Trumps Presidency 2025

[chasfh]

5 hours ago, GalagaGuy said:

I said to eliminate districts, not redraw them with some generic grid pattern.  Let people vote for which party they want representing them and then divy up the reps to individual voters rather than a plot of land. Yeah, it would be a mess but at least everyone could say they were being represented by a member of the party they chose. 

I think we are well into the post-Congressional-Reps-Represent-The-People era.

Edited 11 hours ago by chasfh

[Motown Bombers]

Looking at the districts in Texas, there are 6 districts that Cook Political Index rates in the single digits. In California, there is 20. Both sides are not the same. 

[GalagaGuy]

29 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Looking at the districts in Texas, there are 6 districts that Cook Political Index rates in the single digits. In California, there is 20. Both sides are not the same. 

There are 12 with a spread of less than 5 points and 5 of those are Republican leaning seats.  In total, there are 13 seats in the state that Republicans have a shot at winning and only 3 of them are +7 or more in favor of Republicans.  Democrats have 35 districts that are at least a +7 and most of them are +18 or greater.   Basically Democrats are guaranteed to win 67% of the seats before a vote is cast. 

Edited 10 hours ago by GalagaGuy

[ewsieg]

13 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

Yup, late data is generally the reason for revision of numbers in any agency.  It can't be avoided.  I suppose it could be avoided by ignoring the late surveys and never doing revisions, but would only be done if you are not interested in accuracy.  

They were giving examples of the steps that data goes through from the Survey until it hits the Jobs report or the revision and how it could be automated to provide real time data right to the BLS commish.

[GalagaGuy]

Funny that this explanation of the job numbers being revised showed up on Fox Business but not the main site from what I can find.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/why-does-labor-department-revise-jobs-reports-here-three-reasons

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, GalagaGuy said:

Funny that this explanation of the job numbers being revised showed up on Fox Business but not the main site from what I can find.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/why-does-labor-department-revise-jobs-reports-here-three-reasons

That's  "funny" as in completely predictable and par for the course, of course.

[Tiger337]

5 hours ago, ewsieg said:

They were giving examples of the steps that data goes through from the Survey until it hits the Jobs report or the revision and how it could be automated to provide real time data right to the BLS commish.

That is easier said than done for a lot of reasons and would probably result in less accurate data.  They would have to get the respondents ( households and businesses) on board.  Putting the burden on the survey takers could result in fewer completed surveys and less representative data. 

You need economists and statisticians to analyze trends, make adjustments, etc.    

Dating cleaning and validation are not as easy to automate as one would expect as different data issues come up all the time. 

In summary. They could automate everything to an extent, but it would give you less reliable results.  The delays and revisions might give the perception that the results are not reliable, but they actually make the results more reliable.   

 

 

 

 

[Motown Bombers]

9 hours ago, GalagaGuy said:

There are 12 with a spread of less than 5 points and 5 of those are Republican leaning seats.  In total, there are 13 seats in the state that Republicans have a shot at winning and only 3 of them are +7 or more in favor of Republicans.  Democrats have 35 districts that are at least a +7 and most of them are +18 or greater.   Basically Democrats are guaranteed to win 67% of the seats before a vote is cast. 

Dems are guaranteed to win 67% you say?  Sounds about right. 

[romad1]

[Motown Bombers]

Using the same logic, republicans are guaranteed 65% of the seats, but Texas is much closer and they want to guarantee more seats to republicans. 

[romad1]

Chuck Todd is interesting on the Bulwark pod.