frEEk
Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9660
|
posted November 14, 2004 11:54 AM
slug, i understand the logic redelk put forth initially, but it is flawed. what i was trying to ascertain is whether it was the logic itself that was flawed or jsut the presentation of the premise.
red, if i understand ur last post correctly, are you saying this thread was just proving how a little false but potentially convincing logic/math can mislead the audience? if so, i completely agree. i'd say ur original post was a textbook example of erroneous political propaganda, which is essentially just a lie once the bugs are exposed, tho u can never know whether the lie was intentional or not. if you are still sticking to your original post tho, then i'm at a loss. i think RR explained it pretty clearly and i tried to echo that explanation in slightly different words. it's plain, simple, non-spinned login, and there's no way to refute that.
   
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted November 14, 2004 04:25 PM
how is it flawed?
he presented it in the absolute BEST light possible for the liberal side,and the absolute WORST light possible for the conservative side.
the flawed logic is in assuming that ALL bush voters voted against gay marriage...
it was plain though that he was making a point about hte election results and all of the idiotic polls that surrounded it.
was he saying that democrats are as or more homophobic than republicans? no. he was asking a question based on the commonly used polling "precedures" and how they are leading and illogical
but either way, even if ALL bush supporters voted for gay marriage, that means that almost half of kerry supporters did as well...
i'd say it is probably closer to 75% for both sides... but no exit poll will ever tell us the answer to this one.
  
|
redelk
Moderator
Please... speak to the hand.
Posts: 3212
|
posted November 14, 2004 08:26 PM
 Edited By: redelk on 14 Nov 2004 20:27
RR - simple answer?
I'd hope no one "hates" anyone. Gays. Blacks. Jews. Christians. Don't you?
If you believe the numbers indicate that Republicans "hate" gays more than Democrats, than I'd guess it would be equally fair to assume that Democrats hate God and those that have faith in a Higher Power more than Republicans.
Simple answer. Yes or no.
frEEk - You said,
quote:
red, if i understand ur last post correctly, are you saying this thread was just proving how a little false but potentially convincing logic/math can mislead the audience?
BINGO! We have a winner! Even though the "math" is correct. Utilizing margins instead of totals gives a misleading and unrealistic result. Not an uncommon tactic used by both sides.
quote:
if you are still sticking to your original post tho, then i'm at a loss.
Come on frEEk. Stay focused here. Your going too wide in the apex. I stated in my second post, Even I do not embrace the homophobic spin that I put on the post..
In my third post, I represented the numbers in a more accurate method, following the guidelines of scientific statistical analysis. Actually, I did veer off enough to give Kerry votors the benefit of the "unknown" (read: doubt), by assuming that EVERY Bush and independent voter voted against GM. Going on that assumption, it still left over 2,000,000 voters that did not vote for Bush or any of the numerous independent candidates (not all 11 states had independent candidates).
SO, do i seriously believe that dems voted 2-1 against GM? Of course not and I have repeated stated as such. Do I believe that a minimum of 20% of Kerry voters DID vote against GM? Those numbers can NOT be argued. Again, that is assuming that EVERY Bush and independent voter voted against GM as well.
quote:
i think RR explained it pretty clearly and i tried to echo that explanation in slightly different words. it's plain, simple, non-spinned login, and there's no way to refute that.
If you consider "We both know that 95% of Kerry voters didn't vote against GM. as no spin logic, then I got a 300 RWHP (all motor) ZX-12R I'll sell ya cheap. That statement was just as easy to poke holes through as my numbers using margins. Since that statement claims that only 500,000 Kerry voters could have possibly voted against GM, were are the other 1,500,000 voters?
The title of this thread was purely "fishing" in its intent. That was pointed out in the opening of my second post. The thread title was solidly disproven in my third post. Sorry RR, calling the numbers a "straw man" hardly disproves it. You need to back it up with numbers. I did that for you in my third post. Though I didn't "catch the big one" (you know who), it did draw in the one that puts up the most intelligent and logical fight.
Thanks RR. It was fun, but now I gotta go look for where those 1,500,000 went. 
____________
There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
-Ernest Hemingway
|
DB
Pro
Posts: 1932
|
posted November 14, 2004 08:48 PM
quote:
Though I didn't "catch the big one" (you know who),
??????
____________
Dan
04 ZX10r (Track only)
08 Concours14
|
frEEk
Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9660
|
posted November 15, 2004 11:04 AM
quote:
he presented it in the absolute BEST light possible for the liberal side,and the absolute WORST light possible for the conservative side.
RR, i was just talking about the logic and refuting the initial premise, not any counter-spin applied.
quote:
but either way, even if ALL bush supporters voted for gay marriage, that means that almost half of kerry supporters did as well...
not quite. the theoretical split u describe would see 100% of bushies and 20% of kerries. not 100% and nearly 50%
quote:
i'd say it is probably closer to 75% for both sides... but no exit poll will ever tell us the answer to this one.
personally i'd still guess the anti-GM vote was heavier on the republican side, but we definitely can't tell for sure. jsut cause bush was anti-GM sure as hell don't mean most of his supporters are also.
|
frEEk
Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9660
|
posted November 15, 2004 11:20 AM
quote:
quote:
if you are still sticking to your original post tho, then i'm at a loss.
Come on frEEk. Stay focused here. Your going too wide in the apex. I stated in my second post, Even I do not embrace the homophobic spin that I put on the post..
phew! thought u had gone off the deep end for a moment  seriously tho, this was intended more for those reading along who agreed with your original premise than you, as i expected it was just an exercise in spin. fact is, when u reply to a post, u are effectively addressing ALL who agree with what was said, not just the author.
quote:
If you consider "We both know that 95% of Kerry voters didn't vote against GM. as no spin logic, then I got a 300 RWHP (all motor) ZX-12R I'll sell ya cheap. That statement was just as easy to poke holes through as my numbers using margins. Since that statement claims that only 500,000 Kerry voters could have possibly voted against GM, were are the other 1,500,000 voters?
i think u took this statement wrong (or i did), but as i read it, he's just saying that less than 95% of Kerry voters voted against GM, which is the % required to make true your 2 to 1 statement in the original post. i assume you read it as "95% of kerry voters voted _for_ GM". anyway, as mentioned above, i'm strictly talking about logic here. i have little interest in spin (including even RR's fairly safe spin of "we all know...") cause spin is inherently bullshit. logic & fact is all that matters to me in politics.
quote:
The title of this thread was purely "fishing" in its intent.
and a fine example of fish it was. it's a sad statement that such easily refuted spin actually works in the real world, and that polititians and their campaign staff (read: marketers) have the balls and lack of ethics to use spin that bad, nevermind using spin AT ALL. the odd clips of american campaigning i saw on TV angered me to no end. every ad i saw was nothign but smearing. seems all parties were so focused on making sure the voters knew how bad their opponent was, they didnt both informing the voters as to THEIR stands and plans. i know this sounds communist in it's level of control, but i'd like to see a committe/panel/whatever of some sort that has to approve all campaign material provided by all candidates before it can be distributed. a non-partisan panel of course; just a group of people who would not allot any spin, any rhetoric, and BS to be spread. u wanna claim u did so and so in ur last term? u better make sure u present it in an accurate light and that u actaully did what u said. WAY too much spin & outright lies in campaignings. i f igure if every polititian put all their campaign material in one brochure, it was all checked for accuracy, and then send that brochure with all candidats information to every household in teh country... can u imagine how much cleaner and better politics would be? anyway, obviously a pipe dream.
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted November 15, 2004 03:13 PM
freek you missed hte big picture though, 20% of the VOTERS on top of the bush voters said no to GM
kerry got (in that one example) 42% of the VOTERS
leaves 22% of the VOTERS who voted anti GM but pro kerry
which means HALF of the 44% of kerry's voter base also said no to GM
if 76% of ALL the voters said no to GM and only 54% of ALL the voters voted for Bush
thatl eaves 22% of ALL the voters that voted NO to GM but YES to Kerry
ergo about half of the kerry supporters said NO to GM
|
frEEk
Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9660
|
posted November 16, 2004 11:39 AM
i'm afraid u'r making a mathematical error there slug. the numbers presented showed a minimum of 20% of Kerry voters voted against GM, which assumes 100% of bush voters voted against GM, which is of course an unliekly assumtion. also, 64% voted against GM, not 76%, which makes a HUGE different. besides which, the original argument was that the percentage of Kerry voters who voted against GM was twice as big as the % of Bush voters who voted against GM. that was based on margins and was of course rather seriously flawed, which was the whole point of the exercise. i don't think anyone said or expected that 100% of kerry voters would vote _for_ GM. as i said above, expecting ur supporters to agree with you on all the issues is foolish.
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted November 16, 2004 06:54 PM
if you bothered to read the example i gave, you'd not have made the last 3 posts...
but hey, i am used to being ignored for the most part...
my example was the first state listed, and in THAT state, 75% of ALL voters etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
read, THEN comment...
i agree, that the premise of the entire excercise is flawed, in attempting to use voting statistics to determine the sexual orientation of kerry or bush supporters...
but please READ before you slam the math that you didn't bother to read first....
try RE-reading my first post i made using the numbers, then you'll see the example, the numbers, and the assumptions used....
it was pretty simple and clear what i said and the numbers i posted are pretty darn close to accurate for that state.... in that state, about half of Kerry voters supported banning gay marriage....and abouthalf said no..
again ONLY if you assume that EVERY voter for bush was against it...
if not you get beyond half to, as i said is likely closer to the truth, more like 75% of BOTH sides against GM.
again, referring to that state, and those numbers...
RTFP...
|
frEEk
Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9660
|
posted November 17, 2004 06:47 PM
Edited By: frEEk on 17 Nov 2004 18:47
slug, i did read all the posts (i always do, i hate RTFP syndriome as much as anyone) . i jsut took "in that example" to mean the initial example of the 11 or so states that redelk was using. moreover, u'v still made a mistake in that the numbers for the first state (Arkansas) u were using were margins, not total votes, ergo your "which means HALF of the 44% of kerry's voter base also said no to GM" conclusion is meaningless (altho the numbers may work out that way given the correct numbers anyway, but that would be coincidence). nevertheless i do agree with ur point that there is significant opposition to GM on both sides of the presidential fence.
RTFP properly
|
redelk
Moderator
Please... speak to the hand.
Posts: 3212
|
posted November 17, 2004 10:31 PM
Oh.... so now your pickin' on Arkansas, eh?
I think this thread has proved (or not - depending on opinion) it's points.
#1. That Kerry supporters likely did NOT vote against GM 2 to 1 over Bush supporters. Thus the answer to the thread title is.... NO!
#2. That a absolute minimum of 20% of Kerry supporters in these 11 states DID vote against GM. Realistically, one could easy say closer to 1 in 4 likely voted against GM. Otherwise, you would have to assuming EVERY Bush and independent support also voted against it.
Beyond that, there ain't much left to argue.... stastically, that is.
From a spin aspect, ya'll have seen how it can just as easily point a finger in the opposite direction, using the exact same methods used by media's talking heads and political pundits on the "other side". Just like when the say they are cutting a certain program's funding, look a little closer. Often, they are not cutting anything. Its more like last year the got a 6% increase in funding from the previous year and this year they are only getting a 4% increase. Yet because they are not getting that 6% (or even more), its referred to as a "cut".
Okay... having said that, I believe it is time to let this thread die the slow death it so richly deserves and let it just fade down off the front page.
____________
There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
-Ernest Hemingway
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted November 18, 2004 04:01 AM
freek: i still don't understand how you can confuse a percent of voters (56% voted For bush) with a margin number (posted as such in the same data set)
percentages vice numbers....
the percentage numbers that he posted were NOT the same as the raw number he posted as a margin.
quote:
(EV) STATE - BUSH MARGIN / AGAINST GM MARGIN
(6) Arkansas - 102,520 (54%) / 497,555 (75%)
unless 102520 is 54% of all voters in the state...
but then we have a problem...because that would mean that 497k is 75%
does..not...compute.....
unless arkansas only has 198000 voters.... (or 800k, depending on which marginy ouuse to calculate the voter total)
which would be pretty bad considering total population of almost 3 million people....
so i guess the important number to know is how many total votes were cast in the state of arkansas?
butlike red was trying to prove, one set of numbers apparently can mean totally difdferent things depending on the spin
(unemployment numbers anyone? in 1993 or 1994 5.x% unemployment was a record-breaking low. in 2003 (10 years later) 5.x% is harbinger of the next great depression......)
|
frEEk
Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9660
|
posted November 18, 2004 11:22 AM
hm, maybe i read those numbers wrong, i dunno. head too murky from having too much to do these days anyway. this whole thread is just too muddled up (again, part of the point i'm sure). i better just shut up before i say (more?) stupid shit
|
|
|
|
|
HOME
NEW TOPIC