Notes on November's Election (Paul Krugman)

[swag]

Though of course it means little if Dems don't keep working and don't turn out to vote, and don't get their votes counted, here's an interesting notes from Paul Krugman on his Friday column
"Will the Levee Break?" (sub.req.) and how he came to his conclusions:

. . .

My back of the envelope calculation ran as follows. I used the 2004 data to calculate the Republican share of the combined R and D vote for each district in 2004 (counting Independent Bernie Sanders as a Dem), then ranked the districts and graphed the result, which looks like this:



In 2004, every seat to the left of the point where the curve crosses 0.5 went to the Republicans. Now suppose that what happens in this election is that a certain percentage “x” of the voters shifts from R to D in every district – a crude model of the change in the political winds, but probably as good an approach as any. This will let the Dems climb the curve: every seat for which the Republican share in 2004 was less than 50% + x will shift parties. But as you can see, the curve is very steep where it crosses 0.5, so even a sizeable x doesn’t gain the Dems many seats. To reduce the R’s to 217 seats, x has to equal about 5 percent, which would correspond to an overall Democratic lead in the vote of about 7 percent.

But here’s the thing: if the Dems climb to that point, they’re past the steep “wall” that crosses 0.5 — the levee that protects the Republicans — and even a little bit more gives them big gains. If x equals 7.5 percent, corresponding to a 12 point generic lead — Franklin’s estimate — I have the Dems gaining 30 seats.

. . .

[thoughtanarchist]

1. Am I the only one who cannot see your graph? n/t

:shrug:

[swag]

3. Sorry you can't see it. Can you see it if you click on the first link in

the post, which is free and requires no subscription?

[thoughtanarchist]

4. naw... I get the gist though...

good post!

[swag]

5. Would love to see the Dems gaining 30 seats myself.

Pre-election (and post-election) statistical analysis is a tricky game, fraught with peril as we all know.

I would love it if Krugman were on to something.

[thoughtanarchist]

8. Agreed.

...and Krugman is one smart cookie. I usually trust his analysis.

[swag]

2. misplaced reply, lo siento.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

6. But where does he calculate in the twelve billion dollars

that the republicans will lavish on their candidates two weeks before the elections, or the voting machines that are already programmed to kick out all votes for democratic candidates?

Yes, I'm being churlish. I've been to this rodeo before.

[swag]

7. "Churlish" is such a good word.