[MontaniSemperLiberi]

I’ll just let Wikipedia argue with you,

“When a study involves multiple statistical tests, some laymen assume that the confidence associated with individual tests is the confidence one should have in the results of the study itself. In fact, the results of all the statistical tests conducted during a study must be judged as a whole in determining what confidence one may place in the positive links it produces. For example, say a study is conducted which involves 40 statistical tests at 95% confidence, and which produces 3 positive results. Each test has a 5% chance of producing a false positive, so such a study will produce 3 false positives about two times in three. Thus the confidence one can have that any of the study’s positive conclusions are correct is only about 32%, well below the 95% the researchers have set as their standard of acceptance.”

When Wiki says, “some laymen assume”, they are talking about you. So aside from you, the only people I know that put faith in ensemble averages of data they don’t understand is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

[Kahuna]

checkmate

[Political Junkie Too]

You're talking about multiple studies of the same thing. I don't think that each individual district's election is considered the same thing.

I don't see how AZ-01 and NY-01 and UT-01 are all different tests of the same study. Sure, they're all "Congressional House Elections," but each district is different, with its own constituencies and its own politics and personalities.

I'm not doing 435 tests of one study, I'm doing one test each week for 435 studies.

-PJ