DJBrow... you need to gain a basic understanding of statistics, and logic... there is nothing for us to discuss until you do... it is just futile... you display a complete ignorance in both respects...
i will say one thing regarding Bunny's post (which at least indicates he does have a rudimentary understanding of both)... the statistics regarding Kerry and Al Gore must be qualified...
in those elections, how many actual black votes were cast (not percentage, but quantity)... and in 2008, how many actual black votes were cast... because while percentages do tell a story, they must also be put into the context of the overall turnout... e.g., if there were 100 black voters in 2000 (and 90%+ voted for Gore)... and there were 1 million black voters in 2008 (and 90%+ voted for Obama)... the conclusion still holds water... because the sample size is too small to expect the results to be replicable in future trials (in the first case), and therefore holds no reliability, making statistical analysis fairly meaningless... whereas the sample size in 2008 is far more than enough to presume that the results are replicable, and thus reliable... this last statement (i predict) will be confirmed when the same results hold for this election...
no, i'm not saying i believe only 100 black people turned up in 2000... i am just making a point for those who are statistically-impaired, and presenting it so that it is (should be) easy to understand...
sample size and voter turnout must be included to make heads or tails of those percentages...
0
DJBrow... you need to gain a basic understanding of statistics, and logic... there is nothing for us to discuss until you do... it is just futile... you display a complete ignorance in both respects...
i will say one thing regarding Bunny's post (which at least indicates he does have a rudimentary understanding of both)... the statistics regarding Kerry and Al Gore must be qualified...
in those elections, how many actual black votes were cast (not percentage, but quantity)... and in 2008, how many actual black votes were cast... because while percentages do tell a story, they must also be put into the context of the overall turnout... e.g., if there were 100 black voters in 2000 (and 90%+ voted for Gore)... and there were 1 million black voters in 2008 (and 90%+ voted for Obama)... the conclusion still holds water... because the sample size is too small to expect the results to be replicable in future trials (in the first case), and therefore holds no reliability, making statistical analysis fairly meaningless... whereas the sample size in 2008 is far more than enough to presume that the results are replicable, and thus reliable... this last statement (i predict) will be confirmed when the same results hold for this election...
no, i'm not saying i believe only 100 black people turned up in 2000... i am just making a point for those who are statistically-impaired, and presenting it so that it is (should be) easy to understand...
sample size and voter turnout must be included to make heads or tails of those percentages...
What is there not to believe? I quoted the source and added the link. Find me another source saying otherwise or you have no option but to believe it.
common sense says it's not true... with the caveat that i described in my previous post...
do you have any black friends? i have lots... they are not even remotely shy about stating that they are voting for one of their own... they don't even try to deny it... they are proud of it...
but regardless of that... if you believe that black people in this country were just as fanatical about voting for John Kerry as they are about voting for Barrack Obama... you're fucking nuts!
0
Quote Originally Posted by sportskingpin:
What is there not to believe? I quoted the source and added the link. Find me another source saying otherwise or you have no option but to believe it.
common sense says it's not true... with the caveat that i described in my previous post...
do you have any black friends? i have lots... they are not even remotely shy about stating that they are voting for one of their own... they don't even try to deny it... they are proud of it...
but regardless of that... if you believe that black people in this country were just as fanatical about voting for John Kerry as they are about voting for Barrack Obama... you're fucking nuts!
the point is that it is a loaded "fact". As stated many times in this thread blacks always vote for dems at about a 95% +/- clip regardless of the skin color. So to say that they only voted for Obama b/c he is black is a stupid / irrelevant point. History tells us that blacks would of voted for any Dem regardless of skin color.
While that may be true, isnt it also true that more black people voted in 2008 simply to cast their vote for a "black man"?
0
Quote Originally Posted by mattbrot:
the point is that it is a loaded "fact". As stated many times in this thread blacks always vote for dems at about a 95% +/- clip regardless of the skin color. So to say that they only voted for Obama b/c he is black is a stupid / irrelevant point. History tells us that blacks would of voted for any Dem regardless of skin color.
While that may be true, isnt it also true that more black people voted in 2008 simply to cast their vote for a "black man"?
While that may be true, isnt it also true that more black people voted in 2008 simply to cast their vote for a "black man"?
I do not know for sure but I assume that you are 100% correct. However that was not the point that the OP was trying to make. blacks vote democrat -- it is nothing new.
0
Quote Originally Posted by TRAIN69:
While that may be true, isnt it also true that more black people voted in 2008 simply to cast their vote for a "black man"?
I do not know for sure but I assume that you are 100% correct. However that was not the point that the OP was trying to make. blacks vote democrat -- it is nothing new.
DJBrow... you need to gain a basic understanding of statistics, and logic... there is nothing for us to discuss until you do... it is just futile... you display a complete ignorance in both respects...
i will say one thing regarding Bunny's post (which at least indicates he does have a rudimentary understanding of both)... the statistics regarding Kerry and Al Gore must be qualified...
in those elections, how many actual black votes were cast (not percentage, but quantity)... and in 2008, how many actual black votes were cast... because while percentages do tell a story, they must also be put into the context of the overall turnout... e.g., if there were 100 black voters in 2000 (and 90%+ voted for Gore)... and there were 1 million black voters in 2008 (and 90%+ voted for Obama)... the conclusion still holds water... because the sample size is too small to expect the results to be replicable in future trials (in the first case), and therefore holds no reliability, making statistical analysis fairly meaningless... whereas the sample size in 2008 is far more than enough to presume that the results are replicable, and thus reliable... this last statement (i predict) will be confirmed when the same results hold for this election...
no, i'm not saying i believe only 100 black people turned up in 2000... i am just making a point for those who are statistically-impaired, and presenting it so that it is (should be) easy to understand...
sample size and voter turnout must be included to make heads or tails of those percentages...
Thamks for clarifying that. My issue is more with the fact that you never even consider/know the stats before making those comments. After presented with them, you immediately discard them without much of any proof. I am more inclined to believe they are true since 1) it's no secret Blacks vote Democrats by a wide margin and 2) unless those numbers were put out recently, I don't see why they would be skrewed.
Do I think Obama brought more blacks out to vote? Without a doubt, it's historically after all. Speaking of sample size and since you are basically talking about blacks, what makes you think the extra turnouts wouldn't vote for the Democrats with around the same percentage like the other blacks? Therefore, the sample size wouldn't have made a difference in this particular case.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ApocalypseLater:
DJBrow... you need to gain a basic understanding of statistics, and logic... there is nothing for us to discuss until you do... it is just futile... you display a complete ignorance in both respects...
i will say one thing regarding Bunny's post (which at least indicates he does have a rudimentary understanding of both)... the statistics regarding Kerry and Al Gore must be qualified...
in those elections, how many actual black votes were cast (not percentage, but quantity)... and in 2008, how many actual black votes were cast... because while percentages do tell a story, they must also be put into the context of the overall turnout... e.g., if there were 100 black voters in 2000 (and 90%+ voted for Gore)... and there were 1 million black voters in 2008 (and 90%+ voted for Obama)... the conclusion still holds water... because the sample size is too small to expect the results to be replicable in future trials (in the first case), and therefore holds no reliability, making statistical analysis fairly meaningless... whereas the sample size in 2008 is far more than enough to presume that the results are replicable, and thus reliable... this last statement (i predict) will be confirmed when the same results hold for this election...
no, i'm not saying i believe only 100 black people turned up in 2000... i am just making a point for those who are statistically-impaired, and presenting it so that it is (should be) easy to understand...
sample size and voter turnout must be included to make heads or tails of those percentages...
Thamks for clarifying that. My issue is more with the fact that you never even consider/know the stats before making those comments. After presented with them, you immediately discard them without much of any proof. I am more inclined to believe they are true since 1) it's no secret Blacks vote Democrats by a wide margin and 2) unless those numbers were put out recently, I don't see why they would be skrewed.
Do I think Obama brought more blacks out to vote? Without a doubt, it's historically after all. Speaking of sample size and since you are basically talking about blacks, what makes you think the extra turnouts wouldn't vote for the Democrats with around the same percentage like the other blacks? Therefore, the sample size wouldn't have made a difference in this particular case.
DJBrow... you need to gain a basic understanding of statistics, and logic... there is nothing for us to discuss until you do... it is just futile... you display a complete ignorance in both respects...
i will say one thing regarding Bunny's post (which at least indicates he does have a rudimentary understanding of both)... the statistics regarding Kerry and Al Gore must be qualified...
in those elections, how many actual black votes were cast (not percentage, but quantity)... and in 2008, how many actual black votes were cast... because while percentages do tell a story, they must also be put into the context of the overall turnout... e.g., if there were 100 black voters in 2000 (and 90%+ voted for Gore)... and there were 1 million black voters in 2008 (and 90%+ voted for Obama)... the conclusion still holds water... because the sample size is too small to expect the results to be replicable in future trials (in the first case), and therefore holds no reliability, making statistical analysis fairly meaningless... whereas the sample size in 2008 is far more than enough to presume that the results are replicable, and thus reliable... this last statement (i predict) will be confirmed when the same results hold for this election...
no, i'm not saying i believe only 100 black people turned up in 2000... i am just making a point for those who are statistically-impaired, and presenting it so that it is (should be) easy to understand...
sample size and voter turnout must be included to make heads or tails of those percentages...
You are simultaneously creating your own facts, your own interpretation of those facts, and using those to support your hypothesis, yet presenting that hypothesis also as fact (i.e. blacks voted for Obama because they are black, therefore blacks are racist).
You have yet to respond to my continued question on whites, but have done a great job at personal attacks. There is a reason you cannot answer my question but resort to personal attacks. Do you want to know why that is?
One last time...using your line of thought. If one is simply using numbers as a method of creating a hypothesis, couldn't the same be for whites as well? And if that is the case, are you holding whites to the same standard?
As an aside, I think the precentages of blacks voting for Obama because he is black are minute, same with whites voting for white candidates because they are white.
But this was your statement, not mine.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ApocalypseLater:
DJBrow... you need to gain a basic understanding of statistics, and logic... there is nothing for us to discuss until you do... it is just futile... you display a complete ignorance in both respects...
i will say one thing regarding Bunny's post (which at least indicates he does have a rudimentary understanding of both)... the statistics regarding Kerry and Al Gore must be qualified...
in those elections, how many actual black votes were cast (not percentage, but quantity)... and in 2008, how many actual black votes were cast... because while percentages do tell a story, they must also be put into the context of the overall turnout... e.g., if there were 100 black voters in 2000 (and 90%+ voted for Gore)... and there were 1 million black voters in 2008 (and 90%+ voted for Obama)... the conclusion still holds water... because the sample size is too small to expect the results to be replicable in future trials (in the first case), and therefore holds no reliability, making statistical analysis fairly meaningless... whereas the sample size in 2008 is far more than enough to presume that the results are replicable, and thus reliable... this last statement (i predict) will be confirmed when the same results hold for this election...
no, i'm not saying i believe only 100 black people turned up in 2000... i am just making a point for those who are statistically-impaired, and presenting it so that it is (should be) easy to understand...
sample size and voter turnout must be included to make heads or tails of those percentages...
You are simultaneously creating your own facts, your own interpretation of those facts, and using those to support your hypothesis, yet presenting that hypothesis also as fact (i.e. blacks voted for Obama because they are black, therefore blacks are racist).
You have yet to respond to my continued question on whites, but have done a great job at personal attacks. There is a reason you cannot answer my question but resort to personal attacks. Do you want to know why that is?
One last time...using your line of thought. If one is simply using numbers as a method of creating a hypothesis, couldn't the same be for whites as well? And if that is the case, are you holding whites to the same standard?
As an aside, I think the precentages of blacks voting for Obama because he is black are minute, same with whites voting for white candidates because they are white.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.