|
On July 25 2008 07:44 Camilus wrote:
There are some situations where bi-variant statistics that can be used effectively measure correlations. I have no doubt that there is a higher crime rate among African Americans, but this one of the situations that bi-variant analysis cannot tell the whole story. African Americans disproportionately face exogenous factors (I cannot list all of these factors as I am not a demographer or statistician) that can provide a much better explanation for higher crime rates than race. If you did analysis of whites and blacks in the same socio-economic group (this is just one extra variable so the analysis won't be perfect), you would find that there is no correlation between crime rate and race.
I recall when I took a statistics class, the professor posed an interesting situation. It was a bi-variant statistical study (obviously a contrived study) that showed an increase in ice cream consumption had a positive correlation with increases in the crime rate. A (fictional) city counsel man sees this study and decided the solution to the crime problem was to ban ice cream. Will the banning of ice cream actually cause a drop in the crime rate? It doesn't take a Ph.D in social statistics to realize the ice cream consumption isn't the problem. It did not take us (the students) long to figure out that the true cause of the increased crime rate was most like an increase in temperature.
It is always important to keep in mind other variables exist that can bias your statistical analysis.
The best and most balanced post in the thread. It deserves some credit (quoting).
Also a perfect rebuttal to HnR)ht's statistical arguments. For this very reason I can bet it will go unanswered.
|
Looks like the media only focuses on Obama's "flip flops".
McCain backs off his no-new-tax pledge
"There is nothing that's off the table. I have my positions, and I'll articulate them. But nothing's off the table," McCain said. "I don't want tax increases. But that doesn't mean that anything is off the table."
|
On July 25 2008 13:40 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2008 10:45 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Why the hell is Obama not gaining any ground in the polls, damn! He is now losing ground in 4 battleground states. Shows you the fundamental problem with democracy. It is only as good as the level of voter education and the extent to which they are able to inform themselves. That sadly, simply isn't too high.
Thats whats wrong with the world, too many stupid people T_T.
|
If you are right or left of center your opinion does matter that much. It is all about the moderates. Capture the center and you win.
Flip flops happen every election for a reason. First the primaries you must move to the right/left to win your party's nomination. Then you must get back center to win the election. Flip flopping can get you in trouble, but consequences of not making a run toward the center are just as bad. After all who are the Republicans going to vote for, the Democrat? Who are the Democrats going to vote for, the Republican? You cannot win the election without the moderates. It is that simple. This is from Nixon's playbook and every other successful politicians playbook. However, the really tricky part is convincing the voters that you are a genuine centrist. There is also the minor possibility that your sprint towards the center will alienate your base and they will just stay home on election day, but that too is an acceptable risk.
|
On July 29 2008 17:28 Camilus wrote:
If you are right or left of center your opinion does matter that much. It is all about the moderates. Capture the center and you win.
Flip flops happen every election for a reason. First the primaries you must move to the right/left to win your party's nomination. Then you must get back center to win the election. Flip flopping can get you in trouble, but consequences of not making a run toward the center are just as bad. After all who are the Republicans going to vote for, the Democrat? Who are the Democrats going to vote for, the Republican? You cannot win the election without the moderates. It is that simple. This is from Nixon's playbook and every other successful politicians playbook. However, the really tricky part is convincing the voters that you are a genuine centrist. There is also the minor possibility that your sprint towards the center will alienate your base and they will just stay home on election day, but that too is an acceptable risk.
You greatly underestimate the importance of an energized base.
|
I believe I mentioned that, but yeah, it does appear I underestimate this effect. To clarify, yes, you will lose if your base has little enthusiasm for you. This exactly why McCain doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell against Obama. McCain has to capture a significant share of the center just to hope to stay even Obama. Conservatives will not be voting "for" McCain, they'll be voting "against" Obama. That doesn't sound like a winning formula.
|
obama campaign bans signs...
http://infowars.net/articles/july2008/220708Obama.htm
can u get more borderline dictator/controlled elections or what?
CFR chameleon.
ron paul is the only with wtihout strings, and with a spine, who talks about the real causes of problems and what our country is all about. the constitution, individual freedoms, and keeping government at bay.
|
On July 30 2008 13:41 crabapple wrote:
CFR chameleon.
You're a fucking idiot.
The CFR is not some all-powerful organization out to control the world and eat babies.
|
On July 30 2008 13:41 crabapple wrote:obama campaign bans signs... http://infowars.net/articles/july2008/220708Obama.htmcan u get more borderline dictator/controlled elections or what? CFR chameleon. ron paul is the only with wtihout strings, and with a spine, who talks about the real causes of problems and what our country is all about. the constitution, individual freedoms, and keeping government at bay.
Obama's charismatic speaking style relies heavily on his audience via call-and-response. Of course he wants to control them like a producer controls the extras on his set. No biggie. I mean, it's not like you're just now realizing that all politicians play mindfuck games, right?
Look what straight talk did for Ron Paul, COME ON (Gob reference).
|
On July 30 2008 14:19 HeadBangaa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2008 13:41 crabapple wrote:obama campaign bans signs... http://infowars.net/articles/july2008/220708Obama.htmcan u get more borderline dictator/controlled elections or what? CFR chameleon. ron paul is the only with wtihout strings, and with a spine, who talks about the real causes of problems and what our country is all about. the constitution, individual freedoms, and keeping government at bay. Look what straight talk did for Ron Paul, COME ON (Gob reference). hahahaha COME ON!!!
|
|
|
United States22883 Posts
Who is starting to believe anything? It's just a funny story, and most of their citations were comedic. Colbert and the Daily Show have been far more critical of McCain along the way, than Obama.
BTW Karl Rove is a pretty brilliant strategist.
Bloggers at the Huffington Post launched a backlash to the backlash against Obama’s overseas trip, arguing in part that he wouldn’t face such criticism of acting premature if he were white. God, I hate the Huffington Post.
|
She wouldn't dare...
The former first lady did not rule out the possibility of having her name placed into nomination at the convention, being held Aug. 25-28 in Denver. But she also said no decisions had been made.
"We are trying work all this through with the (Democratic National Committee) and with the Obama campaign," said Clinton, who suspended her White House bid on June 7 and endorsed Obama, an Illinois senator.
Clinton aims to soothe delegates at Dem convention
|
it would be incredibly stupid since it would basically cut off a lot of her future in the democratic party
and given the hatred for her among the republicans, it would pretty much be political suicide
|
Barrack Obama is part of the illuminati, why would anyone want him as their president?
|
Were I American I'd vote for McCain as I find socialism quite immoral(not that McCain is really much better). Thankfully I don't have to vote for neither.
|
On August 07 2008 19:27 rKos wrote:
Were I American I'd vote for McCain as I find socialism quite immoral(not that McCain is really much better). Thankfully I don't have to vote for neither.
You do realise that even Obama would be considered far right in most european countries?
|
On August 07 2008 19:42 DrainX wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2008 19:27 rKos wrote:
Were I American I'd vote for McCain as I find socialism quite immoral(not that McCain is really much better). Thankfully I don't have to vote for neither. You do realise that even Obama would be considered far right in most european countries?
Sort of why I hate Europe.
|
On July 26 2008 06:38 LaLuSh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2008 07:44 Camilus wrote:
There are some situations where bi-variant statistics that can be used effectively measure correlations. I have no doubt that there is a higher crime rate among African Americans, but this one of the situations that bi-variant analysis cannot tell the whole story. African Americans disproportionately face exogenous factors (I cannot list all of these factors as I am not a demographer or statistician) that can provide a much better explanation for higher crime rates than race. If you did analysis of whites and blacks in the same socio-economic group (this is just one extra variable so the analysis won't be perfect), you would find that there is no correlation between crime rate and race.
I recall when I took a statistics class, the professor posed an interesting situation. It was a bi-variant statistical study (obviously a contrived study) that showed an increase in ice cream consumption had a positive correlation with increases in the crime rate. A (fictional) city counsel man sees this study and decided the solution to the crime problem was to ban ice cream. Will the banning of ice cream actually cause a drop in the crime rate? It doesn't take a Ph.D in social statistics to realize the ice cream consumption isn't the problem. It did not take us (the students) long to figure out that the true cause of the increased crime rate was most like an increase in temperature.
It is always important to keep in mind other variables exist that can bias your statistical analysis. The best and most balanced post in the thread. It deserves some credit (quoting). Also a perfect rebuttal to HnR)ht's statistical arguments. For this very reason I can bet it will go unanswered.
Very good post indeed. Although I disagree with HT almost completely I do believe that race is an influence. I also have no clue about the statistics in the USA, but I will just assume that blacks do display a more criminal behavior. Now I think this has to do to with socio-economic factors, but also with culture. In some cultures violent behavior is simply more acceptable and the threshold to resort to violence is lower in certain cultures as opposed to others. We can say that the black community in the USA has it's own distinct culture. When you ask a black person what how he feels about his identity his color/race will always be a big part of it. A black person in the USA, because he is a minority will probably feel more aware about his race. When you look at the culture of black people they always feel like they are left behind, because in the broad view blacks are just less well off than their white counterparts. There are less black success stories than white ones. Black people have their own culture in music and other things as well. Isn't it perfectly acceptable to say that because of these views blacks have about themselves and views that are imposed on blacks, combined with the socio-economic factors create an environment where violence is more likely to happen? If so then race plays a huge part and you could argue that a black person is more violent than a white person. This isn't racist, because if the blacks were in the positions white people would be in you could state the same with the roles reversed, so you aren't saying by default that black people are inferior to white people. It's just the circumstances that make black people function 'less' in a mostly white dominated society.
The previous was entirely not on topic, but I blame a bunch of thread derailers for that!
On topic: I would prefer the USA to fix the damages Bush did in the previous 8 years. And McCain might not just not do that, but possibly make it worse. So please if any of you have any sense at all in the USA don't vote McCain. And yes Barack can be considered to be on the right side of the political spectrum in Europe. But Europe are a bunch of semi communists.
|
67% Obama eh? enjoy your anti-Christ, boys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
