2016 Election
Quote: Beethoven9thYou're a nice guy and all, but do you realize how ignorant your posts sound when you make statements like this? Have you ever taken a course in statistics???? This is a math site. Ask the Wizard or any of the other math experts here whether or not it's a "very small sample".
You forget to include "and its a web based interview survey"
Now I clicked on the link and I cant figure out how this survey was done. "web based interview" doesn't mean a whole lot to me. How did they insure that they got a true cross section of the American public. How EXACTLTY was this survey conducted. Was there a remote chance that I could be interviewed or no chance?
Sure 1k is a good number but you should include "and", my 2nd argument.
Say a 1k poll and taken from Fox viewers, 1k is a lot but if you include the "and", the survey becomes meaningless and 1 k therefore is small. Survey is gonna skew against Obama so 1k is a meaningless number.
This survey stated a + or - 4 percent error rate. Yea if they can convince me they got a true cross section of the American public. Convince me that there was a remote chance I could have been interviewed.
Can take a 1k survey of fox viewers, survey says Obama sucks, due to 1k, error rate is + or minus 4 per cent. No the error rate is 100 per cent because fox viewers is not a true cross section of the American public.
I didn't include that because you didn't bother to read the info in the links I posted. (Then again, you questioned basic statistics in your last message, so I really don't think anything will convince you at this point.) But to humor you:Quote: terapinedYou forget to include "and its a web based interview survey"
Now I clicked on the link and I cant figure out how this survey was done. "web based interview" doesn't mean a whole lot to me.
"A random sample (stratified by age, gender, race, education, and region) was selected from the 2010 American Community Study. Voter registration was imputed from the November 2010 Current Population Survey Registration and Voting Supplement. Religion, political interest, minor party identification, and non-placement on an ideology scale, were imputed from the 2008 Pew Religion in American Life Survey."
Again, I don't even know why I bothered with the quote since you'll probably come up with another silly excuse as to why organizations like PEW RESEARCH(!) are biased, so I guess I'll get ready to do another *facepalm*
Like I said, if you're questioning basic statistics and a publication like The Economist, then NOTHING will ever convince you.Quote: terapinedConvince me that there was a remote chance I could have been interviewed.
Quote: Beethoven9thI didn't include that because you didn't bother to read the info in the links I posted. (Then again, you questioned basic statistics in your last message, so I really don't think anything will convince you at this point.) But to humor you:
"A random sample (stratified by age, gender, race, education, and region) was selected from the 2010 American Community Study. Voter registration was imputed from the November 2010 Current Population Survey Registration and Voting Supplement. Religion, political interest, minor party identification, and non-placement on an ideology scale, were imputed from the 2008 Pew Religion in American Life Survey."
Again, I don't even know why I bothered with the quote since you'll probably come up with another silly excuse as to why organizations like PEW RESEARCH(!) are biased, so I guess I'll get ready to do another *facepalm*
Like I said, if you're questioning basic statistics and a publication like The Economist, then NOTHING will ever convince you.
Hmm, I don't belong to the "panel" so there was 0 chance I could participate in this survey.
Why not include the key 1st sentence of that paragraph. "Respondents were selected from YouGov’s opt-in Internet panel using sample
matching" Did you see that survey, college final exams don't have that many questions. Kind of funny how regular phone surveys get only a 9 per cent participation rate yet this survey doesn't discuss participation rates because the people on the "panel" were just itching to participate.
Sorry but I put nobody on a pedestal and that includes the Economist. I question everything including this "survey"
Its not a survey of a cross section of the public, its a survey of a particular panel trying to imitate the cross section.
Again, come back to me when you learn more about polling and statistics. I don't mean to sound harsh, but the arguments you've presented are arguments used by people who don't know squat about either.Quote: terapinedKind of funny how regular phone surveys get only a 9 per cent participation rate
Quote: terapinedIts not a survey of a cross section of the public, its a survey of a particular panel trying to imitate the cross section.
I repeat: "A random sample (stratified by age, gender, race, education, and region) was selected from the 2010 American Community Study. Voter registration was imputed from the November 2010 Current Population Survey Registration and Voting Supplement. Religion, political interest, minor party identification, and non-placement on an ideology scale, were imputed from the 2008 Pew Religion in American Life Survey."
Seriously dude, this is like listening to an amateur guitarist critiquing Jimmy Page. It's so embarrassing, yet you don't even realize it. Funny how you're never so deeply skeptical about the PRO-OBAMA polls.
Guess RonC was right!
Quote: Beethoven9thAgain, come back to me when you learn more about polling and statistics. I don't mean to sound harsh, but the arguments you've presented are arguments used by people who don't know squat about either.
I repeat: "A random sample (stratified by age, gender, race, education, and region) was selected from the 2010 American Community Study. Voter registration was imputed from the November 2010 Current Population Survey Registration and Voting Supplement. Religion, political interest, minor party identification, and non-placement on an ideology scale, were imputed from the 2008 Pew Religion in American Life Survey."
Seriously dude, this is like listening to an amateur guitarist critiquing Jimmy Page. It's so embarrassing, yet you don't even realize it. Funny how you're never as deeply skeptical of the PRO-OBAMA polls.
Guess RonC was right!
You keep editing out the key 1st sentence "Respondents were selected from YouGov’s opt-in Internet panel using sample
matching"
Maybe you are right and this is an accurate survey but the 2 words in the 1st sentence "selected" and "panel" I find suspicious. Also its an extremely brief paragraph describing their methods. Trying to figure this out, sounds like they had a panel. The key fact they omitted was how large was this panel?
I'm not the sharpest tack on this board so bear with me but reading that short paragraph, I think this is how the survey was conducted.
They used a survey"2008 Pew Religion in American Life Survey" and other sources to determine who on the panel could participate.
Say the panel had 5k. say the religion survey said 2 percent muslims in US. out of that 5k there are say 120 muslims on the panel. I geuss they let a random 20 of the 120 muslims on the panel participate in the survey so they get the correct 2 per cent of 1k. They do the same for all demographics.
I just find this kind of convoluted, A survey based on the accuracy of an older survey to determine the demographics included in the new survey. A survey based on a panel and we have no idea how big the panel is that they selected 1k from. That's a key fact they omitted. 1k from a panel of 1.5 k is a huge difference from say 1k from a panel of 20k
You keep acting like they specifically went out and selected people straight from the internet without any other concerns. They did not! They used sample matching, which you keep ignoring. The passage I quoted clearly states that "a random sample (stratified by age, gender, race, education, and region) was selected from the 2010 American Community Study..." [see previous post for full quote]Quote: terapinedYou keep editing out the key 1st sentence "Respondents were selected from YouGov’s opt-in Internet panel using sample
matching"
The fact that these people served on an internet panel simply means that they agreed to do a survey over the internet. Just like a person who agrees to do a phone survey does so over the phone. DUH
Again, please do some internet searches on polling, methodology, sampling, etc. Seriously, you disputing basic statistics is starting to sound like gr8player disputing basic math.
*facepalm* (see my previous posts)Quote: terapinedA survey based on a panel and we have no idea how big the panel is that they selected 1k from...
[snip]
EDIT: I'll make this even easier for you. Just show me ONE person in the world who is making the same arguments that you just made. Just one. That's all I ask, because when you struggle to find ONE, then that may give you a clue as to how much water your arguments hold.
Christie 24%
Paul 15%
Cruz 11%
Ryan 11%
Rubio 10%
Perry 7%
Santorum 6%
Bush 5%
Full poll results
Clinton 64%
Biden 12%
Warren 7%
Cuomo 4%
O'Malley 2%
Full results: CNN/Opinion Research poll
Too bad these idiots didn't listen to the rest of us last November.
Here are the full poll results: http://www.iop.harvard.edu/demographic-and-political-profile-fall-2013-survey
Quote: Beethoven9th2016 Republican Presidential Primary
Christie 24%
Paul 15%
Cruz 11%
Ryan 11%
Rubio 10%
Perry 7%
Santorum 6%
Bush 5%
Full poll results
Rand Paul, as far as I'm concerned is the ONLY person on both lists that makes any sense. He has zero chance of getting elected in this country. He's an outlier.
grows up. I was thinking fireman, or maybe astronaut.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/barack-obama-i-want-host-661762
Quote: Beethoven9th2016 Republican Presidential Primary
Christie 24%
Paul 15%
Cruz 11%
Ryan 11%
Rubio 10%
Perry 7%
Santorum 6%
Bush 5%
Full poll results
Have you noticed in the last several election cycles that the "real" candidate will appear later on after all the similar contenders have worn the oppositions energy and resources down? It's a Sun Tzu thing, I think. I can't stand to look at any of them when they appear unwanted on my screen. It used to be I could make it though most of a term before the politicians made me ill. This latest guy made me sick from the start, I knew it was all a lie, he said good things though. Remember the line about getting us out of Afghanistan and reeling in Wall street, hahaha, suckers.
I kinda liked Giulliani, I thought he showed some class back in the day fending off the heckler's.
So, I want to get my prediction out there before it goes mainstream. I think Scott Walker will be on your ticket some place, you heard it here first.
What a sad state our country is in if these and the dem front runner's are the best we are offered.
I read one article I found humorous that suggested the candidates ought to wear jackets with their sponsor's on them like Nascar. Everyone of them would have the tbtf banks logo on them somewhere.
Really? George Pataki has more charisma that Scott Walker and Tim Pawlenty combined.Quote: petroglyphSo, I want to get my prediction out there before it goes mainstream. I think Scott Walker will be on your ticket some place, you heard it here first.
a few weeks ago was forced to resign today. Martin
Bashir. Gee, what a shame. Turns out you can't say
anything you want and get away with it.
Quote: Beethoven9thThat's great news! Hell, I bet MSNBC's ratings will go UP for that time slot now. lol
Christmas is early for the Right this year. Bashir
is gone, Alec Baldwin fired for Gay slurs, and
the unfolding Titanic called Obamacare. It's all
delightful.
Quote: EvenBobYes! The MSNBC news guy who insulted Sarah Palin
a few weeks ago was forced to resign today. Martin
Bashir. Gee, what a shame. Turns out you can't say
anything you want and get away with it.
But when will they get of Piers Moron? Oh he's on CNN. Anyways, Bashir came up short in the UK, so fled to the US markets on the 'strength' of his Di and Jackson interviews. His comments to Palin were terrible... there's ways of disagreeing vehemently, but that's not it...
Quote: s2dbakerReally? George Pataki has more charisma that Scott Walker and Tim Pawlenty combined.
I just don't think the elections are about what they appear
Whoever are the final two red and blue are already thoroughly vetted.
It's about loyalties.
I'm taking a longshot on Walker, getting in early for the best odds.
Quote: thecesspitBut when will they get of Piers Moron?
Never in the history of ever have I wanted to fist fight someone to the pain so badly. The reaction I have to this effin guy...
Pratt also gets in a good dig at the end of the interview by comparing him to Neville Chamberlain. lol!
Quote: petroglyphI'm taking a longshot on Walker, getting in early for the best odds.
Just not gonna happen.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2521146/Nelson-Mandela-memorial-service-World-leaders-gather-South-Africa-remember-president.html
And here's his bow & handshake with Raul Castro:
Technically, that's not a selfie... Ms David Cameron is taking the selfie.
Shaking hands with Raul? Probably costing the Dems a few votes in Florida, but being able to shake hands with your adversaries not a bad thing.
Other times, someone lives to an old age and its a different type of funeral.
These types of funerals should be a celebration of a persons life.
At my Mom's funeral , I of course got up to speak. I loved my Mom and had a ton of funny stories to share. I had the whole place roaring.
I hope you appreciate Mandela B9, not sure though, he was pretty controversial among conservatives. Ted Cruz got some heated criticism from the right for his facebook posting in appreciation what Mandela had done.
Touché! :)Quote: thecesspitTechnically, that's not a selfie...
I do appreciate him. I just think he's slightly overrated (key word: slightly). Liberals act like he's as great as Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson.Quote: terapinedI hope you appreciate Mandela B9
OTOH, look at what libs did after Margaret Thatcher died. She was a great leader herself, yet they acted like she was a female Mussolini.
No. Anyone who gets the vapors over a handshake is already voting for the other party. Witness Donald Rumsfeld shaking Sadam Hussein's hand and John McCain shaking Mo Kadafy's hand.Quote: thecesspitShaking hands with Raul? Probably costing the Dems a few votes in Florida
Quote: Beethoven9thTouché! :)
At least no-one is twerking.
Quote:I do appreciate him. I just think he's slightly overrated (key word: slightly). Liberals act like he's as great as Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson.
We'll see how history treats him... but I think in South African history, he'll be the first among equals, an equivalent to Lincoln and Jefferson. Worldwide, I think folks will compare him on the same level as Lincoln and Ghandi. His ability to work with those who imprisoned him after he was released is, impressive. But right now, yeah, with the hyperbole, I think comparing him to Lincoln and Jefferson seems reasonable.
I know he was at least associated with the Communist Party in SA, even if not a direct member, but being a Communist by itself isn't a crime... okay, well it was in 1950 South Africa, but you know what I mean... I think his views changed over time to a more liberal (rest of the world definition) view point, certainly by the time he was the president of his country.
Quote:OTOH, look at what libs did after Margaret Thatcher died. She was a great leader herself, yet they acted like she was a female Mussolini.
Wasn't the Libs in the UK, because Liberal/liberal doesn't mean the same thing (see above :)). The labour movement and Socialist Worker hated her, and were cock-a-hoop about it. The UK Liberals, were ambivalent... she was 20 years or so out of power, and getting excited about her passing was living in the past by 20 years plus. Back in 1993 I might have cared. By 2013, it was just an elderly lady dying, which would have sucked for her friends and family, but your average ex-mining family in South Yorkshire should have felt bugger all... her death would not help anything or even give a small glow of revenge.
Quote: Beethoven9thTouché! :)
I do appreciate him. I just think he's slightly overrated (key word: slightly). Liberals act like he's as great as Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson.
.
You know why he went to prison for 27 years? 197 separate
acts of terrorism. And those are just the ones they could
prove he did. He would have gone to prison here also.
Quote: EvenBobYou know why he went to prison for 27 years? 197 separate
acts of terrorism. And those are just the ones they could
prove he did. He would have gone to prison here also.
Under these kind of laws:
Quote:1951-Act No 27, Bantu Building Workers Act
Prevented black Africans from performing skilled work in any areas except those designated for black occupation.
1951-Act No 46, Separate Representation of Voters Act:
Led to the removal of Coloureds from the common voters' roll.
1951-Act No 52, Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act:
Gave the Minister of Native Affairs the ability to displace blacks from public and privately owned land and to place them in resettlement camps.
1951-Act No 68, Bantu Authorities Act:
Created black homelands, regional authorities and abolished the Native Representative Council. !
1952-Natives Laws Amendment Act:
Limited the amount of blacks who could have permanent residence in towns to those who had been born in a town and had lived or been employed there continuously for no less than 15 years.
1952-Act No 67, Natives (Abolition of Passes and Co-ordination of Documents) Act:
Forced black people to carry identification (which included a photograph, place of origin, employment record, tax payments, and encounters with the police) at all times.
1953-Native Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Act:
Prohibited black people to go on strike.
1953-Act No 47, Bantu Education Act:
Established a Black Education Department compiled a curriculum suited to the "nature and requirements of the black people". The aim of this law was to prevent black Africans from receiving an education that would allow them to work in positions that they were not allowed to hold under the previous Apartheid laws.
1953-Act No 49, Reservation of Separate Amenities Act:
Enacted segregation in all public areas including buildings and public transport. 1956-Act
No 64, Natives (Prohibition of Interdicts) Act:
Denied black people the ability to appeal to the courts if they were forcefully removed.
1959-Act No 34, Bantu Investment Corporation Act:
Created financial, commercial, and industrial schemes in the areas designated for black people.
1959-Act 45, Extension of University Education Act:
Prevented black students from attending white Universities.
1959! -Act No 46, Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act:
Classified black people into eight ethnic groups. Each group had a Commissioner-General who was appointed to create a homeland. In turn, each homeland would be able govern itself without white intervention.
1967-Terrorism Act:
Create BOSS, the Bureau of State Security which was responsible for the internal security of South Africa. It also allowed indefinite detention without trial.
1970-Bantu Homelands Citizens Act:
Removed black South African citizenship and required all black people to become a citizen of the homeland designated for his/her ethnic group.
Quote: EvenBobYou know why he went to prison for 27 years? 197 separate
acts of terrorism. And those are just the ones they could
prove he did. He would have gone to prison here also.
So would have George Washington.
The MK decided to take armed struggle against apartheid. I don't believe that was a good decision, but in face of oppression and disenfranchisment, rather than arm chair quarterbacking in 2013, I'm not sure it's easy to dismiss Mandela as a 'terrorist' any more. Many 'freedom fighters' changed their views on revolution.
And many didn't.
Quote: s2dbakerNo. Anyone who gets the vapors over a handshake is already voting for the other party. Witness Donald Rumsfeld shaking Sadam Hussein's hand and John McCain shaking Mo Kadafy's hand.
Assad isn't worried, he's got Blair in his hip pocket.
But then again Blair and Bandhar are still chums.
Quote: thecesspitSo would have George Washington.
.
If you have laws and somebody repeatedly breaks them,
what do you do, give him a medal? He did a lot of great
things, rotting in prison for 27 years wasn't one of them.
That's a third of his adult life.
Quote: EvenBobIf you have laws and somebody repeatedly breaks them,
what do you do, give him a medal? He did a lot of great
things, rotting in prison for 27 years wasn't one of them.
That's a third of his adult life.
It's what he did after he came out that I think it's worth noting him for.
Quote: thecesspitIt's what he did after he came out that I think it's worth noting him for.
Imagine what he could have done with the
extra 27 years. And he wasn't a changed
man when he got out, people who know
him say he was exactly the same. Can't
get much done from prison unless you're
Al Capone or John Gotti.
Quote: thecesspitWasn't the Libs in the UK, because Liberal/liberal doesn't mean the same thing (see above :)).
You're right, I should have specified liberals in the US. Libs here are despicable for not allowing an old lady to rest in peace. They're the same people who cheered when they thought Rush Limbaugh was going to die a few years ago after he went to the hospital for chest pains in Hawaii. They also wished death on Melissa Joan Hart for simply tweeting about Thatcher after she died. These people have no shame.
Can you believe this guy??? The same person who bows and shakes hands with Raul Castro wouldn't even negotiate with Republicans.
Quote: Beethoven9thObama: Too Many Leaders Claim Solidarity With Mandela, "But Do Not Tolerate Dissent From Their Own People"
Can you believe this guy??? The same person who bows and shakes hands with Raul Castro wouldn't even negotiate with Republicans.
Thugs do that and they're both thugs.
Clinton 42%
Christie 45%
Clinton 48%
Paul 44%
Clinton 46%
Bush 45%
Clinton 49%
Cruz 41%
Full results: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2013/PPP_Release_NC_1212.pdf
Quote: s2dbakerI think it's showing some good judgement on John Boehner's part to finally kick the teabaggers in the teabags. The teabagging party has no place in policy much less politics. There may be hope for Republicans in 2014 yet.
You have something against Constitutionalism, self-reliance, and not spending ourselves broke?
The Tea-Party carried the GOP to victory in 2014, yet the GOP establishment keeps wanting to forget it happened.
Quote: s2dbakerI think it's showing some good judgement on John Boehner's part to finally kick the teabaggers in the teabags. The teabagging party has no place in policy much less politics. There may be hope for Republicans in 2014 yet.
The President and his policies are much more dangerous than the Tea Party will ever be...as much as you huff and puff, you won't blow them away no matter how many names you call them or sexual inferences you make.
The President has no place in policy...or politics. He has proven himself totally inept as a leader.
Quote: AZDuffman
The Tea-Party carried the GOP to victory in 2014, yet the GOP establishment keeps wanting to forget it happened.
They also drove the GOP down to its lowest approval rating ever during the shutdown. With friends like that, he doesn't need enemies.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165317/republican-party-favorability-sinks-record-low.aspx
Quote: s2dbakerI think it's showing some good judgement on John Boehner's part to finally kick the teabaggers in the teabags. The teabagging party has no place in policy much less politics.
I'm VERY offended. You just used that slur 2 times in one post. Tea Party members consider that word HIGHLY offensive. How would you like it if I called you a f*ggot? Well, Tea Party members consider the slur you just used to be equally offensive. Shame on you.
Quote: Beethoven9thQuote: s2dbakerI think it's showing some good judgement on John Boehner's part to finally kick the teabaggers in the teabags. The teabagging party has no place in policy much less politics.
I'm VERY offended. You just used that slur 2 times in one post. Tea Party members consider that word HIGHLY offensive..
Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me. I'm guessing most Tea Party folks really don't care about the "teabagger" thing. As a group, the Tea Party I believe view the "teabagger" comments as meaningless rhetoric.
Quote: treetopbuddySticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me. I'm guessing most Tea Party folks really don't care about the "teabagger" thing. As a group, the Tea Party I believe view the "teabagger" comments as meaningless rhetoric.
You don't get it. You obviously didn't read my posts in the 'Redskins' thread.
Quote: AZDuffmanYou have something against Constitutionalism, self-reliance, and not spending ourselves broke?
The Tea-Party carried the GOP to victory in 2014, yet the GOP establishment keeps wanting to forget it happened.
AZ, get back into your time machine, 2013 is calling you back.
Anyway, I believe the tea party has actually hurt the republican party. If the Tea Party never existed, The last senate election in MO, NV and DE would have easily been won by republican.
Quote: Beethoven9thQuote: s2dbakerI think it's showing some good judgement on John Boehner's part to finally kick the teabaggers in the teabags. The teabagging party has no place in policy much less politics.
I'm VERY offended. You just used that slur 2 times in one post. Tea Party members consider that word HIGHLY offensive. How would you like it if I called you a f*ggot? Well, Tea Party members consider the slur you just used to be equally offensive. Shame on you.
I have to agree with B9 to a certain extent. I no longer put an "er" after teabag because its offensive to conservatives.
Why its offensive, I don't have the slightest clue. seems kind of odd. To me, adding "er" to a word usually changes that word to indicate a person, occupation or place of origin.
New York , New Yorker, Labor, laborer, moonshine, moonshiner
"er" is kind of neat. Huge in the game of scrabble.
Is Tea Bag the only word in the dictionary where the word is fine as it stands alone, but you put an "er" on the end and it becomes offensive?
What an unusual word in the dictionary that has this attribute.
By the way I don't use the word tea bag with an "er" at the end but WHY IS THIS OFFENSIVE?
Too me adding "er" to Tea Bag meets the person conversion definition, something you put in a tea cup to a member of a political party.
Quote: terapinedAZ, get back into your time machine, 2013 is calling you back.
Anyway, I believe the tea party has actually hurt the republican party. If the Tea Party never existed, The last senate election in MO, NV and DE would have easily been won by republican.
I don't buy that at all. Without the energy of the Tea Party movement the GOP would not have taken Congress. In NV a Tea Party backed candidate nearly knocked off the Majority Leader. Without that energy it would not have been that close.
The Tea Party movement is here to stay. After 2014 when people lose their employer health insurance left and right Mr and Mrs America will start to realize why many of us made a fuss as far back as 2009. In the meantime the GOP needs to be restocked with people who do believe in freedom and small government.
BTW: I set my time machine to 2013, something must be wrong with the flux capacitor.
Quote: Beethoven9thYou don't get it. You obviously didn't read my posts in the 'Redskins' thread.
I don't think there is too much to "get" here. Name calling is just that......name calling. Who cares? Why would you be offended?
Quote: Beethoven9thYou don't get it. You obviously didn't read my posts in the 'Redskins' thread.
Are you just being sarcastic?
