 election saw the lowest re-election rate in the last 50 years, and rates for 2014 were lower than at least half-a-dozen elections in that span.  I know the narrative says otherwise, but the narrative is wrong.  As usual.
https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php

It plateaued for the last couple of decades, and it's natural since you can't go much higher than 90% anyway, people want to die or cash in eventually.  But if you look back further, it's actually historically very high:  http://research.policyarchive.org/265.pdf.

So, you are saying that it isn't at "historic highs."  Yes, that was my point.  And it didn't plateau the 'last couple of decades."  It averaged higher in 80, 82, and 84 than in 10, 12, and 14.  Your source shows that re-election rates for incumbents were higher in 1790-1810 (the first two decade of data) than in 1974-1994 (the last two decades of data).  There were years of lower re-election, but the present is part of a typical era, not an atypical one.

[DGuller]

Oh, and re-election rates are not at "historic highs."  The 2010 election saw the lowest re-election rate in the last 50 years, and rates for 2014 were lower than at least half-a-dozen elections in that span.  I know the narrative says otherwise, but the narrative is wrong.  As usual.
https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php

It plateaued for the last couple of decades, and it's natural since you can't go much higher than 90% anyway, people want to die or cash in eventually.  But if you look back further, it's actually historically very high:  http://research.policyarchive.org/265.pdf.

So, you are saying that it isn't at "historic highs."  Yes, that was my point.  And it didn't plateau the 'last couple of decades."  It averaged higher in 80, 82, and 84 than in 10, 12, and 14.  Your source shows that re-election rates for incumbents were higher in 1790-1810 (the first two decade of data) than in 1974-1994 (the last two decades of data).  There were years of lower re-election, but the present is part of a typical era, not an atypical one.

I am saying they are at historic highs, if you don't zoom in into meaningless statistical noise and look at the trend instead.  The difference of an odd percent or two is not really significant on the big scale of things, especially when you compare the new normal of around 90% against the 60%-70% rates that were observed previously.  The reelection rate has never been hovering around 90% until the last few decades.

[alfred russel]

Did you guys know global warming is a fraud? The world has actually been cooling since 1997, the hottest year ever.

[grumbler]

I am saying they are at historic highs, if you don't zoom in into meaningless statistical noise and look at the trend instead.  The difference of an odd percent or two is not really significant on the big scale of things, especially when you compare the new normal of around 90% against the 60%-70% rates that were observed previously.  The reelection rate has never been hovering around 90% until the last few decades.

I see.  It is clear that you don't know what "historic highs mean if you think that the re-election rate today is at "historic highs."  What the phrase actually means is that it is higher than it has been in history... you know, historic.  It clearly isn't that, unless you arbitrarily declare some atypical period to be "historic."

I suppose you could zoom into meaningless detail and try to argue that the 90+% re-election rates of the pre-1840 period, the 1930s, and 1960+ don't count.  Or argue, as you do, that the 7 elections in which the rate was below 70% is "history" and the 107 of them where it was above 70% are not, but that's just bullshit.  We are not at historic highs of incumbent re-elections in the House.  A look at the data will verify that.

[grumbler]

Did you guys know global warming is a fraud? The world has actually been cooling since 1997, the hottest year ever.

Okay...  Sure...  Whatever...

*backs up*

*turns and runs away*

[DGuller]

I am saying they are at historic highs, if you don't zoom in into meaningless statistical noise and look at the trend instead.  The difference of an odd percent or two is not really significant on the big scale of things, especially when you compare the new normal of around 90% against the 60%-70% rates that were observed previously.  The reelection rate has never been hovering around 90% until the last few decades.

I see.  It is clear that you don't know what "historic highs mean if you think that the re-election rate today is at "historic highs."  What the phrase actually means is that it is higher than it has been in history... you know, historic.  It clearly isn't that, unless you arbitrarily declare some atypical period to be "historic."

I suppose you could zoom into meaningless detail and try to argue that the 90+% re-election rates of the pre-1840 period, the 1930s, and 1960+ don't count.  Or argue, as you do, that the 7 elections in which the rate was below 70% is "history" and the 107 of them where it was above 70% are not, but that's just bullshit.  We are not at historic highs of incumbent re-elections in the House.  A look at the data will verify that.

I do look at the data as a statistician, not as a computer program's max() function.  That means smoothing out the noise to get at the signal.  Apart from that, are we actually discussing the same numbers?  From the numbers I can see, the pre-1840 period reelection rate never got above 69%.

[Barrister]

Did you guys know global warming is a fraud? The world has actually been cooling since 1997, the hottest year ever.

Okay...  Sure...  Whatever...

*backs up*

*turns and runs away*

Don't make promises you can't keep grumbles.

[DGuller]

[grumbler]

I do look at the data as a statistician, not as a computer program's max() function.  That means smoothing out the noise to get at the signal.  Apart from that, are we actually discussing the same numbers?  From the numbers I can see, the pre-1840 period reelection rate never got above 69%.

I don't think you are actually looking at the data at all.  If you examine your pdf source, it shows the re-election rate for incumbents in 1840 of 82.8%  in 1938, 75.5.  in 1836, 81.9.  It's all right there in table 1.  The date is the first column, the "percent winning reelection" is the seventh column.  The 75.5% number is the lowest of any of the years prior to 1840.  Even a statistician should be able to read a simple table.

[grumbler]

Don't make promises you can't keep grumbles.

Okay, grandpa.  Ill remember and heed that advice. 

[DGuller]

I do look at the data as a statistician, not as a computer program's max() function.  That means smoothing out the noise to get at the signal.  Apart from that, are we actually discussing the same numbers?  From the numbers I can see, the pre-1840 period reelection rate never got above 69%.

I don't think you are actually looking at the data at all.  If you examine your pdf source, it shows the re-election rate for incumbents in 1840 of 82.8%  in 1938, 75.5.  in 1836, 81.9.  It's all right there in table 1.  The date is the first column, the "percent winning reelection" is the seventh column.  The 75.5% number is the lowest of any of the years prior to 1840.  Even a statistician should be able to read a simple table.

I'm looking at "percent of House re-elected" column.  Looking at the percentage of people who stand for re-election and win is misleading, since very often Congressmen retire precisely when they or their party is out of favor, and they have a real chance of losing an election.