[kingaillas]

>And which side “represents less than a plurality of voters?” Republicans won a majority of the Congressional popular vote in 2016. They got a million and a half more votes than Democrats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_House_of_Re.... They’re on pace to do it again this year.

You left out the Senate, the other house of Congress, which Democrats won by 10 million votes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_Senate_elec... using your comparison metric.

This coupled with Presidential votes, even though technically only the electoral college counts, makes it quite fair to imply it is the Republicans that represent less than a plurality of voters.

[rayiner]

> makes it quite fair to imply it is the Republicans that represent less than a plurality of voters.

Clearly that's not true, since Republicans are currently two points ahead of Democrats on the generic Congressional ballot: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/generic-ballot/

The House popular vote more accurately reflects nationwide sentiment because both parties have an incentive to campaign in every state. Indeed, the leaders of both parties in the House are from California.

But both parties lack an incentive to try and win statewide "winner take all" contests in opposite-color states. Cross-referencing those results against polling suggests that this effect hurts the GOP, with their geographically more spread out base, slightly more than it hurts Democrats.

[antiterra]

> Clearly that's not true, since Republicans are currently two points ahead of Democrats on the generic Congressional ballot: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/generic-ballot/

Rayiner. Dude. First, using the word 'plurality' the way you introduced it is confusing at best, and possibly just wrong.

Second, the 538 poll aggregation has massive margin for error. Filter down to just the polls rated A+ and you only get an half point advantage for Republicans. Change the filter to the polls rated B+ and above and you get a full point advantage for Democrats. Also, consider the changes over time. How confident are you that a 5% swing from Democrats to Republicans over the past year represents an actual ideological change mapping directly to abortion ideology?

[rayiner]

> Rayiner. Dude. First, using the word 'plurality' the way you introduced it is confusing at best, and possibly just wrong.

The polls literally show Republicans with a plurality in the generic ballot.

> Second, the 538 poll aggregation has massive margin for error.

And in the last several cycles, polling error has undercounted conservatives.

> How confident are you that a 5% swing from Democrats to Republicans over the past year represents an actual ideological change mapping directly to abortion ideology?

I didn't say any of that, and I don't think that's true. My point is refuting this idea that Republicans are some sort of minority party. We're a closely divided country, as demonstrated by the fact that the GOP has won an absolute larger number of votes in more than half of House elections since 1992, and regularly pulls ahead of Democrats on the generic ballot.

[antiterra]

> > Rayiner. Dude. First, using the word 'plurality' the way you introduced it is confusing at best, and possibly just wrong. > The polls literally show Republicans with a plurality in the generic ballot.

I missed that the first comment you responded to was the one that suggested the Republicans didn't have a plurality. Thought you brought up a question of who has less than a plurality when both Republicans and Democrats clearly have at least a plurality.