Wednesday, May 30, 2012

The Separation of Church and State Paradigm

Separation of church and state is not in the Constitution, but these words echoed by Thomas Jefferson have passed the test of time. In essence, the government should not enact any law or policy that favors one religion over another and vice versa. This lack of intervention style of governance is called laissez faire. In this instance, laissez faire for the most part is a good policy because it prevents one religion from receiving preferential treatment over other religious denominations. And if laissez faire is a good premise for government policy to follow, it is a shame that this standard is not applied to other aspects between the societal and government relationship. If this were there case there would be no need for lobbyists because there would be no government ties to special interests.

Over the two plus centuries of America’s existence there has been a major paradigm shift in how the Constitution has been interpreted. For instance, today, the first amendment, freedom of speech, also means freedom of expression. The Constitution’s “necessary clause”, the “commerce clause”, and even the “contracts clause” interpretation have all expanded over the past two hundred years. This has enabled the federal government to expand and grow at an alarming rate. Today, we have fewer freedoms because the federal government’s thirst for taxpayer money to pay for their ever increasing expansion is forcing more and more people into poverty.

All government laws and policies are for the most part unfair and inconsistently enforced. Take for example the new Obamacare reform of the healthcare industry. The government has issued 111 waivers to union groups and corporations who are represented by lobbyists. Meanwhile; the other 99% of corporation and union groups must comply with the law. This unfair law could have been avoided, if and only if, the government followed a laissez faire approach of governance and did not interfere in the healthcare industry.

Why does separation of church and state pass the test of time, but other aspects of Constitutional law and government intervention fail miserably over time? Today, the government gives tens of billions of dollars to thousands of different groups, but ignores other similar entities. For example, the government gives money to National Public Radio and to left leaning special interest groups such as ACORN, but neglects to yield the same treatment to similar entities. This is not fair, nor is it consistent. The stimulus, for instance, gave money to select companies, charities, and non-profit groups while ignoring others. The Toxic Asset Relief Program (TARP) bailed out some banks and left others to fail. It seems that companies, organizations, and groups that have lobbyist working for them in Washington DC reap the benefits and those who do not play the game go extinct. Although the quid pro quo process between lobbyists and politicians may not been seen as corrupt or illegal, but giving one company a sweet heart deal in return for campaign contributions is sleazy. All of this hypocrisy and contradictory policy can be avoided if the government practiced laissez fair and did not feel compelled to generate a massive paradigm shift in the government’s societal role.  

The bottom line is that the only way the government can avoid being unfair and inconsistent with its policies is to practice a form of laissez faire. The government has done this successfully when it comes to separation of church and state. But there has been a dramatic paradigm shift over the past two hundred years where the government has expanded and grown so much they inconsistently interfere into societal aspects such as healthcare, green companies, charities, and so on. I will follow the philosophy that the federal government should use laissez faire for everything, not just between religions, but for all domestic and foreign policy. Yes, sometimes the federal government must intervene in the event of a crisis, but there should be only a few exceptions to the rule.    

My Book: Is America Dying? (Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble)

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Political Hypothesis

Many political subjects, problems, and issues are based on imperfect mathematical models or hypothesis (that politicians do not understand). Thus, it is hard to understand why both liberal and conservative followers claim to be 100% correct on issues. Here are a few examples:

Taxes – Conservatives believe that lower taxes results in more consumer spending and creates a better environment for industries to compete and grow. Liberals believe in higher taxes to spread the wealth from the rich to the poor. Thus, the argument is does higher taxes on the wealthy hurt or help the economy? This is a complex problem that even most economist cannot accurately answer even if they create mathematical models (remember models are by no means perfect at predicting the future). It is indeed plausible that during certain years the liberal tax philosophy works better than the conservative tax model (only during good times). I have spent many hours crunching economic numbers and my results indicate the conservative tax approach works best over 90% of the time.

Climate Change – Democrats insist that climate change is manmade, while Republicans say it is not. Once again, there are very few liberals or conservatives in this country that can argue this subject with complete clarity without completely understanding the models used to calculate and draw conclusions on the subject. And what’s worse is that the only reasonable solution Democrats have to this problem is cap and trade, which will turn the U.S. economy upside down. There are other reasonable solutions, but politicians fail to look at them because they are tied to lobbyists and only care about themselves and making money.

Economic Policy – Progressives believe in a Keynesian model where government spending stimulates the economy. On the other hand, conservatives believe in supply side or trickledown economics where the consumer stimulates the economy. Keynesian approaches used during the FDR, Carter, and Obama administrations were arguably utter failures. But some economists still argue that government stimulus during these presidencies did combat potentially higher unemployment rates and obtained some economic growth. In fact; Obama is generating fictitious statistics such as “saved jobs” to defend his hypothesis that government stimulus spending is the best way to reverse an economic recession.

Entitlement Programs – Democrats follow the hypothesis that social programs and government handouts make America a better nation because it shows compassion. On the other hand, Republicans follow the thought process that government handouts do very little to place any urgency or incentive on people to better themselves. In some respects the Democrats are correct because there are always hard working Americans who are going through a tough time and require assistance. On the other hand, Republicans are correct because there is a large portion of the population that takes advantage of social programs and they provide nothing positive towards society over their lifetimes. It should be easy to find a middle ground to reform these programs, but it is impossible if everyone is hard headed.

If only politicians and Americans could understand that their philosophies are not necessarily 100% correct, we could compromise. For instance, on climate change we could all agree that carbon emissions are a pollutant and decide on a solution that does not affect our economy. On entitlements we can agree that people can use assistance from time to time but place a lifetime cap on Medicaid and Food Stamps. On economic policy we can agree to a two prong approach that consists of some government spending and some tax cuts. On taxes we can agree to cut all write offs.

In a recent study (over the past 30 years) of the most popular economic and political pundits - far less than half of their predictions were correct. And it is important to note, in this study, these so called experts merely had to predict the outcome out of two possibilities such as would Quebec succeed from Canada, Yes or No. In other words, a monkey or a two year old could prognosticate better than these experts since by the law averages they should get 50% correct.

My Book: Is America Dying? (Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble)

Friday, May 25, 2012

2012 Election Polls and Models (5/25/12)

Below are poll averages (from Real Clear Politics) for Presidential, Gubernatorial, Senate, and contested House seats. A positive poll average favors the Republican candidate whereas a negative poll average favors the Democratic candidate. From the poll averages a ranking and probability are calculated for each race. A probability above 0.5 (50%) favors the Republican candidate whereas a probability under 0.5 favors the Democratic candidate. The higher ranking, the higher the probability the race will go to the Republican candidate. The lower the ranking, the higher the probability the race will go to the Democratic candidate. Since polling in House races are not very accurate, the formula to calculate the probability is more complex taking into account race ratings by the Cook, Election Projection, and Sabato political reports as well as generic congressional polling results and PVI (Partisan Voting Index). A positive PVI means the percentage of registered Republicans in the district outnumbers registered Democrats whereas a negative PVI means the percentage of registered Democrats in the district outnumbers registered Republicans. The overall probability for the President, Senate, Gubernatorial, and House races are computed to project the number of seats (including the presidency) that are going to be won by Republicans and Democrats respectively. Race candidates will be filled in to the below tables once they are determined by state primaries. I will update and post this information regularly. Below is an overall summary of the predicted outcomes based on probability density function models.

Presidential Electoral Vote: Obama 315; Republican 220 (R +48), Obama at 54% of the vote.

Governor Races: Current - Republicans 29; Democrats 19 (2 Independents); Projection - Republicans 32; Democrats 18 (2 Independents)

Senate Races: Current - Republicans 47; Democrats 53 (Including 2 Independents); Projection - Republicans 52; Democrats 48 (Including 2 Independents)

House Races: Current - Republicans 242; Democrats 193; Projection: Republicans 246; Democrats 189;

Below is an overall summary of the predicted outcomes based solely on election polls:

Presidential Electoral Vote: Obama 315; Republican 220

Governor Races: Republicans 31; Democrats 17 (2 Independents)

Senate Races: Republicans 50; Democrats 50 (Including 2 Independents)

House Races: Republicans 239; Democrats 196

Presidential Race

State

Democrat Electoral Vote

Republican Electoral Vote

Poll

Rank

Probability

Weighted Probability

Alabama

9

0

12

0.5

3.5

Alaska

3

0

12

0.5

0.5

Arizona

11

4.2

8

0.6723666

6.051299293

Arkansas

6

0

12

0.5

2

California

55

0

12

0.5

26.5

Colorado

9

-13

47

0.0835024

0.584516828

Connecticut

7

0

12

0.5

2.5

DC

3

0

12

0.5

0.5

Florida

0

29

1.4

11

0.5591518

15.09709951

Georgia

16

0

12

0.5

7

Hawaii

4

0

12

0.5

1

Idaho

4

0

12

0.5

1

Illinois

20

0

12

0.5

9

Indiana

11

9

3

0.8306393

7.475753565

Iowa

6

-4

37

0.3353463

1.341385274

Kansas

6

0

12

0.5

2

Kentucky

8

0

12

0.5

3

Louisiana

8

0

12

0.5

3

Massachusetts

11

-21

48

0.012798

0.115181891

Maine

4

-8

43

0.1975527

0.395105409

Maryland

10

0

12

0.5

4

Michigan

16

0

12

0.5

7

Minnesota

10

-10

45

0.1438923

1.151138711

Mississippi

6

0

12

0.5

2

Missouri

10

3

9

0.6250981

5.000785152

Montana

3

7

4

0.7715907

0.771590737

Nebraska

5

13

2

0.9164976

2.749492788

Nevada

6

-7.4

42

0.2157535

0.863013906

New Hampshire

4

-6.4

40

0.2481521

0.496304299

New Jersey

14

-9

44

0.1693607

2.03232858

New Mexico

5

-12.3

46

0.0955244

0.286573288

New York

29

-23.7

49

0.0058795

0.158746285

North Carolina

15

0

2.7

10

0.612947

7.96831161

North Dakota

3

0

12

0.5

0.5

Ohio

18

-4.6

39

0.3124289

4.998862514

Oklahoma

7

35

1

0.9999006

4.999502887

Oregon

7

-4

37

0.3353463

1.676731593

Pennsylvania

20

-7.3

41

0.2188787

3.939817335

Rhode Island

4

0

12

0.5

1

South Carolina

9

0

12

0.5

3.5

South Dakota

3

0

12

0.5

0.5

Tennessee

11

7

4

0.7715907

6.944316637

Texas

38

7

4

0.7715907

27.77726655

Utah

6

0

12

0.5

2

Vermont

3

-31

50

0.0004916

0.000491616

Virginia

13

-3.2

36

0.3668687

4.035556184

Washington

12

0

12

0.5

5

West Virginia

5

0

12

0.5

1.5

Wisconsin

10

-1.6

35

0.432474

3.459791914

Wyoming

3

6

7

0.7381969

0.738196886

0

Total

315

220

9.40739

0.4588764

0.458871635

Governor Races

State

Democrat

Republican

Poll

Rank

Probability

Incumbent

Delaware

Markell

0

4

0.5

-1

Indiana

Gregg

Pence

13

1

0.9734949

1

Kentucky

Beshear

0

4

0.5

-1

Louisiana

Jindal

0

4

0.5

1

Mississippi

Barbour

0

4

0.5

1

Missouri

Nixon

-18

14

0.003692

-1

Montana

Schweitzer

0

4

0.5

-1

New Hampshire

Hassan

Lamontagne

-2

13

0.3829785

-1

North Carolina

Dalton

McCrory

7.3

2

0.861368

Gain

-1

North Dakota

Dalrymple

0

4

0.5

1

Utah

Herbert

0

4

0.5

1

Vermont

Shumlin

0

4

0.5

-1

Washington

McKena

Inslee

6.3

3

0.8257884

Gain

-1

West Virginia

Tomblin

0

4

0.5

-1

0

6.71891

0.5390944

Senate Races

State

Democrat

Republican

Poll

Rank

Probability

Incumbent

Arizona

Carmona

Flake

10.8

3

0.8561051

1

California

Feinstein

0

10

0.5

-1

Connecticut

Murphy

Shays

-3.3

24

0.3726661

-1

Delaware

Carper

0

10

0.5

-1

Florida

Nelson

Mack

-8.4

27

0.2041854

-1

Hawaii

Hirono

Lingle

-20

32

0.0245061

-1

Indiana

Donnelly

Mourdock

21

1

0.9806287

1

Massachusetts

Warren

Brown

0.6

9

0.5235457

1

Maine

Pingree

Summers

-3

23

0.3838927

Gain

Independent King Leads

1

Michigan

Stabenow

Hoekstra

-15

29

0.069923

-1

Minnesota

Klobuchar

0

10

0.5

-1

Mississippi

Wicker

0

10

0.5

1

Missouri

McCaskill

Steelman

4

7.5

0.6530977

Gain

-1

Maryland

Cardin

0

9

0.5

-1

Montana

Tester

Rehberg

2.5

6

0.5971824

Gain

-1

Nebraska

Kerrey

Ficsher

14

2

0.9158891

Gain

-1

Nevada

Berkley

Heller

4.4

5

0.6675169

1

New York

Gillibrand

Turner

-35

33

0.0002857

-1

New Jersey

Menendez

Kyrillos

-11

28

0.139478

-1

New Mexico

Heinrich

Wilson

-4.5

25

0.3289156

-1

North Dakota

Heitkamp

Berg

0

10

0.5

-1

Ohio

Brown

Mandel

-6.7

26

0.2548057

-1

Pennsylvania

Casey

Smith

-16

31

0.0576526

-1

Rhode Island

Whitehouse

0

10

0.5

-1

Tennessee

Corker

0

10

0.5

1

Texas

Hutchison

0

10

0.5

1

Utah

Hatch

0

10

0.5

1

Vermont

Sanders

0

10

0.5

-1

Virginia

Kaine

Allen

-0.4

22

0.4842978

-1

Washington

Cantwell

Baumgartner

-15

29

0.069923

-1

West Virginia

Manchin

0

10

0.5

-1

Wisconsin

Baldwin

Thompson

7.6

4

0.7727774

Gain

-1

Wyoming

Barrasso

1

8

0.5392023

1

0

10.1601

0.4514084

House Races

State

Democrat

Republican

Poll

PVI

Cook

Sabato

Election Projection

AVE

Rank

Probability

Arkansas 1

Crawford

0

7

10

10

15

8.4

30

0.8876097

Arkansas 2

Griffin

0

5

15

15

15

10

9

0.9257901

Arkansas 4

Ross

0

8

10

10

15

8.6

27

0.8930323

Arizona 1

Gosar

0

3

0

-5

-5

-1.4

82

0.4198337

Arizona 5

Schweikert

0

5

15

15

15

10

9

0.9257901

Arizona 2

Giffords

0

3

0

-5

-5

-1.4

82

0.4198337

Arizona 9

0

0

-5

-5

-5

-3

90

0.332311

California 3

Garamendi

0

-1

-5

-10

-5

-4.2

99

0.2719397

California 7

Lungren

0

3

0

0

5

1.6

75

0.5914287

California 9

McNerney

0

-2

-5

-5

-5

-3.4

94

0.3115908

California 10

Denham

0

5

5

5

5

4

57

0.7183863

California 16

Costa

0

-2

-10

-10

-15

-7.4

110

0.1424446

California 21

0

3

5

5

5

3.6

62

0.6985549

California 23

McCarthy

0

18

15

15

15

12.6

1

0.9656868

California 24

Capps

0

-3

-10

-5

-5

-4.6

102

0.2531012

California 26

0

-3

0

0

5

0.4

80

0.5230482

California 31

Miller

0

-2

0

-5

-5

-2.4

86

0.3643585

California 36

Bono Mack

0

3

10

10

15

7.6

38

0.8639639

California 41

0

-3

-5

-5

-5

-3.6

95

0.3014451

California 47

0

-5

-10

-5

-10

-6

106

0.1929487

California 52

Bilbray

0

-1

0

0

5

0.8

79

0.5460195

Colorado 3

Tipton

0

4

5

5

5

3.8

59

0.7085493

Colorado 4

Gardner

0

6

15

15

15

10.2

7

0.9297644

Colorado 6

Miklosi

Coffman

0

1

5

5

5

3.2

66

0.6781183

Connecticut 5

Murphy

0

-2

-10

-10

-15

-7.4

110

0.1424446

Florida 2

Southerland

0

4

10

10

10

6.8

45

0.8371206

Florida 9

0

-3

0

-5

-5

-2.6

88

0.3535568

Florida 26

Rivera

0

4

5

5

5

3.8

59

0.7085493

Florida 10

Webster

0

7

10

10

15

8.4

30

0.8876097

Florida 13

Young

0

1

10

15

15

8.2

33

0.8819935

Florida 16

Buchanan

0

5

10

10

15

8

36

0.8761816

Florida 18

West

0

1

0

5

5

2.2

69

0.6247309

Florida 7

Adams

0

4

15

10

15

8.8

24

0.8982636

Florida 22

0

-5

0

-5

-5

-3

90

0.332311

Georgia 12

Barrow

0

10

5

5

5

5

52

0.7650273

Illinois 8

Walsh

0

-5

-10

-10

-10

-7

108

0.1558659

Illinois 10

Dold

0

-8

-5

-5

-5

-4.6

102

0.2531012

Illinois 11

Biggert

0

-6

0

-5

-5

-3.2

93

0.3218817

Illinois 12

Costello

0

-2

0

-5

-5

-2.4

86

0.3643585

Illinois 13

Johnson

0

-1

5

5

5

2.8

67

0.6571282

Illinois 17

Schilling

0

-6

-5

-5

-5

-4.2

99

0.2719397

Indiana 2

Donnelly

0

7

5

5

10

5.4

50

0.7824144

Indiana 8

Bucshon

0

7

10

10

15

8.4

30

0.8876097

Iowa 1

Braley

0

-5

-10

-10

-15

-8

118

0.1238184

Iowa 2

Loebsack

0

-4

-10

-10

-15

-7.8

114

0.1298277

Iowa 3

Boswell

Latham

0

1

0

5

5

2.2

69

0.6247309

Iowa 4

Vilsack

King

0

4

5

5

5

3.8

59

0.7085493

Kentucky 6

Chandler

Barr

0

9

-10

-5

-15

-4.2

99

0.2719397

Maine 2

Michaud

0

-3

-10

-10

-15

-7.6

113

0.1360361

Maryland 1

Harris

0

10

15

15

15

11

2

0.9440431

Maryland 6

Bartlett

0

-2

-10

-5

-10

-5.4

104

0.2175856

Massachusetts 10

Keating

0

-5

-15

-15

-15

-10

130

0.0742099

Massachusetts 6

Tierney

0

-7

-10

-10

-10

-7.4

110

0.1424446

Missouri 2

Akin

0

5

15

15

15

10

9

0.9257901

Michigan 1

Benishek

0

3

5

5

10

4.6

54

0.7468988

Michigan 3

Amash

0

6

10

10

15

8.2

33

0.8819935

Michigan 7

Walberg

0

1

10

10

15

7.2

39

0.8509456

Michigan 11

McCotter

0

1

15

10

15

8.2

33

0.8819935

Minnesota 1

Walz

0

1

-15

-10

-15

-7.8

114

0.1298277

Minnesota 2

Kline

0

1

10

10

15

7.2

39

0.8509456

Minnesota 3

Paulsen

0

0

15

10

15

8

36

0.8761816

Minnesota 6

Bachman

0

7

15

15

15

10.4

6

0.9335729

Minnesota 8

Cravaack

0

-3

0

0

5

0.4

80

0.5230482

Minnesota 7

Peterson

0

5

-15

-10

-15

-7

108

0.1558659

Montana 1

Gillan

Daines

6

7

10

5

10

7

43

0.8441341

New Jersey 3

Runyan

0

1

5

10

10

5.2

51

0.7738153

New Jersey 5

Garrett

0

7

10

15

15

9.4

17

0.912836

New Jersey 6

Pallone

0

-8

-15

-15

-15

-10.6

133

0.0627805

New Jersey 7

Lance

0

3

15

15

15

9.6

14

0.9173295

New Jersey 8

Pascrell

0

-10

-15

-15

-15

-11

134

0.0559569

New York 2

King

0

-1

15

15

15

8.8

24

0.8982636

New York 3

Israel

0

-5

-15

-15

-15

-10

130

0.0742099

New York 1

Bishop

0

0

-5

-5

-5

-3

90

0.332311

New York 4

McCarthy

0

-3

-15

-15

-15

-9.6

126

0.0826705

New York 11

Grimm

0

5

5

10

5

5

52

0.7650273

New York 18

Hayworth

0

2

0

0

5

1.4

77

0.5801663

New York 19

Gibson

0

-1

0

5

5

1.8

73

0.6026161

New York 22

Hanna

0

3

10

5

10

5.6

49

0.7908218

New York 21

Owens

0

1

-5

-5

-5

-2.8

89

0.3428718

New York 24

Buerkle

0

-4

-5

-5

-5

-3.8

98

0.2914507

New York 25

Slaughter

0

5

-5

-5

-5

-2

85

0.3862803

New York 23

Reed

0

3

10

15

15

8.6

27

0.8930323

New York 27

Hochul

0

7

0

5

5

3.4

64

0.6884092

Nebraska 2

Terry

0

6

10

15

15

9.2

20

0.9081626

New Hampshire 1

Shea-Porter

Guinta

-4

0

5

0

5

1.6

75

0.5914287

New Hampshire 2

Kuster

Bass

0

-3

0

0

-5

-1.6

84

0.4085713

New Mexico 1

Heinrich

0

-5

-10

-10

-15

-8

118

0.1238184

Nevada 2

Amodei

0

5

15

15

15

10

9

0.9257901

Nevada 3

Heck

0

0

0

0

5

1

78

0.5574525

Nevada 4

0

-2

-10

-10

-10

-6.4

107

0.1775124

North Carolina 2

Ellmers

0

2

15

15

15

9.4

17

0.912836

North Carolina 7

McIntyre

0

11

0

5

5

4.2

56

0.7280603

North Carolina 8

Kissell

0

12

5

5

10

6.4

48

0.8224876

North Carolina 11

Shuler

0

13

10

10

10

8.6

27

0.8930323

North Carolina 13

Miller

0

10

10

15

15

10

9

0.9257901

North Dakota 1

Berg

0

10

10

10

15

9

23

0.9033061

Ohio 6

Wilson

Johnson

0

5

5

5

5

4

57

0.7183863

Ohio 7

Healey-Abrams

Gibbs

0

4

10

10

10

6.8

45

0.8371206

Ohio 16

Renacci

0

4

0

0

5

1.8

73

0.6026161

Oklahoma 2

Boren

0

14

5

5

10

6.8

45

0.8371206

Oregon 1

Wu

0

-5

-15

-15

-15

-10

130

0.0742099

Oregon 5

Schrader

0

0

-15

-15

-15

-9

122

0.0966939

Pennsylvania 3

Kelly

0

3

15

15

15

9.6

14

0.9173295

Pennsylvania 4

Altmire

0

6

-15

-15

-15

-7.8

114

0.1298277

Pennsylvania 6

Gerlach

0

1

10

10

15

7.2

39

0.8509456

Pennsylvania 7

Meehan

0

1

10

10

15

7.2

39

0.8509456

Pennsylvania 8

Fitzpatrick

0

-1

5

5

5

2.8

67

0.6571282

Pennsylvania 12

Critz

0

6

0

0

5

2.2

69

0.6247309

Pennsylvania 11

Barletta

0

6

15

15

15

10.2

7

0.9297644

Pennsylvania 15

Dent

0

2

15

15

15

9.4

17

0.912836

Pennsylvania 18

Murphy

0

6

10

15

15

9.2

20

0.9081626

Pennsylvania 17

Holden

0

6

-15

-15

-15

-7.8

114

0.1298277

South Carolina 7

0

6

10

15

15

9.2

20

0.9081626

South Dakota 1

Noem

0

10

15

15

15

11

2

0.9440431

Tennessee 5

Cooper

0

-3

-15

-15

-15

-9.6

126

0.0826705

Rhode Island 1

Cicilline

0

-13

0

0

-5

-3.6

95

0.3014451

Texas 10

McCaul

0

8

15

15

15

10.6

5

0.9372195

Texas 14

Paul

0

8

10

15

15

9.6

14

0.9173295

Texas 23

Canseco

0

6

0

0

5

2.2

69

0.6247309

Texas 34

0

-3

-15

-15

-15

-9.6

126

0.0826705

Texas 35

0

0

-15

-15

-15

-9

122

0.0966939

Utah 4

Matheson

0

13

0

0

5

3.6

62

0.6985549

Virginia 2

Rigell

0

5

10

10

10

7

43

0.8441341

Virginia 11

Connolly

0

-2

-15

-10

-15

-8.4

121

0.1123903

Washington 1

Inslee

0

-3

-5

-5

-5

-3.6

95

0.3014451

Washington 6

0

-5

-10

-15

-15

-9

122

0.0966939

Washington 2

Larsen

0

0

-15

-10

-15

-8

118

0.1238184

Washington 3

Buetler

0

-1

15

15

15

8.8

24

0.8982636

Washington 10

0

-5

-15

-10

-15

-9

122

0.0966939

West Virginia 1

McKinley

0

9

15

15

15

10.8

4

0.9407082

West Virginia 3

Rahall

0

6

-10

-10

-15

-5.8

105

0.2009652

Wisconsin 3

Kind

0

-4

-15

-15

-15

-9.8

129

0.0783536

Wisconsin 7

Duffy

0

0

5

5

5

3

66

0.667689

Wisconsin 8

Ribble

0

2

5

5

10

4.4

55

0.7375661