The final count gives Don Benton the win, with 27,538 votes to Tim Probst's 27,460 votes.
It's likely there will be a recount, since the two are not good friends.
Feel free to speculate about a possible recount, or the likely consequences for the state senate, assuming Benton's win holds up. Or that it doesn't.
(Students of history will be amused to see that Benton's margin, 78 votes, is quite close
to the margin of
LBJ's 1948 senate win,
87 votes. As far as I know, Benton's margin does not come from as, uh, interesting
precincts as Johnson's did.)
Posted by Jim Miller at November 27, 2012
07:57 PM | Email This
I think it's strange that you assume folks who disagree with you must consider you to be an enemy. I don't -- I just think you're wrong. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.
PS: I'm still happy to discuss the merits of your statistical interpretation if you think you're up to it.
How many recounts have there been ? What is the rest of the
story ??
You explained clearly that the "error" (which after all was in just 1 poll for 1 race in 1 state) was approximately within the statistical margin of error. The margin of error is entirely attributable to statistical sampling randomness, not to any other poll problems such as nonrepresentative samples, biased questions, dishonest answers, changes over time, etc. And it's unrelated to the philosophy of frequentism that Jim raises.
There's really no story there. But if Jim thinks there is, he should allow comments.
Posted by: Bruce on November 28, 2012 12:24 AMThen you must also believe there were 6 million more returning Bush 2000 voters than were alive in 2004 - an impossible 110% turnout."
http://www.richardcharnin.com/ToBelieveBushWon2007.htm
,,,,,,,,,,,,.............
"Free stuff for everyone! We'll just raise taxes to do it!"
http://www.google.com/url?q=https://wei.sos.wa.gov/agency/osos/en/CandidateInfo/Documents/Recounts%2520FAQ.pdf&sa=U&ei=uo-2ULnaMIKEiwK1n4DQBw&ved=0CBsQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNFUQCSCQdnJMjt-bMbQaRMDNCPsPw
Not a statewide race so the difference has to be less than 150 votes and less than .25% of total ballots cast in the race. This difference is 78 votes and 0.1418%
Posted by: Mark on November 28, 2012 02:24 PM
"Free stuff for everyone! We'll just raise taxes to do it!"
Taxes were lowered in 1964 at LBJ's behest from a top rate of 91% to 74% -- where it remained until Reagan lowered it further.
The thing that cost all the money in the 60's and 70's was the Vietnam War. Historically speaking, would you see an analogous situation with Iraq and Afghanistan?
Naaaaahhhhhhhh! It's gotta be the welfare queens in their pink Cadillacs.
Posted by: red hiney monkey on November 28, 2012 02:24 PMYour many previous VICIOUS words and posts belie that claim.
Of course, the problem probably is that we conservatives view words/arguing differently.
Liberals mean the ugliness they say. They allow for no dissent of opinion without ascribing it to something nefarious against themselves and those they support. They regularly, routinely and as a way of doing business discredit, name-call and change the subject when unable to address the issue. 'If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun' are the words by which you 'debate' or deal with dissent.
And yes, we judge you by those words.
And yes, we judge you by the company you keep - especially those folks, that tone and the tenor at HA, at MSNBC and the many other vile loud mouthed lefties in media, politics (hello, Harry Reid) entertainment (Maher, Moore...) and in blogs.
If/when you do not disavow them, I (for one) will always believe you affirm them.
Never once have I seen a liberal here gracious in being wrong .... or even in winning (except perhaps Duffman).
It gets old. It does nothing to raise our opinion of the loud lefty's.
And yes, I do realize you simply do not care what we think. Which is why I wonder why you come here, but to agitate.
The larger issue is, is this what you're teaching your children as acceptable ways to get what you want? Is this how you teach them to make their case in a debate? Do you tolerate it from them? If not, in which instance are you being a hypocrite? Here? Or with them? Or do you even know? Does it trouble you in the least that this 'take no prisoners' attitude has had the direct result of coarsening the culture, has taught our young people that no one, nothing deserves their respect?
As usual, I doubt you'll have the courage of a direct answer. I know I (and probably others) expect deflection, rudeness or being ignored.
Of myself, I believe I could sit down next to anyone of you, share an enjoyable, lively conversation and you'd never know who I am or my political beliefs. I cannot say I believe that about our liberal contributors.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on November 28, 2012 03:34 PMThere is an uncanny irony that has emerged from the bowels of the tax fight - one that is lost in all the banal details of the pitched battle. Democrats have fallen in love with the Bush tax cuts, which they fought so vociferously to block in 2001 and 2003.
While the Democrats are demanding that we raise taxes on the rich, they are stridently demanding that we extend the Bush tax cuts for the rest of American taxpayers (or non-taxpayers). The irony is that Democrats spent several years during the Bush years protesting how the Bush tax cuts were nothing but handouts for the rich. Now, they are correctly asserting that if we don't extend the Bush tax cuts, low and middle income earners will be severely hit. Woops!
Obama's Solution Would Fund Government For.... 8 Whole Days
Yes, yes we know - you hate the sources reporting the FACTS so they must be a lie. I'll unroll my eyes while you get over it and grow up.
Good information @2, @4-@9, and @12
Posted by: tc on November 28, 2012 04:06 PMRags: Your comment might make sense if you could post a few examples of VICIOUS posts from me. Here's a bonus, if you can find any viciousness directed at you, I'll apologize right here.
Good luck to you!
Posted by: scottd on November 28, 2012 05:54 PMBut, I have an idea. Go read your volumes of posts and see if you can possibly decipher why we call them vicious.
Perhaps, while you're perusing them, you can reflect upon the answers to my questions which you seem to have overlooked/ignored.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on November 28, 2012 09:50 PMThat's just sad...
Posted by: scottd on November 28, 2012 10:13 PMHowever, Ragnar should make the case more convincingly to you in the spirit of transparency.
Posted by: KDS on November 28, 2012 10:33 PMShall I judge you by the company you keep, Rags? Fine. Let's do it.
I judge you for the acts of the right-wing extremist murderers of nine year-old Bresinia Flores who, after seeing her parents shot, her father dead before her, her mother critically wounded, was herself shot in the face and killed as she pleaded for her life while clutching her puppy.
That's some fine company you keep, Rags. Did you really think that the dehumanization of latinos by the right-wing wack-jobs you associate with wouldn't have consequences? Idiot.
Tell it to the mother of Bresinia Flores, her little girl and her husband both murdered in their loving home and herself shot and left for dead. Why was a family of American citizens so brutally attacked in their own home? Because right-wing idiots like you, blinded by hatred, mistook them for illegals.
Posted by: Doctor Steve on November 29, 2012 11:21 AM"The solution (to the debt problem) requires challenging the predatory oligopolies--the insurance companies, drug companies and hospital complexes--that profit from high costs. Obamacare began that process; Medicare costs have begun to rise more slowly. The sensible solution to our long-term debt problem is continued healthcare reform, not cuts in basic security for Americans."
Citing a reference that provides information to oppose your idea is not Spam -- it's free speech.
Posted by: dorky dorkman on November 29, 2012 01:14 PMJim's 'topic' is more of a snide remark than anything very substantial to talk about. Your side's variance from the topic is also quite wide in the way of a stance.
The longest comment of all was Ragnar's description of his hurt feelings -- surely as off topic as anything else in this thread.
Posted by: dorky dorkman on November 29, 2012 01:49 PMNo, because I lived through those times and remember Lyndon Johnson very well. He was a corrupt piece of sh*t, almost as bad as Tricky Dick. Johnson had to keep us in Vietnam to justify his ego, and Nixon continued the war even though he knew there is no way to win because "victory" in that war, for us, was undefined. Just like the square root of minus 1. Just like the quagmires in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Time to end the empire and let the world take care of itself, and that includes Israel, too!
Yes, it's off (the narrow, boring, dull, stupefying) topic - get over it.
Conversation is about twists and turns. Those off-topic whiners surely must stand alone in the corner at cocktail parties ("but, but, we were talking about" ... snore).
I prefer to shake things up.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on November 30, 2012 11:25 AMI prefer to stir things up.
Speaking of off topic: Did you know that Roger Moore was so chilled in a scene being filmed for 'Live and Let Die', that his nipples had to be amputated.
You could look it up.
Posted by: dorky dorkman on November 30, 2012 12:07 PMIt's pretty amazing what a free market health care system can do.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on November 30, 2012 01:13 PM