Eric Cantor set to lose primary: Update - Lost

[fskimospy]

Hey look I would rather fling insults than answer a legitimate question.

It's nehalem. You should be well aware of the fact that the only thing he merits is insults.

If you're interested in looking at how these scores relate over time I would suggest reading this:

http://voteview.com/blog/?p=494

DW-NOMINATE is an extremely highly regarded, robustly examined method of comparing congressional ideology over time. It is not a partisan tool.

 

[Engineer]

Why would he? At the end of his term I bet he will be taking a nice lobbying job that pays way more than he currently makes.

Does 'currently makes' include the 'current' bribes or only his official salary? :biggrin:

 

[TerryMathews]

It's nehalem. You should be well aware of the fact that the only thing he merits is insults.

If you're interested in looking at how these scores relate over time I would suggest reading this:

http://voteview.com/blog/?p=494

DW-NOMINATE is an extremely highly regarded, robustly examined method of comparing congressional ideology over time. It is not a partisan tool.

From your link:

Thus, being the most conservative Senator (with a score of 1.0) in 1968 would mean something different than having an identical 1.0 score in 2012.

Again, these are the equivalent of not adjusted for inflation economic figures. They're all relative to a baseline that shifts year to year.

Hate to tell you bub, but a broken clock is still right twice a day. You owe nehalem an apology.

 

[fskimospy]

From your link:



Again, these are the equivalent of not adjusted for inflation economic figures. They're all relative to a baseline that shifts year to year.

Hate to tell you bub, but a broken clock is still right twice a day. You owe nehalem an apology.

You are embarrassing yourself. Please actually read the link.

 

[nehalem256]

It's nehalem. You should be well aware of the fact that the only thing he merits is insults.

If you're interested in looking at how these scores relate over time I would suggest reading this:

http://voteview.com/blog/?p=494

DW-NOMINATE is an extremely highly regarded, robustly examined method of comparing congressional ideology over time. It is not a partisan tool.

And yet as I clearly showed it is complete bullshit.

According to the chart the Democratic Party in 1880 was at least as far left as the Republican Party of today is far right.

Yet when we look at the Democratic Party platform of 1880 it looks like something a Teahadist would write.

Do you have any actual defense to this?

 

[fskimospy]

And yet as I clearly showed it is complete bullshit.

According to the chart the Democratic Party in 1880 was at least as far left as the Republican Party of today is far right.

Yet when we look at the Democratic Party platform of 1880 it looks like something a Teahadist would write.

Do you have any actual defense to this?

Yes, actually understanding what first dimension DW-NOMINATE is measuring and the actual votes of Democratic Party legislators in that congress.

 

[sportage]

First I thought this Cantor thing was huge. But now with the media's total obsession with this as equivalent the end of the world, I don't think it is really that big of a deal. If the media goes berserk you know something is amiss. Most likely the Cantor's loss was nothing more than a fluke. Maybe just maybe voters didn't like Cantor personally? He Does have this personally trait that turns people off. Nothing more, nothing less. Not the end of the world. Nothing decisive heading into November 2014. Really not much of anything.

 

[ivwshane]

First I thought this Cantor thing was huge. But now with the media's total obsession with this as equivalent the end of the world, I don't think it is really that big of a deal. If the media goes berserk you know something is amiss. Most likely the Cantor's loss was nothing more than a fluke. Maybe just maybe voters didn't like Cantor personally? He Does have this personally trait that turns people off. Nothing more, nothing less. Not the end of the world. Nothing decisive heading into November 2014. Really not much of anything.

Pretty much. By all accounts he wasn't much for getting to know or mixing it up with his constituents, that and he was cocky enough that he thought his race was in the bag. It reminds me of the republican candidate that won in Massachusetts because of a lazy democrat campaign (he was later voted out...so).

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

No, it's huge. Cantor's constituents just traded their House majority leader for a nobody. The real "why" behind it doesn't matter, it's seen as a huge Tea Party victory and the Republican party is going to start tearing and clawing away at itself like we haven't seen.
http://www.businessinsider.com/r-us...ip-scramble-after-shock-election-loss-2014-11
If the selection of the new majority leader is drawn out and ugly it may very well even impact the upcoming elections.

 

[theeedude]

Since Cantor was the sole Jewish Republican in Congress, GOP now stands for....

Goy Only Party

 

[nehalem256]

Yes, actually understanding what first dimension DW-NOMINATE is measuring and the actual votes of Democratic Party legislators in that congress.

Its measuring how liberal/conservative a legislator/party is.

The problem is if it what the measurement claims are the most liberal and most conservative party in history have the same platform it really calls into doubt how accurately it is measuring such.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Ahh Republicans...electing a shill for Ayn Rand.

 

[cubby1223]

Yes, actually understanding what first dimension DW-NOMINATE is measuring and the actual votes of Democratic Party legislators in that congress.

I agree this country is far more conservative these days than 150 years ago.

Unfortunately that chart doesn't agree with me. But I'm still sticking with my gut feeling that we totally are a nation of whacko conservative leadership in this new millennium.



Let's walk through this little exercise:
Legislation is put up for vote to increase spending by 10%. Liberals vote for it while conservatives vote against it.
Legislation is put up for vote to decrease spending by 10%. Conservatives vote for it while liberals vote against it.

The problem is, the conservative of today as the end result voted for more spending than did the liberal of 1880. That means the conservative is actually liberal because he voted for more spending, and the liberal is actually conservative because he voted for less.

Those NOMINATE stats can show some interesting stuff. But what you're representing it as it cannot.

 

[fskimospy]

Its measuring how liberal/conservative a legislator/party is.

The problem is if it what the measurement claims are the most liberal and most conservative party in history have the same platform it really calls into doubt how accurately it is measuring such.

Good thing that's not the case then.

 

[michal1980]

Ahh Republicans...electing a shill for Ayn Rand.

so all of a sudden cantor was acceptable to democrats?

LOL

LMAO

You hated cantor, now you have a new guy to hate.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

It's starting:

Others have simply endorsed themselves as a great fit for the job.

"It's important that the American people understand what our agenda is, and I think I can help clarify that a bit more," said Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), who is chairman of the House Rules Committee and previously led the National Republican Congressional Committee.
...
Sessions called it “a terrible, terrible, bitter pill” to see Cantor lose, but said it’s time for someone to refocus the party on “winning.” And politically, he argued, that means veering to the right.

“I think our conference does need to move to a more conservative perspective,” Sessions said.

Plus we still have a bunch of primaries left now with a more energized (louder) Tea Party. If a "Republican extremism" meme gets traction before the midterms (it's probably a given by 2016) it could sway some races if Democrats get motivated and moderate Republicans to stay home or even flip.

Another good point is how this spreads to the party donors:

Much of the money backing Republican candidates this year is going to come from outside groups. Cantor was his conference’s biggest fundraiser on Wall Street and among the pro-Israel community — and Democrats believe that money will dry up, both because Cantor’s gone, and because those donors will now be more wary of believing that House Republicans aren’t beholden to the tea party.

 

[Dari]

Way for Democrats to embrace the spirit of Democracy. That's just good citizenship.

Nope, just being shrewd. Shrewd is how Republicans played their cards when Rove was running the show so they can't feign anger/surprise now...

 

[nehalem256]

It's starting:

Plus we still have a bunch of primaries left now with a more energized (louder) Tea Party. If a "Republican extremism" meme gets traction before the midterms (it's probably a given by 2016) it could sway some races if Democrats get motivated and moderate Republicans to stay home or even flip.

Another good point is how this spreads to the party donors:

So in other words Cantor was a shill for Wall Street.

How is it anything but good he got his ass booted out then? Seems like Democrats should be celebrating the Republican base selecting someone not beholden to corporate interests.

 

[TerryMathews]

You are embarrassing yourself. Please actually read the link.

I did. Are you getting confused by all the big words?

Please address what I quoted, instead of flinging insults like an angry monkey flinging poop at the Zoo.

The article that you linked very clearly states that the DW-NOMINATE scores are relative to voting at the time and not comparable across years. Exactly the same as unadjusted economic figures.

 

[fskimospy]

I did. Are you getting confused by all the big words?

Please address what I quoted, instead of flinging insults like an angry monkey flinging poop at the Zoo.

The article that you linked very clearly states that the DW-NOMINATE scores are relative to voting at the time and not comparable across years. Exactly the same as unadjusted economic figures.

You absolutely, hilariously did not.

The VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH:

Indeed, temporal comparisons should not be made for ideal points generated from static scaling methods. Static methods (like W-NOMINATE) treat each legislative session separately and there is no valid way to compare the scores of legislators from different years. However, we developed a dynamic methodology, DW-NOMINATE (McCarty, Poole and Rosenthal 1997), to allow for over-time comparisons of legislator ideological positions. The key innovation is the use of “bridge” legislators — members of Congress (MCs) who have served in multiple sessions — to compare the positions of legislators who have never served together.

Now I want you to guess whether I have been posting figures from a static system like W-NOMINATE or a dynamic one, DW-NOMINATE.

Before repeatedly attacking someone's intelligence you should really make sure you actually read and understood what you're attacking them about. Like I said, you're embarrassing yourself.

 

[nehalem256]

Indeed, temporal comparisons should not be made for ideal points generated from static scaling methods. Static methods (like W-NOMINATE) treat each legislative session separately and there is no valid way to compare the scores of legislators from different years. However, we developed a dynamic methodology, DW-NOMINATE (McCarty, Poole and Rosenthal 1997), to allow for over-time comparisons of legislator ideological positions. The key innovation is the use of “bridge” legislators — members of Congress (MCs) who have served in multiple sessions — to compare the positions of legislators who have never served together.

Now I want you to guess whether I have been posting figures from a static system like W-NOMINATE or a dynamic one, DW-NOMINATE.

Before repeatedly attacking someone's intelligence you should really make sure you actually read and understood what you're attacking them about. Like I said, you're embarrassing yourself.

Their dynamic method of comparison leads to the furthest right and furthest left parties having the same platform. Clearly, however robust their method might be in theory, it is a massive fail in the real world.

In it, they pledged to work for "constitutional doctrines and traditions," to oppose centralization, to favor "honest money consisting of gold and silver", a "tariff for revenue only", and to put an end to Chinese immigration

Replace the word Chinese with Mexican and you would think I was quoting a Teahadist.

 

[fskimospy]

Hey, look who still doesn't know what a first dimension DW-nominate score is.

As usual nehalem, you are continuing to reveal yourself to be a moron.

 

[CitizenKain]

so all of a sudden cantor was acceptable to democrats?

LOL

LMAO

You hated cantor, now you have a new guy to hate.

Good thing that isn't what he said.

Cantor was a piece of shit and him being gone is great, expect he has likely been replaced by someone who's even crazier.

 

[hal2kilo]

So in other words Cantor was a shill for Wall Street.

How is it anything but good he got his ass booted out then? Seems like Democrats should be celebrating the Republican base selecting someone not beholden to corporate interests.

I'm not seeing democracts being unhappy about Cantor losing. I'm qute happy to see him go. Even more fun will be to see what kind of face the Repubs are going to put on the party for the up coming elections. I.e. the fight for majority leader and what kind of even further nutbag right the party is going to go to satisfy their Primary base. Hopefully, it's right off the cliff to the point that the moderates will be alienated enough to move to the dem side.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Now I want you to guess whether I have been posting figures from a static system like W-NOMINATE or a dynamic one, DW-NOMINATE.

Do you think there's any validity to Overton window theory?