Thread: Protesting in Wisconsin....Just the beginning?

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

No, they're less than 80%, which is lower than in the recent past (facts are stubborn things!)

Right, shall I quote from your fact checked post?

only 9% of those who ran for reelection lost

So (elementary school math),

Code:

reelection rate = 100%-9% = 91%

If somebody isn't even running for reelection by definition they can neither lose nor win, so those must not be counted as either.
Here are the historical rates:
Reelection Rates Over the Years | OpenSecrets


I don't know if edumcation is the answer. It certainly can improve things, but only if it teaches the edumcated how to do basic logic, simple math, as well as what the meaning of 'is' is.

Originally Posted by gugi

If somebody isn't even running for reelection by definition they can neither lose nor win, so those must not be counted as either.

I guess you're right if you want to stick to the wrong wording you used to convey your idea. Still, the retention rate was less than 80%, which is what you were talking about. If the public was so disgusted with Congress that none of them ran for reelection, would you say the reelection rate was 100% Sometimes I wonder what goes on upstairs in that hoglahoo mind of yours

Anyway, my point is if you edumacate the people to vote for more better representatives then you have less childrens in Congress playing games and breaking toys

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

I guess you're right if you want to stick to the wrong wording you used to convey your idea. Still, the retention rate was less than 80%, which is what you were talking about.

Hmm, upon examination of the wording the only wrong thing may be your trying to misrepresent it

Originally Posted by gugi

(the congress reelection rates are around 90%, same as always)

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

only 9% of those who ran for reelection lost

If you missed the emphasis in blue I am talking about reelection, which is something that quantifies what the voters do, not retention, which also includes what what the non-runners-for-election do.
No matter how much squirming you do this is the conventional way to count - e.g. the percentages of winning or losing are determined by

Code:

votes for a given candidate / total legally cast votes

and not by say

Code:

votes for a given candidate / number of elegible voters

Your postulate that politicians do not run for reelection only when the voters are disgusted with them is just wrong. Sometimes they die, sometimes they're too old, sometimes they want to make money in a different way, sometimes they don't want their dirty laundry aired in public, sometimes they 'want to spend more time with their family'....

Just say 'uncle' and double check the dictionary next time you want to do your pedantic thing

Originally Posted by gugi

Just say 'uncle' and double check the dictionary next time you want to do your pedantic thing

I think I'll pretend to take the high road here and watch the blackened pots and kettles below me battle it out before I offer more constructive criticisms to the resident euro-lib academic!