Outgoing Sen. McCaskill bashes Democrats for failing to gain trust with the deplorables, a recipe for disaster for Democ (Mexican, Brown)

[prospectheightsresident]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

You do understand that "less likely" and "more likely" is not the same as " I will vote for" right ?

Lets assume it is for a second, and claim the 4% Difference(which actually calculates to 1% of the overall votes) decides to vote for McCaskill in a world where she supports Kavenaugh.

She still loses 49% to 50 %

So again, Even by your own link, giving using the maximum numbers, she still loses. So , do you want to try again.

Margin of error. Your attempts to poke holes in what is clear as day continue to fail. This is beyond comical at this point. Damn.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident

Margin of error. Your attempts to poke holes in what is clear as day continue to fail. This is beyond comical at this point. Damn.

So you want to make a 3.8%(in the poll) Margin or Error argument on a poll where doing so actually negates your entire argument, my thats bold.

If you dont get what Im saying, let me explain for you.

Margin of error goes both ways. That means you are now saying its possible that more people supported McCaskill because she was against him, or its almost 8 points instead of 4. or anywhere inbetween.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident

No, it doesn't. My argument, which I've stated multiple times (you're just choosing to ignore it and substitute your own version, but that's OK) is that the decision to vote against Kavanaugh was generally harmful to Democrats running for reelection to the Senate in red states. Again, that one got away doesn't change this; I never claimed that it was the kiss of death in every situation, as that wouldn't be the case given Tester's victory . . . you assumed that based on my first basic post, but I have stated multiple times what the point of my post was. Of course, pollling also suggests harm to these candidates if they voted against Kavanaugh.

See, the flaw there is that the harm would happen regardless of the state, red or purple. It should have hurt Democrats regardless. It didnt.

Tester surviving, as did Brown, Casey, Baldwin shows it wasnt Kavanuagh, it was a multitude of things.

[prospectheightsresident]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

So you want to make a 3.8%(in the poll) Margin or Error argument on a poll where doing so actually negates your entire argument, my thats bold.

If you dont get what Im saying, let me explain for you.

Margin of error goes both ways. That means you are now saying its possible that more people supported McCaskill because she was against him, or its almost 8 points instead of 4. or anywhere inbetween.

Yes, it does. But, margin of error on my end, supports my argument. Again, there is ample evidence to support my premise. It stands, even if you don't want it to.

[prospectheightsresident]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

See, the flaw there is that the harm would happen regardless of the state, red or purple. It should have hurt Democrats regardless. It didnt.

Tester surviving, as did Brown, Casey, Baldwin shows it wasnt Kavanuagh, it was a multitude of things.

No, because that was never my argument, no matter how hard you try to make it my argument. Dem senators winning comfortably in what have been traditionally blue states (they swung in 2016 for the first time in decades at the presidential level for the most part) doesn't take away from my premise at all.

[prospectheightsresident]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

See, the flaw there is that the harm would happen regardless of the state, red or purple. It should have hurt Democrats regardless. It didnt.

Tester surviving, as did Brown, Casey, Baldwin shows it wasnt Kavanuagh, it was a multitude of things.

Umm, I don't think anyone would disagree that a multitude of factors led to the outcome in every race, as is always the case (these aren't one issue campaigns). But that doesn't take away from my premise, which is that Dem senators from red states who voted against Kavanaugh were generally hurt by their votes (only doesn't apply to one, but applies to all others), with all but one losing reelection for their vote (and with one winning, albeit narrowly, after voting for).

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident

Yes, it does. But, margin of error on my end, supports my argument. Again, there is ample evidence to support my premise. It stands, even if you don't want it to.

You cant just claim your end though, you cant just pick and choose. Using the margin or error argument means that you are acknowledging that you could be wrong, in fact,since its right on the line, you are saying there is a more than 50% chance you are wrong LOL.

Mind you, even in the secondary poll in that link, McCaskill and Hawely were both under their end result percentages, and undecideds didnt fall into the previously mentioned percentages(nor was there enough anyways). So obviously the poll you quoted was wrong anyways,

[prospectheightsresident]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

You cant just claim your end though, you cant just pick and choose. Using the margin or error argument means that you are acknowledging that you could be wrong, in fact,since its right on the line, you are saying there is a more than 50% chance you are wrong LOL.

Mind you, even in the secondary poll in that link, McCaskill and Hawely were both under their end result percentages, and undecideds didnt fall into the previously mentioned percentages(nor was there enough anyways). So obviously the poll you quoted was wrong anyways,

The point about "my end" just goes to show that there is ample evidence to support my premise. Again, its not that difficult a concept to comprehend. And, polls are never spot on. But they don't need to be spot on for the purpose of this debate. Damn.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident

Umm, I don't think anyone would disagree that a multitude of factors led to the outcome in every race, as is always the case (these aren't one issue campaigns). But that doesn't take away from my premise, which is that Dem senators from red states who voted against Kavanaugh were generally hurt by their votes (only doesn't apply to one, but applies to all others), with all but one losing reelection for their vote (and with one winning, albeit narrowly, after voting for).

You keep saying all but one as if we are talking about 50 races, we are talking about 3 to 4, all in states that Trump easily carried.

You are saying the Kavanaugh vote hurt them, im not disagreeing, im saying i disagree that it is the reason any of them lost.

There arent enough "kavanuagh voters" in any of those states for that singular issue to have cost any of them a seat .

If there were, then Jon Tester would have lost. Him surviving shows this.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident

The point about "my end" just goes to show that there is ample evidence to support my premise. Again, its not that difficult a concept to comprehend. And, polls are never spot on. But they don't need to be spot on for the purpose of this debate. Damn.

They kind of do.

The only thing you believe(key word) that supports your claim is this poll, which without the margin of error,already proves you wrong, and in the opposite direction obliterates your argument.
so yea, the margin of error argument has you at a greater than 50% chance of being wrong

and again, even in the end, the poll numbers dont add up to supporting you even if you include undecideds.


so technically MoE would have to be 2.4 before it starts to support your claim, so like 75% chance of being wrong , LOL