Comment on Entry: Benton Versus Probst, authored by Jim Miller
1. Jim: If you don't want to discuss statistics or your odd interpretation of polling results with me, that's fine. But I thought it was rude and a little cowardly of you to lob some personal comments my way in your last thread without giving me a chance to respond.

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.

Posted by scottd at November 27, 2012 09:19 PM
2. According these numbers, Benton received 50.071% and Probst had 49.929 %, a difference of 0.142%. Is there a threshold for another recount of 0.5% or 0.05% ? (I know that there was much smaller margin for Gregoire's "win" over Rossi by 133 votes out of over 2 million in 2004). Simply put, what does state law say here ?

How many recounts have there been ? What is the rest of the
story ??

Posted by KDS at November 27, 2012 10:07 PM
3. Scott@1, I agree with your comment. It's ironic that Jim closed comments because he said few people were interested; in that case, why bother taking the unusual step of closing comments?

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 at November 28, 2012 12:24 AM
4. There will be 2 recounts in the 17th District. One for Benton/Probst and the other for Stonier/Olson. Their margin is 139 votes, for the position of State Representative.

Posted by susu at November 28, 2012 09:01 AM
5. Back in the 1990's, in what is now the 32nd Dist. (Shoreline) there was a race that went down to the last 29 votes with the Republican slightly ahead. In that last batch of votes that presumably came from a cross-section of the district, the Democrat got 21 votes and the Republican got 9, with the Democrat winning the elction. Does anybody know what the odds of one candidate getting 70% out of 30 votes when the race was split 50/50 at the time? I don't know if these votes were just the last to reach the county elections office or if they were found behind a file cabinet. It being King County and all, this seems like a good question to ask. At the time, it seemed weird to me that nobody raised any questions about the seemingly long odds of such an outcome.

Posted by Moondoggie at November 28, 2012 09:11 AM
6. @5 - the chances of getting 21 or more votes out of 30 when the overall odds are 50/50 is about 2.1% or around 40-1. So, not outlandish for it to happen, but certainly a bit unexpected.

Posted by Moderate Man at November 28, 2012 09:29 AM
7. Thank you Moderate Man.

Posted by Moondoggie at November 28, 2012 09:40 AM
8. susu - Thanks for the info.

Posted by Jim Miller at November 28, 2012 10:01 AM
9. Moderate Man: There you go with that "frequentist" approach to statistical inference. Jim rejects that!

Posted by scottd at November 28, 2012 10:35 AM
10. "Do you believe the Final 2004 National Exit Poll (13,660 respondents) which matched the recorded vote (Bush 50.7%- Kerry 48.3%)?

Then you must also believe there were 6 million more returning Bush 2000 voters than were alive in 2004 - an impossible 110% turnout."


Posted by red hiney monkey at November 28, 2012 10:39 AM
11. LBJ was possibly the most corrupt Democrat to have ever lived. Lots and lots of dead folks from Cotulla, TX voted for him back when he first ran for Congress many, many years ago. He was as crooked as Richard Nixon, but history doesn't mention how corrupt the guy was because of his Great Society disasters he implemented in the Sixties.

"Free stuff for everyone! We'll just raise taxes to do it!"

Posted by Politically Incorrect at November 28, 2012 01:43 PM
12. The relevant doc from the SOS website:

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 at November 28, 2012 02:24 PM
13. re 11 -- Can you come up with something a little more current -- anything after the year 2000?

"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 at November 28, 2012 02:24 PM
14. 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.

Your 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.

The smears are so casual and commonplace that we become weary of responding. But we must protest, or someone new to politics may assume that we concede the point.

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 at November 28, 2012 03:34 PM
15. re 13: The Lost Irony in the Tax Debate

There 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.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at November 28, 2012 03:42 PM
16. As with Ron's post, spam alert @15. Ragnar's post has nothing to do with Jim's topic (ergo for @1, @10, and @14). @13 should also be lumped in, although LBJ is mentioned. Maybe time for Jim to close this post also, since not much discussion.

Good information @2, @4-@9, and @12

Posted by tc at November 28, 2012 04:06 PM
17. LOL - as predicted. Thanks

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at November 28, 2012 04:39 PM
18. Your many previous VICIOUS words and posts belie that claim.

Rags: 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 at November 28, 2012 05:54 PM
19. I'll do as you (and all the other loud lefty's) and ignore your request for proof as you all have ignored mine every single time I've asked for it.

But, 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 at November 28, 2012 09:50 PM
20. Is that really the best you can do, Ragnar?

That's just sad...

Posted by scottd at November 28, 2012 10:13 PM
21. Scottd is one of the more thoughtful, reasoned contributors left around here. Calling his posts vicious is as ridiculous as saying President Obama hates America. Only a lunatic would say something like that.

Posted by Bruce at November 28, 2012 10:22 PM
22. @21 - Your argument is shaky ground. It is abundantly clear that Obama dislikes America the way it was, but loves it more now as the Government becomes more of a Leviathan of his own making. You are very close to projecting. I can say that scottd is more reasoned than a small minority of leftist trolls who post on SP.

However, Ragnar should make the case more convincingly to you in the spirit of transparency.

Posted by KDS at November 28, 2012 10:33 PM
23. More spam @17-@22. Time for Jim to close the post, since no one seems to want to talk about it.

Posted by tc at November 29, 2012 06:55 AM
24. "And yes, we judge you by the company you keep"

Shall 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 at 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."

Posted by dorky dorkman at November 29, 2012 12:59 PM
26. More spam in @24-25 - both way off topic, also @17-22. Please delete these otherwise it is time to close this post out.

Posted by Spam Filter at November 29, 2012 01:08 PM
27. Have any of you conservatives ever taken consideration of the fact that Karl Marx's concept of the 'withering away' of the state is remarkably similar to your own goals?

Posted by dorky dorkman at November 29, 2012 01:10 PM
28. re 26: Spam is trying to sell, for instance, Viagra under the guise of expressing interest in your blog.

Citing a reference that provides information to oppose your idea is not Spam -- it's free speech.

Posted by dorky dorkman at November 29, 2012 01:14 PM
29. @28 - It's off topic, as tc @23 concurred. Therefore it is spam. Jim, it's time to sign off this thing.

Posted by Spam Filter at November 29, 2012 01:20 PM
30. The 'topic' is Jim's insinuation that Don Bemnton's win is remarkably similar to 'landslide Lyndon's dishonest win in 1948.

Jim'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 at November 29, 2012 01:49 PM
31. "13. re 11 -- Can you come up with something a little more current -- anything after the year 2000?

No, 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!

Posted by Politically Incorrect at November 29, 2012 07:21 PM
32. Yesterday, while I was at work, my cousin stole my apple ipad and tested to see if it can survive a 25 foot drop, just so she can be a youtube sensation. My apple ipad is now destroyed and she has 83 views. I know this is completely off topic but I had to share it with someone!

Posted by discount north face at November 30, 2012 07:38 AM
33. So far, my favorite article of the day.

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 at November 30, 2012 11:25 AM
34. re 33: "I prefer to shake things up."

I 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 at November 30, 2012 12:07 PM
35. Well, I have a dear friend who had a double mastectomy for catastrophic breast cancer and had reconstruction started in the SAME surgery (yep, she was in surgery over 12 hours that day). To reconstruct her nipples they tied off tiny bits of fat from her hips/belly/lady parts and when that tissue died from her living tissue it was then transplanted to her reconstructed breasts.

It's pretty amazing what a free market health care system can do.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at November 30, 2012 01:13 PM
36. - Premium Rush movie downloads, Premium Rush film picture, Premium Rush Movie Download Full Fre 913,

Posted by co4wbibl524rk at November 30, 2012 08:30 PM
37. Hey! I'm at work surfing around your blog from my new iphone 3gs! Just wanted to say I love reading through your blog and look forward to all your posts! Keep up the great work!

Posted by north face windbreaker at November 30, 2012 09:10 PM