Originally posted by FMFWhatever master's savage is doing, I think it's safe to assume it's not statistics.
So you think an aberration exists in isolation - a single year, say - and can be analyzed as such without looking at what it aberrates from? Are you sure about this because it's kind of new to me?
Originally posted by savage4731The fact that you would label people "ignorant" simply because they disagree with your politics only shows how weak minded you are, how easily you're led around on a leash by the Conservative media.
I'm uncomrfortable labeling ignorant people as intellectual.
Originally posted by savage4731Are you insane? How can the observed data that most people with post graduate education vote Democrat and voted for Obama in 2008 possibly have "nothing to do" with your claim that "As education level increased McCain got a greater percentage of the vote"? And how can that fact make such a claim "obviously true"?????
That's fine and all but it has nothing to do with what we were talking about.
The original statement was that as education increased people were more likely to vote for McCain. Thats obviously true. Now you're trying to turn the graph sideways, start talking about 1992 and say that proves a trend in 2008? Huh? It doesn't. different years dont have an ...[text shortened]... like me asking what the fads for 2011 are and you start talking about pet rocks and pac man.
Originally posted by no1marauderTrend.
Are you insane? How can the observed data that most people with post graduate education vote Democrat and voted for Obama in 2008 possibly have "nothing to do" with your claim that "As education level increased McCain got a greater percentage of the vote"? And how can that fact make such a claim "obviously true"?????
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWell he is now saying that an aberration does NOT exist in isolation and that it must be analyzed by looking at what it aberrates from. He has done a 180 degree about face.
Whatever master's savage is doing, I think it's safe to assume it's not statistics.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraTrying to wade through his "reasoning", I think what he is actually trying to claim is that McCain got progressively higher percentages of the vote (though the increases were slight after the "High school dropout" to "high school graduate" increase) but that the result that his percentage dropped among post grads is an "aberration". In fact, that result invalidates his general claim that McCain percentage increased with the voters' education.
Whatever master's savage is doing, I think it's safe to assume it's not statistics.
Originally posted by no1marauderProbably. It's hard to see how a group consisting of 17% of the electorate can be an "aberration", particularly if one were to further subdivide this group (and I have a hunch that the top group in such a subdivision would vote Democrat even more overwhelmingly).
Trying to wade through his "reasoning", I think what he is actually trying to claim is that McCain got progressively higher percentages of the vote (though the increases were slight after the "High school dropout" to "high school graduate" increase) but that the result that his percentage dropped among post grads is an "aberration". In fact, that result ...[text shortened]... alidates his general claim that McCain percentage increased with the voters' education.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperWhen people say things like "conservative media" that means either you're trolling, or you're so far out of reality that I dont even know what to say. Obviously there's not a conservative media. Sometimes our media makes Pravda look like it was objective. You're out there. You make the 9-11 truthers start to sound like they're making sense.
The fact that you would label people "ignorant" simply because they disagree with your politics only shows how weak minded you are, how easily you're led around on a leash by the Conservative media.
Like I've already explained, Liberals are by definition people that don't understand economics. They typically have huge gaps in their understanding of things like history and they have severly underdeveloped critical thinking skills. Disagreement doesn't have anything to do with it. Those are just facts.
Originally posted by no1marauderHe's a moron who fancies himself an intellectual.
Trying to wade through his "reasoning", I think what he is actually trying to claim is that McCain got progressively higher percentages of the vote (though the increases were slight after the "High school dropout" to "high school graduate" increase) but that the result that his percentage dropped among post grads is an "aberration". In fact, that result ...[text shortened]... alidates his general claim that McCain percentage increased with the voters' education.
According to his chart McCain received 46 percent of the vote for high school graduates, 47 percent for those with "some college", and 48 percent for college graduates. A single percentage point increase at each level is statistically insignificant, especially when you consider these polls typically have a margin of error in the 3-4% range. What's more, his votes dropping to 40% for post graduates IS statically significant.