I had originally noted under the last post on the topic that the Argus was still re-writing their mess of a legislative analysis, as per a notation of their correction under that story, they’re admitting that they had to go back in to fix it (after I pointed out how they had no idea of what they’re talking about):
Correction: An earlier version of this story overstated the number of incumbents running in competitive districts. Our updated analysis suggests eight, not six, races are likely to be competitive based on recent election history and the lack of incumbents.
In addition, I see that they have a standalone article/blogpost with additional information on the “oops,” in an article entitled “A clarification on our competitive races story”
My spreadsheet, though, mislabeled a handful of legislators who are seeking another term but in a different chamber (House reps seeking a Senate seat for vice versa.) I went through the list this morning and removed the “incumbent” label from those candidates.
My editor and I also cleaned up the spreadsheet to combine mutli-seat House races into a single row. We initially did our math based on “seats” rather than districts, which became confusing. It doesn’t change our conclusion, but hopefully the table is more clear now.
“We initially did our math based on “seats” rather than districts, which became confusing.” It’s bad enough the “political” reporter didn’t understand South Dakota’s long standing system of electing house seats, but the editor didn’t understand it either? Good Lord.
They might have gotten around to fixing more of their mistakes today, but even after fixing them, they leave the reader with no real insight or analysis, aside from “There are Republicans who live here” and “Democrats live in this district.” Not to mention skipping over races that everyone else in the state views as competitive, most notably Langer V Barth.
Oh well. C’est la vie. It’s the Argus we’re talking about. No surprises here.