Reply #77: I can agree with that ...

[RoyGBiv]

My original point, if I may restate it in light of some other things said here and my own reflection, is that the data posted here is only one aspect of a very large problem, and this one aspect is not in and of itself damning. It is, I now agree, suspicious.

FWIW, I have gone back as far as 1994 and tried with what little data I could find to do a comparison. Based on totals alone, these numbers are off the line that would be New Mexico's trend by an unexpected amount. For example, the combined total Democratic votes for all judge races in this election was higher than at any point in the last ten years. Several mitigating factors may have contributed to this. I noted one "position," which has been held by a Republican more often in those ten years than by a Democrat, apparently owing to the popularity of a particular judge against less popular opponents. (I know nothing about her and so don't know what all might have gone into her selection.) Whatever the case, the numbers for that one race skewed the overall results so that Republicans appeared to have more support. Meanwhile, in other races, Democrats won by large margins.

In any case what's needed in the face of data like this is more questions, a deeper look into the data in an attempt to find the reason for the shift. My possibly incorrect interpretation of the original poster's comment was that this evidence was a smoking gun of sorts. The "Bingo!" comment is what led to that. It isn't a smoking gun. It is, as was also said, prima facie evidence, that is evidence that on its face seems damning but which requires more inquiry to determine its true meaning.