Interesting! This does sound pretty plausible, and it could explain a good share of the move against the original majority position.
Still, this seems unlikely to entirely explain moving to “almost in a tie”, though, in case that’s what actually happened. If you start with vote shares p and 1−p, and get half from each group switching to the other, you end up with 0.5p+0.5(1−p)=0.5 in each group. Half from each group switching seems pretty extreme,[1] and any less than that (the same share of each group switching) would preserve the majority position.
sorry I thought the difference was more like 4%? 67-33 to 63-37.
If Robert_Wiblin was right about the proposed causal mechanism, which I’m fairly neutral on, then you just need .67x -.33x= 0.04, or about a x=~12% (relative) shift from each side, which is very close to Robert’s original proposed numbers.
Interesting! This does sound pretty plausible, and it could explain a good share of the move against the original majority position.
Still, this seems unlikely to entirely explain moving to “almost in a tie”, though, in case that’s what actually happened. If you start with vote shares p and 1−p, and get half from each group switching to the other, you end up with 0.5p+0.5(1−p)=0.5 in each group. Half from each group switching seems pretty extreme,[1] and any less than that (the same share of each group switching) would preserve the majority position.
More than half from each switching sounds crazy: their prior positions would be inversely correlated with their later positions.
sorry I thought the difference was more like 4%? 67-33 to 63-37.
If Robert_Wiblin was right about the proposed causal mechanism, which I’m fairly neutral on, then you just need .67x -.33x= 0.04, or about a x=~12% (relative) shift from each side, which is very close to Robert’s original proposed numbers.
Yes sorry I don’t meant to ‘explain away’ any large shift (if it occurred), the anti- side may just have been more persuasive here.