Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Lloyd who wrote (85463)	11/15/2000 2:45:45 AM
From: Don Lloyd	Respond to of 132070

Correction - McCollum was not the Senate incumbent as stated, but a Republican House member trying for an open Republican Senate seat. This is not thought to affect any of the arguments. Regards, Don

To: Don Lloyd who wrote (85463)	11/15/2000 12:57:09 PM
From: Michael Bakunin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

My quick take: a little too back-of-the-napkin for my tastes. You essentially assume that there's a linear relationship between Senate and Presidential votes, but neglect even to run a simple linear regression. Then, you arbitrarily adjust ratios "inwards", without noting the very, very odd fact that while the Bush/McCollum ratios are as expected, i.e. greater than one in accordance with the usual ballot falloff, that the Gore/Nelson ratios are anomalous at less than one. What, in all the counties more Democrats voted for senator than for president? (A couple-percent Nader vote doesn't explain a 0.9 ratio when the expected number is greater than 1.) Where you see these numbers implying missing votes for W, I see something awfully strange in the Gore ratios. What's the overall ratio in each county of votes for president to votes for senator? Do you have another explanation for the huge disparity in ratios? That's the real question; your implicit extrapolations (inwards adjustments) simply reflect the ratios, nothing more. -mb