Damn Hillary stays losing!

[/quote]

Shame on you Hillary!!! hahaha

Not exactly. It was still a deeply coded message and people read into it. The key word is/was "clinging" or something like that. Poor urban people don't cling to their guns. They are the biggest advocates of gun control, actually. The comment was specifically targetted towards rural (in this election, white) poor. People might have caught that.

Anyways, its not that he is completely wrong. He just miss-stated it, and also targetted the rural poor which has not supported him in this election. What he should have said was simple: People disempowered in a global economy tend to be more concerned with domestic issues. He should have left it that, because once he framed what their domestic hang-ups were, it became a clear slight to the rural, not urban, poor.

Oh and Jeff, stats are a joke. They can be interpreted in a million different ways. I remember some columnist saying that "big states don't vote for Obama because they are more reflexive to the integrated economies (of big states) and fear assimilation, and job loss."

I could have made that same stat into something like "Big states don't vote for Obama because it is no longer their primary voting concern, as they've already been proximate to black politicians and power figures." The columnist basically called MA racist and in fear of assimilation because they didn't vote for Obama, when in fact they just voted for the first fully-elected black governor (Patrick) and Philly now has a black mayor (Nutty) etc.

Not that both interpretations aren't convincing, its just that it proves stats mean nothing, and interpretive process means everything! I find statistical "interpretations" to be hilarious pretty much 99.9% of the time.

That's kind of what I was trying to point out: that statistics in this case are really very relative. One of the biggest problems with the Gallup polls these days are the fact that they rely on home telephone numbers and many young adults no longer have home telephones, therefore it cannot be considered representative.

Anyway, what I was trying to say (and this is in agreement to you) that yes nobody can causate what he was saying. There may be correlation but that doesn't mean much right now.

I was just reading an article on MSNBC about the Clinton/Obama race and the author went to great lengths to divulge a number of statistics. He didn't bother to give the error margins (which in most of the statistics he quoted since they were 3-4 pts. off would have meant that none of his data was significant in any way) or even really go into the data except just to throw around numbers.

Really, that is "why" Obama is "winning" because all anybody does is throw around randomly non-significant statistics and expect the people that don't understand/care to understand them to buy it.

Did any of this make sense, I'm working on little sleep and just got done with class and I'm not sure if what I'm saying is coming out right.

Source

In general I think there are legitimate questions that should be asked about Obama. Is he experienced enough? Is he as centrist as he intends to come across? And other things. But Hillary has no credibility anymore, she's a national joke. And by her being the one attacking Obama so hard, she's at this stage of the game just doing McCain's work for him and burning bridges in her party.

The funniest part is that if she's really doing this so McCain wins and she has a shot at 2012, she's just screwing herself over horribly.

Nah, it's obvious that she does better than Obama in PA, OH, and FL. If Obama loses any of those two to McCain, he loses the general election. All she needs to do once McCain wins is argue she was the stronger candidate all along, and could have won those states, and she could use polling data to back her talk up here. Just say the DEMS once again chose to nominate a far too liberal candidate (Gore and Kerry) who have serious problems contending in general elections because of those states, and Obama will likely fit in right with them. PA, OH, and FL are probably the closest we can get to an actual general election. I don't think any other states make up such diverse voting groups which America consists of. They represent America as a whole very much. Which ever way they vote is who America elects as president.

This annoys the math geek in me, stats are not a joke. Stats are just a formal you apply, its how people interpret them or implement that is the issue.

Stats don't lie, people are incompetent, lazy, bend the truth or downright lie.

Statistics are tools, you can either use them properly or improperly. i can can make a poll right now that shows any of three candidates wining, depending an how I set up, and most people know this.

People always blame the statistics, its the people behind them dammit!

Hey now!

I said in this case as in how they were using them, the statistics meant nothing. I'm going into research, believe me I know the power of statistics. People just throw around random numbers that really when viewed in context don't mean much, and expect something will stick.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here, but for the exact reason you just stated. That any information finding is already subjective. Stats are inherently subjective. One can't even evaluate numbers on a collection process outside of a preconceived framework. Its not just the post-data interpretations that are wrong; the original framing of what is being looked for, why, and how is already subjective.

This doesn't mean that I don't think stats can be useful. They are applied to many aims very effectively. This also doesn't mean anyone who makes a pole is contiously manipulative of looking to force an agenda. It just means even the act of collecting data is already framed by the collector. So its not an objective reality ever. But then again, I don't actually believe there is such a thing as objective truths, so...


This stuff confuses me. Even Hillary's supporters think she's more conservative just cause maybe she's not young or something, or maybe because she's not a particularly stellar and flashy speaker with large audiences. Too much noise in this election.

She mandates health care investment. She says she doesn't believe in using military force should there be a situation in the future with Iran. Obama admitted he may tax more middle class families, she would keep the capital gains tax lower than him, too. Now on some of these positions one would argue that she is more liberal, and on some more conservative. But taken on the whole, I would not call her dramatically more conservative overall than him. They just differ in different areas. Plus, I've always considered her one of the most progressive candidates for gay rights, and they are both very strong on women's reproductive health rights, which definately doesn't make her conservative. This crap irritates me.

The reason she is successful in PA and OH is that of all three candidates (including McCain) she is the only one perceived as having strength as a fiscal manager (think where Romney was popular, and it was pretty much around him being a competent businessman, since no one liked him for much else). In FLA, she is well liked because she is very popular with diverse groups of minorities, and also retirees (yeah, there are alot of old retired folks in FLA, shocker) who like that she has placed an emphasis on health care and federal provisions for retirement like social security, etc.

Hmm...I'll agree with you that political statistics are largely useless, but statistics in general are wonderful things, so I might rephrase a little of what you said.

Sure there are many places one can go wrong taking statistics, but again I fault the person not the process.

Statistical merely outlines mathematically that within a certain margin of error you can say X about Y, but this assumes a certain something about how the data was collected.

There is nothing in the formula that is biases one way or the other, its the job of the researcher to adequately state their bias, etc.

People who use statistics that state you can say X about Y (with a certain level of confidence/error) often try to say Y about Z. The math still hasn't changed, but the statistics are being manipulated.

Sure there is the idea that just by asking you effect the outcome, but there are also ways to account for this.

My problem is people blame statistics, as if they are some evil thing, if you have a problem with the way statistics are used, they maybe we should evaluate the way they are taken and have higher expectations of our researchers.

Saying stats are bad is like saying derivatives bad because half the kids who take calculus suck at them at first.

Statistics can be very useful information, when they are used in their proper context and done correctly.

I have to disagree that the stats are subjective, the analysis of them is subjective, because that involves correctly realizing what your sample/population/etc. was and drawing the correct conclusions.

On the other hand I don't think stats are the be all end all of everything, but 9/10 when I read a stat in a newspaper, etc. there is almost no information an how the data was collected, so that statistic is useless to me because it has no context. I don't fault stats, I fault the fact that the stat makes headlines, and what it really means and how it was collected isn't often paid any attention too.

Taking a poll of who is ahead, tells you something, about who is ahead of the population you polled, but if don't state who that population is, the poll is just a bunch of numbers.

I pay little attention to polls/stats in the general media, they are usually reported with little other information, but I don't think stats are suddenly useless because people choose to be lazy about it.

STUPID STUPID STUPID. WTF was he thinking? Even a mindless rookie wouldn't have said something like this.


This is not going to have any effects on the democratic race as much as on the national race. What a ghastly error on his part. He can't afford any such slip ups again.

While I agree with a lot of what you said, the reason I don't pay any mind to the constant barrage of polls is that they change so radically and so often that it makes them completely redundant. Especially when it comes to the democratic nomination process.

Ripper, mathematics is indeed a beautiful thing, the poetic perfection that weaves the cloth of our universe - - but your faith in statistics is profoundly misplaced. The math behind statistics is surely the one true math, but their design and application in politics is pure hogwash...

*sigh*

You missed my point, my faith lies not in any particular statistics but the theory as to why they work (this assumes you do it right).

My irritation is people blame the stats themselves, like these little numbers purposely made themselves biased. They say things like stats don't mean anything.

They mean something, if they people interpret properly. Its a formula, that has rules as to when it applies and how it should be interpreted.

Bloody hell, this is why I loathe discussing math.

So please stop trying in put words in my mouth, my whole point in bringing this up was stop blaming the stats themselves and start putting the blame were it belongs on the fucking people who can't fucking conduct research or interpret it properly.

As a math person I hate when people say stupid shit like stats are useless, its like saying grammar is useless. Anything is useless if you don't use it improperly.

Like 99% of the time when I give an opinion on something real I am sorry I brought it up!

But you made such a great point!!!

Can we just say political stats are useless? (mainly because they are never applied correctly)?

Where'd ya get that statistic?

From your ass. Deep, deep inside your ass, almost ileum territory.

Now that's a weird comment.

I'm going to have to report this to your therapist...

My therapist instructed me to test that line and gauge the reactions thereto.

I love you again Bradley

You really crack me up

well I see that Obama has started an election campaign for the next election....f'ing great that he will put all the problems we have today for 2 years....as you know nothing will get done....

PS. Had to use an old thread...but NO ONE ELSE HERE AT KJ IS SMART ENOUGH TO START A THREAD ON SUCH IMPORTANT TOPICS....

Anyway, we all now that Obama will insert his foot into mouth, the mopre he talks, as he tries to con his way into another election win.

Wow. An actual political thread with intelligent arguments within?!

The world before Grill was a wonderful one!

STILL ADDING NOTHING TO THE TOPIC, OK DIPPY!

Why are you so pro-Republican Goldie? You are neither wealthy nor do you have the ability to reason beyond a 3rd grade level. The Republicans don't give a damn about you.