Is DeSantis worse than trump?

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

"So some of these people will go into the voting booth and say, F Biden, I'm voting R. "

This is something you think happens with some frequency, but for which you have no proof.

Nor do you have proof that it doesn't happen. (And yes, you can prove a negative.)

The difference is, my argument has common sense. 

It doesn't have common sense, because it reduces the voter to a one-issue moron.

Well that's interesting, as you and ml1 frequently rant about how moronic non-Dem voters are. Now you're basing an argument on saying voters - in particular ind/crossover voters - aren't morons?

That is classic.

I guess we've got a conundrum here.

The question is are they morons because of the reasons I state, or the one that you state?

Regardless, absent polling data, you've still got no case.


It's irrelevant which voters you or I may or may not think are morons, and why. 

As far as my "case", as stated I have a common-sense argument (we are more (less) likely to elect members of the other party, the less (more) we approve of the president), supported by data that shows correlation bw prez approval and midterm results.

You have a win in the MOL straw poll.

I'd go to trial with my case.


Smedley said:

It's irrelevant which voters you or I may or may not think are morons, and why. 

As far as my "case", as stated I have a common-sense argument (we are more (less) likely to elect members of the other party, the less (more) we approve of the president), supported by data that shows correlation bw prez approval and midterm results.

You have a win in the MOL straw poll.

I'd go to trial with my case.

Have you been arrested??? Halleluiah! Hope they throw away the key.


Smedley said:

It's irrelevant which voters you or I may or may not think are morons, and why. 

As far as my "case", as stated I have a common-sense argument (we are more (less) likely to elect members of the other party, the less (more) we approve of the president), supported by data that shows correlation bw prez approval and midterm results.

You have a win in the MOL straw poll.

I'd go to trial with my case.

As I explained in an earlier post, your study is not nearly as strong as you think.

You'd lose.


Smedley said:

Hello, Dennis. 

Look at it this way. Biden's lower approval rating vs say, 18 months ago means that there are some voters who used to like Biden but now they don't. We can agree on that, yes?

Many of these disenchanted voters voted in the midterms. I'm sure some of these voters voted based on the merits (or lack thereof) of the candidates on the ballots, but -- and this is important -- others voted R down the line as a flip off to Biden. Why do I believe this? Well, Dennis, I was one of those voters in 2006. I never voted for W, but I mostly approved of his job performance in 2001-02, before I hated him w/ the Iraq war. So in 2006, I voted D down the line, even if that meant holding my nose to vote for Menendez.

I'm sure I'm not the only person to have voted on that basis, in that election or in this one. 

That is the causative factor I've been referring to. If someone believes Biden's approval rating is not a causative factor for the midterms, that person denies the existence of the voter behavior I've outlined.   

your example isn't making the point you seem to be saying it is. 


My stars and garters! I thought for sure that would have changed folks' minds. 


Again, no minds being changed here, it appears...

So, Is DeSantis worse than Trump?


Smedley said:

My stars and garters! I thought for sure that would have changed folks' minds. 

All else being equal, it's correct that "we are more (less) likely to elect members of the other party, the less (more) we approve of the president". But that doesn't help to predict any future election.


nohero said:

Smedley said:

My stars and garters! I thought for sure that would have changed folks' minds. 

All else being equal, it's correct that "we are more (less) likely to elect members of the other party, the less (more) we approve of the president". But that doesn't help to predict any future election.

This is contradictory to me. 

The upshot of your first sentence is that a given party's candidates will get more (fewer) votes if the sitting president of the other party is unpopular (popular).

Knowing that there will be more or fewer votes for candidates helps predict elections.   


Smedley said:

nohero said:

Smedley said:

My stars and garters! I thought for sure that would have changed folks' minds. 

All else being equal, it's correct that "we are more (less) likely to elect members of the other party, the less (more) we approve of the president". But that doesn't help to predict any future election.

This is contradictory to me. 

The upshot of your first sentence is that a given party's candidates will get more (fewer) votes if the sitting president of the other party is unpopular (popular).

Knowing that there will be more or fewer votes for candidates helps predict elections.   

Logic doesn't work that way, so the "upshot" is not that.


Smedley said:

My stars and garters! I thought for sure that would have changed folks' minds. 

I don't expect to change minds either. But I try to at least make logical sense in my posts.


jimmurphy said:

Again, no minds being changed here, it appears...

So, Is DeSantis worse than Trump?

I answered that question four pages ago grin


nohero said:

Smedley said:

nohero said:

Smedley said:

My stars and garters! I thought for sure that would have changed folks' minds. 

All else being equal, it's correct that "we are more (less) likely to elect members of the other party, the less (more) we approve of the president". But that doesn't help to predict any future election.

This is contradictory to me. 

The upshot of your first sentence is that a given party's candidates will get more (fewer) votes if the sitting president of the other party is unpopular (popular).

Knowing that there will be more or fewer votes for candidates helps predict elections.   

Logic doesn't work that way, so the "upshot" is not that.

this makes no sense.


ml1 said:

Smedley said:

My stars and garters! I thought for sure that would have changed folks' minds. 

I don't expect to change minds either. But I try to at least make logical sense in my posts.

If you wish to continue this discussion, rather than just nyah-nyahing, please address the following material points which you have yet to do:

1. Do you agree that "we are more (less) likely to elect members of the other party, the less (more) we approve of the president"?

2. What exactly is your basis for staunchly insisting that there is no causality between prez approval rating and midterms? If I say I think there is causality, based on a common-sense premise and correlation data, a reasonable opposition response might be "well I don't know, there may or may not be causality, but you haven't proved it." It is not reasonable to pound the table and state THERE. IS. NO. CAUSALITY. with no basis for saying so, as you are doing. (In case you missed it, you can prove a negative.) For a self-proclaimed data guy, I don't think you've shown a shred of data to support your argument. But your poor table is being beat to hell. 


Smedley said:

2. What exactly is your basis for staunchly insisting that there is no causality between prez approval rating and midterms? If I say I think there is causality, based on a common-sense premise and correlation data, a reasonable opposition response might be "well I don't know, there may or may not be causality, but you haven't proved it." It is not reasonable to pound the table and state THERE. IS. NO. CAUSALITY. with no basis for saying so, as you are doing. (In case you missed it, you can prove a negative.) For a self-proclaimed data guy, I don't think you've shown a shred of data to support your argument.  

Correlation does not imply causation.  That things rise and fall together may be associated with a common outside force.  Thus, you haven't proven anything.  Simply saying it is common-sense is actually contrary to established theory.  What is needed is a causal analysis to prove/disprove causation.  Contrary to your "common-sense," it is more likely that Presidential Approval ratings and midterm election results correlate due to other factors - such as the economy, foreign policy, or even - this year - Supreme Court rulings.


ml1 said:

jimmurphy said:

Again, no minds being changed here, it appears...

So, Is DeSantis worse than Trump?

I answered that question four pages ago
grin

The answer is yes.


Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

My stars and garters! I thought for sure that would have changed folks' minds. 

I don't expect to change minds either. But I try to at least make logical sense in my posts.

If you wish to continue this discussion, rather than just nyah-nyahing, please address the following material points which you have yet to do:

1. Do you agree that "we are more (less) likely to elect members of the other party, the less (more) we approve of the president"?

2. What exactly is your basis for staunchly insisting that there is no causality between prez approval rating and midterms? If I say I think there is causality, based on a common-sense premise and correlation data, a reasonable opposition response might be "well I don't know, there may or may not be causality, but you haven't proved it." It is not reasonable to pound the table and state THERE. IS. NO. CAUSALITY. with no basis for saying so, as you are doing. (In case you missed it, you can prove a negative.) For a self-proclaimed data guy, I don't think you've shown a shred of data to support your argument. But your poor table is being beat to hell. 

what this guy said:

Steve said:

Correlation does not imply causation.  That things rise and fall together may be associated with a common outside force.  Thus, you haven't proven anything.  Simply saying it is common-sense is actually contrary to established theory.  What is needed is a causal analysis to prove/disprove causation.  Contrary to your "common-sense," it is more likely that Presidential Approval ratings and midterm election results correlate due to other factors - such as the economy, foreign policy, or even - this year - Supreme Court rulings.


Smedley said:

nohero said:

Smedley said:

nohero said:

All else being equal, it's correct that "we are more (less) likely to elect members of the other party, the less (more) we approve of the president". But that doesn't help to predict any future election.

This is contradictory to me. 

The upshot of your first sentence is that a given party's candidates will get more (fewer) votes if the sitting president of the other party is unpopular (popular).

Knowing that there will be more or fewer votes for candidates helps predict elections.   

Logic doesn't work that way, so the "upshot" is not that.

this makes no sense.

I've reached the end of my ability to explain logic to you, I'm afraid.


Steve said:

Thus, you haven't proven anything.

He hasn’t claimed to. He has explained a POV he holds, and is asking for reasons — causal analyses presumably accepted — why his POV can’t possibly be valid, as some others appear to be arguing.


DaveSchmidt said:

Steve said:

Thus, you haven't proven anything.

He hasn’t claimed to. He has explained a POV he holds, and is asking for reasons — causal analyses presumably accepted — why his POV can’t possibly be valid, as some others appear to be arguing.

He claims that "common-sense" at least supports his theory and those of us who disagree bear the burden of proving him wrong.  From that, I infer that he claims to have - at a minimum - demonstrated a presumption of correctness if not outright proof in his belief.


Steve said:

I infer that he claims to have - at a minimum - demonstrated a presumption of correctness if not outright proof in his belief.

Indeed. Beliefs are like that.


I just spoke to the folks at Guinness Book of World Records and they have confirmed that this thread is now in the lead in the Most Beaten Dead Horse category.


tjohn said:

I just spoke to the folks at Guinness Book of World Records and they have confirmed that this thread is now in the lead in the Most Beaten Dead Horse category.

That’s debatable. 


Guinness is unburdened by a compulsion to be understood or, even better, conceded to.


nohero said:

That’s debatable. 

the best thread that went on endlessly was the one about "neat nachos." Talk about wanting to be conceded to. grin


DaveSchmidt said:

Steve said:

I infer that he claims to have - at a minimum - demonstrated a presumption of correctness if not outright proof in his belief.

Indeed. Beliefs are like that.

Again, my reading of his statements leads me to conclude that he has "proven" his belief and that the burden to disprove it is on us.  Thus, I believe (yes, I chose that word deliberately to respond to you) that Smedley would claim to have proven the causal link.


ml1 said:

nohero said:

That’s debatable. 

the best thread that went on endlessly was the one about "neat nachos." Talk about wanting to be conceded to.
grin

The worst one was pennboy2's argument that America is a Judeo-Christian nation and it went on for 3 years over at least 15 separate threads.

By the way, if you really want to see some correlation, PB2 left New Jersey in 2012. In 2012 Ron DeSantis was first elected to congress in Florida. 


Pb2 was the person whose writing style prompted me to discover the word "popinjay." 


Have we decided whether DeSantis is worse than Trump?


drummerboy said:

Have we decided whether DeSantis is worse than Trump?

no


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Sponsored Business

Find Business

Advertise here!