Would you be so kind as to POST the link? I'd hate to have to scour CNN.com looking for it.Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Time for a change
Um, then why just below it:
Err, I meant why are they repeated? Just curious.
Also, before we get too many "I told you so"'s being cast around, it should be noted this is a survey of only 13,660 respondents. Hardly a consensus.
Last edited by g0zen; 22 Jan 2005 at 09:55 PM.
Time for a change
One has a bigger breakdown. I just pointed it out because people are getting tired of hearing "Oh, they voted for Bush because they're uneducated", etc.
"it should be noted this is a survey of only 13,660 respondents. Hardly a consensus"
A consensus that can swing either way. Take a stats class, this large of a sample is pretty darn good.
Last edited by Joust Williams; 22 Jan 2005 at 09:58 PM.
Not out of a population of over a 100 million.Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Time for a change
Um...yes it is, if its random.
From the IEEE (and just about everyone else, I'm sure):
"Notice that as the population exceeds 10,000 the sample size hardly increases. Although this is contrary to common sense, this has been statistically proven and is common research procedure."
Last edited by Joust Williams; 22 Jan 2005 at 10:18 PM.
This is the way to be. I'm all for social-reform type initiatives, especially when it comes to crime. Locking people up and throwing away the key is obviously not working. I have know a few people that went to jail for a short time, 30-90 days, and the only thing they got out of it was new drug hookups. And for god sakes, stop jailing non-violent offenders for so damn long. It costs the American people somewhere around 30k a year to keep a guy in jail, most of which don't need to be there anyway. When you take someones entire life away and strip him of his dignity, what do you think will happen when he gets out?Originally Posted by elfneedsfood
Um...Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Considering that HALF of the college grads in this statistic voted Kerry, then guess what? HALF of the college graduates in the US approved of Kerry, HALF did not! What is this, "neither college grads or non-grads prefer Kerry"? Are you blind?? Half of the grads in this country wanted him in office! People without a degree favored Bush more, but Kerry trailed behind by 6%. That's really not a big difference. Remember how many people voted?
Everyone acts like this was such a huge win for Bush, but damn near half the country did not want him in office. I'll tell you what, conservatives. When a Republican runs for office, and after the election, the results look something like this 1972 electoral college map:
(Hitle-- I mean, Nixon should be red on this map, but the stats are all that matters)...
THEN you can say that. If a lot of us liberals actually think we can try to argue the fact that you didn't have a dominant run, we're complete morons.
But really, conservatives are the ones looking like fools. Bush has only a little over half the country's support, and hardly any of the world's support. The country remains divided. The world still thinks we're a bunch of retards for letting Bush back in.3.5 million more people in favor of Bush is not a big difference.
Oh yeah: Did I mention his approval rating continues to drop?
Last edited by Spiders Kidsmoke; 22 Jan 2005 at 10:36 PM.
""neither college grads or non-grads prefer Kerry"? Are you blind?? Half of the grads in this country wanted him in office!"
And the other half didn't! So no, college grads didn't prefer him.
"If a lot of us liberals actually think"
You'd be conservative. ;p
"But really, conservatives are the ones looking like fools. Bush has only a little over half the country's support, and hardly any of the world's support. The country remains divided. The world still thinks we're a bunch of retards for letting Bush back in."
Huh? Conservatives are fools because of all that? How does that = foolish?
You're dumb. Go away.
Maybe you should too.Originally Posted by Joust Williams
The stats look impressive when represented as a percentage of a percentage, but that's not a very "statistical" way of proving your point.
So I crunched those numbers through the proper statistical test for categorical data, fed them into an online Stats Pack and look what I got:
Chi squared equals 174.683 with 5 degrees of freedom.
The two-tailed P value is less than 0.0001
By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be extremely statistically significant.
Statistically significant, in that there is a correlation with education level and voting choices. For instance, if there was no link you would expect 2944 college grads to voted for Bush in the sample, but instead it was 2811; if there was no link you'd expect 68 non-college grads to vote for Nader, but instead it was 0.
But, all this is bullshit anyway because being a college grad does not equal intelligence.
Quick zephyrs blow, vexing daft Jim.
Bookmarks