"The AP scrutinized the outcomes of all 435 U.S. House races and about 4,700 state House and Assembly seats up for election last year using a new statistical method of calculating partisan advantage. It's designed to detect cases in which one party may have won, widened or retained its grip on power through political gerrymandering.

The analysis found four times as many states with Republican-skewed state House or Assembly districts than Democratic ones. Among the two dozen most populated states that determine the vast majority of Congress, there were nearly three times as many with Republican-tilted U.S. House districts.

Traditional battlegrounds such as Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida and Virginia were among those with significant Republican advantages in their U.S. or state House races. All had districts drawn by Republicans after the last Census in 2010.

The AP analysis also found that Republicans won as many as 22 additional U.S. House seats over what would have been expected based on the average vote share in congressional districts across the country. That helped provide the GOP with a comfortable majority over Democrats instead of a narrow one."

AP

-------------------------
"The truth is incontrovertible.
malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it,
but in the end,
there it is." -Sir Winston Churchill

Yawn.

 

 

Sirprized?

I used to think priority number one was reducing our legal campaign contribution corruption.

Now I think it's this.

not at all surprised, but I always seek quantification.

-------------------------
"The truth is incontrovertible.
malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it,
but in the end,
there it is." -Sir Winston Churchill

Republican strategies tend to be undemocratic. Gerrymandering on one hand and trying to disenfranchise groups who tend to vote Democrat.



-------------------------
“It is the heart of US policy to use fascism to preserve capitalism while claiming to be saving democracy from communism “ - Michael Parenti

"trying to disenfranchise groups who tend to vote Democrat"

That's been pretty effective too.

-------------------------
"The truth is incontrovertible.
malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it,
but in the end,
there it is." -Sir Winston Churchill

I think the #1 priority is breaking the 2-party stranglehold and facilitating establishment of a viable 3rd party.

That's what the party in charge does. Dems did it to us. Suggest that you offer a platform that offers something other than hysterical conspiracy theories and try to win back the American people. Doesn't look like that is going to happen until after another world class ass-kicking, however. At the moment you are tacking further away from what the American people want.  

 

 

-------------------------
I :heart; Q

Actually, a rational breakup of districts could help accomplish that. A purple disctrict could elect an independent centrist.

Yeah, it's still a bad idea. Your injection of politics is irrelevant.

And as usual way off base about "what the American People want"
The polls clearly show that they are not happy with an incompetent traitor

-------------------------
"The truth is incontrovertible.
malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it,
but in the end,
there it is." -Sir Winston Churchill

Polls lol, I've never been polled for anything ever.

How do you even get polled? Answer unknown phone number calls? Who does that?

Last I saw he was at 50% anyway

Polls are based on statistics as was the issue brought up in the original post.

It's a large and complex branch of mathematics that has proven to be quite useful. Ask insurance companies. Or casinos.

Statistics require good source data, polls = bad source data

Casinos and insurance companies do not use polls, they would be out of business like Hillary

Apparently not. My side keeps winning in accord with my predictions. Looks like I know something about what the people want.

-------------------------
I :heart; Q

Bad data? I don't think so. Data is data; neither bad nor good unless it is fudged.

All polls are shown with a margin of error based on sample size. How do they determine that? Statistics.

What do polls mean? They mean that people answered a given question a certain way. They still need to be intrepreted and put into context. They are evidence/data you can use to support a view. The more lopsided the poll, the stronger the evidence.

There is nothing wrong with poll results in context.

Just to help clarify... Bad sampling produces "bad" data.

If you're not taking your sample with appropriate randomness, among the right sample population, you'll get results that are not representative of the full population.

e.g., if you surveyed 1000 Democrats across the USA, you'd get what Dems across the USA prefer with about 3% margin of error, but not what all people prefer.

Polling problems include use of landlines, which younger voters aren't likely to have; and geographical over/under-representation of certain areas.

In that regard, the "average of averages" can be meaningful; checking multiple polls and methods. Sort like the center track of multiple hurricane path models.

For a normal distribution:

There is a difference between saying polls aren't perfect and polls are wrong/bad/useless and can/should be ignored.

Simplistic beliefs are usually expressed in one sentence or clause.

Exactly.

This has been Nate's deal all along. Polls of polls, biases, trend, margins of error.
The aggregate is not a perfect answer but still the best one.

In what fantasy land is Donald's approval near 50%?

I hope your "we keep winning" shtick makes you feel better tpap.
Most of us know that losing solid red seats by a far lower margin than ever before is a pretty good sign for the Democratic party.

-------------------------
"The truth is incontrovertible.
malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it,
but in the end,
there it is." -Sir Winston Churchill