Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Campaign gets racial
Options
Comments
-
I'm afraid ziggy's correct:This post has been deleted.
"We're scared of an Obama Presidency"
"He's an Arab"
"Terrorist!"
"Kill Him!"
"Bomb Obama!"0 -
Aside from that, lets keep the mild racism out of this. The suggestion that someone would vote without knowing the policies or caring about the policies due to race, is pretty much implying that they either don't know or don't care about the details.
Can you be so kind as to offer the same advise and warning when people on this board start shouting 'racism' if MCcain happens to win ?.0 -
Benedict XVI wrote: »Can you be so kind as to offer the same advise and warning when people on this board start shouting 'racism' if MCcain happens to win ?.
You're making rhetorical demands on something that hasn't come to pass yet? If and when people start actually shouting racist (as opposed to already shouting terrorist, arab, kill him etc.), then yeah, sure ... your question is valid.0 -
I think you would only see racism rear its head again if heaven forbid some whackjob assassinates Obama, thinking him to be a honest to god terrorist.0
-
Benedict XVI wrote: »Can you be so kind as to offer the same advise and warning when people on this board start shouting 'racism' if MCcain happens to win ?.
You worry about taking my advice, I'll worry about other people.This post has been deleted.
I live in the US, I see the ignorance.
However, thinking that Clinton supporters will automatically vote for a Palin ticket or that african americans will vote for Obama for reasons other than policies is both ignorant and insulting and I'd like to see evidence with any further claims.0 -
Advertisement
-
You're making rhetorical demands on something that hasn't come to pass yet? If and when people start actually shouting racist.
Though it hasn't come to pass, and I doubt it will, all one needs to do is have a gander back over some of the previous threads from a few weeks ago when the race was closer and before the Republican smear campaign started. The concept that sufficient numbers of Whitey wouldn't vote for the black candidate despite telling the pollsters they would was mooted by quite a few Boardsies.
NTM0 -
as others have said, an interesting development since I wrote the article on my blog is that Mccain is now trying to to tone things down
I doubt he expcted things to get as ugly as they have, in fact it was probably his campaign team and not him who decided to go down this path of attacking obama for past "connections" and questioning his patriotism and loyalty etc (as palin and cindy mccain suggested in their speeches - palin "he doesn't see america like you or I")
it may be too late now though to put the genie back in the bottle0 -
I'm afraid ziggy's correct:
In my opinion ignorance is the single biggest reason that history is littered with so much tragedy and death, and we see it even lives on in the land of freedom.
Maybe the US has been so protected having not been properly invaded in so many years, of never had so many people die in the name of ignorance, that they still feel is is someway acceptable. Just a thought, I dont know.0 -
bah. there was still racism against blacks after pearl harbor. and that certainly helped people paint germans and japanese (consequently asians) with much the same brush. to be fair, nobody involved was very humane those days.0
-
the ''Youf'' have responsded to John Stossel
:D
http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/maybe-its-your-duty-not-vote-youth-vo0 -
Advertisement
-
Off-topic on the Election, but on-topic on racism: recommended viewing: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/divided/
Great video, gets really good in part 4 of the video.0 -
thinking .. that african americans will vote for Obama for reasons other than policies is both ignorant and insulting.
that's just totally ridiculous.
of course being a democrat and all the rest will be factored in but there will be a good proportion of african americans who will vote for obama largely on the basis on race. it may well be that they see the bigger picture of 'first black president' as transcending all other issues and that is their right. it could also be that presidential campaigns are largely personality driven, not detailed policies driven. to argue otherwise is ignorant and insulting to common sense.
I will be shocked if there is not a far bigger black turnout in this vote than before. Wait and see.0 -
that african americans will vote for Obama for reasons other than policies is both ignorant and insulting.
A response to another thread reminded me about this one.
A possible control group is the military. More or less a microcosm of society if you look at the percentages of make-up-by-race, but all currently in pretty similar economic circumstances right now. (i.e. Pay is set by rank by law).
Now, the military leans heavily Republican. In 2004, when race wasn't a factor, over 70% of the military voters went for Bush. Current polling has about a similar figure leaning for McCain right now. A recent Military Times poll, however, broke up respondants by race.
http://www.militarytimes.com/static/projects/pages/081003_ep_2pp.pdf
White: 76% McCain, 17% Obama.
Black: 12% McCain, 79% Obama.
Hispanic: 63% McCain, 27% Obama.
Other: 58% McCain, 30% Obama.
One of those groups is not like the others.
Now, some of the difference can still be accounted for simply by policies which appeal to the respondants' backgrounds. Historically many black troops join up out of economic necessity, from the inner cities and such, whilst often times white lads join up out of a sense of duty or adventure. It's why the racial breakup of the military is so disproportionate between combat troops and support troops. Therefore you can see why a black troop from inner-city Detroit might vote for policies which will positively affect his sister living in the city. However, there is another control group there, the Hispanics. Although not to the same extent as blacks, many Hispanics also join up out of economic necessity. Most of the problems and policies which affect a black living in Chigaco will also affect a latino living in Los Angeles. Indeed, there is higher support for Obama amongst this group than there is amongst whites. However, it's still a better than 2:1 ratio for McCain, vs better than 1:6 in the black demographic.
In the absence of any race-specific data from the military in 2004 (I've been looking, but haven't found any: It would have made the analysis much simpler) you will have a fairly tough job convincing me that a large number of black servicemen are not leaning to Obama on the basis of race.
NTM0 -
Unless you have the same stats for the 2004/2000 elections, showing different trends amonthe the racial groups, your stats here are effectively meaningless.
In addition, rank and socio-economic background needs to be taken into account.
How many are career soldiers as opposed to those in the force out of economic need?
For instance, if the majority of the african americans are enlisted and the majority of all other demographs are officers then we have an immediate skewing of the data.
In addition, percetiles are heavily skewed unless we know the representitive numbers. 500 surveyed african americans and 50 hispanic soldiers vs 2,000 white soldiers would put some perspective on those figures.
In short, from an epidemiological point of view (which often encompasses population statistics) your data couldn't be used to prove anything.
If you wish to hold on to it as proof, that is your choice, but to suggest ther eis any statsitical strength to this would be, quite frankly, a brazen ignorance of statistical population analysis.0 -
I could show you some video responses from Jewish voters who said they would not vote for Obama because he was Black... but is it really necessary?
Lets cut the bull; racism still exists in our society. Its just difficult to measure how much of an impact it will have on the election.0 -
that's just totally ridiculous.
of course being a democrat and all the rest will be factored in but there will be a good proportion of african americans who will vote for obama largely on the basis on race. it may well be that they see the bigger picture of 'first black president' as transcending all other issues and that is their right. it could also be that presidential campaigns are largely personality driven, not detailed policies driven. to argue otherwise is ignorant and insulting to common sense.
I will be shocked if there is not a far bigger black turnout in this vote than before. Wait and see.
Imagine I'm an apathetic voter. If someone runs for president who puts forward policies that address many of my concerns as a citizen and who I feel relates to my positions for the very first time and who just happens to be the same race as me, and I decide to vote, which I usually don't do, will I be deemed to voting for him for reasons of race or policy?0 -
I could show you some video responses from Jewish voters who said they would not vote for Obama because he was Black.
http://www.thegreatschlep.com/site/index.html
Or more seriously.
http://www.jewsvote.org/0 -
Unless you have the same stats for the 2004/2000 elections, showing different trends amonthe the racial groups, your stats here are effectively meaningless.
As conclusive proof, I agree. Indeed, I mentioned the desire for 2004 data in my last paragraph. However, it would be equally foolish to entirely disregard them as an indicator.In addition, rank and socio-economic background needs to be taken into account.
How many are career soldiers as opposed to those in the force out of economic need?
Again, agreed. Which is why I specifically made note of the Hispanic respondants, an ethnic group which tends to recruit from the same areas (lower income, usually cities) as blacks do. There will still be some sociological factors relating to immigration, heritage, and tradition, but the economic background should still be similar enough to be a useful base for comparison.
NTM0 -
Racism should have nothing to do with it. Can people who vote for Obama be accused of being ageist ?0
-
Yes, but it's a justifiable discrimination. Age arguably has an effect on the ability to properly carry out one's duties over a four-year period due to increased risk of health issues.
NTM0 -
Advertisement
-
No, because the 2000/2004 figures would show whether there was any change in the trends between a white and african american candidate so for the point you are making, the figures are useless and show nothing.Manic Moran wrote: »However, it would be equally foolish to entirely disregard them as an indicator.
You have no "control" data so your figures show nothing.
But again, you ignored my other ket point. What are the figures for hispanics versus african americans in the survey?Again, agreed. Which is why I specifically made note of the Hispanic respondants, an ethnic group which tends to recruit from the same areas (lower income, usually cities) as blacks do. There will still be some sociological factors relating to immigration, heritage, and tradition, but the economic background should still be similar enough to be a useful base for comparison.
As an exaggerated example, if you have 30 hispanics and 20 are republicans and 10 is a democrat you get your 67/33 split. It would be ludicrous (and statistically insignifcant) if you were to then compare this to 1000 african americans and found that 250 voted republican and 750 voted democrat.
Again your figures are nothing but propagandaist spin unless you have the required controls and data to back them up.0 -
Obviously I'm facing a (semi-?)professional statistician here. You're too busy looking for mathematical holes to a conclusive answer to look at the opportunities for analysis the data presents. Nobody is claiming the information is accurate to any particular statistical standard deviation. Even the survey takers are saying that it's not a scientific analysis given that it was a voluntary survey, not a randomly picked sample. However, as far as I know it is the best source of any information at all that we have. Short of a bunch of blacks coming out and saying "I'm voting for Obama because he's black!" there is no way of statistically proving or disproving the issue even with 2004 data as there are always going to be other factors to consider, such as a change in candidate platforms between 2004 and 2008. However, just because the data is not in any way conclusive does not mean that it must be discarded in its entirity altogether. Follow along with me. Forget statistical technique, for a second, and look for the logic flaws.
As a survey group, servicemen who subscribe to Army Times and the sister publications are about as good a base as we can get. A bunch of white, black, hispanic, Indian, whatever people who all have more or less the same job, live in a similar environment and in similar economic conditions. This is far more standardised than any other publicly released polls taken that I know of, which even in the same city can compare rich white folk living in Manhattan with poor black voters in Harlem, thus opening up no end of differences.
Further, we know that the average Times subscriber is a little higher in rank than the average troop, and has the money and inclination to subscribe, thus refining the socio-economic factors even more. Black subscribers may or may not be typical of blacks in the military as a whole, but when compared to other subscribers, the differences, except for race of course, become even smaller. Unless you think there's a particular reason why, for example, black NCOs should disproportionately subscribe compared to white NCOs.
Of the people in this group, there is little reason to believe that any ethnic group within this sample is more likely to respond to the survey than any other. Obviously I can't prove it, but on occasion you just have to make a best assumption instead of looking for hard data.
Another 'best assumption' is the sample size. Over 4,500 responses were received. About 20% of the military is black. So that would be about 900. Even if we were to assume that Times subscribers were disporportionately represented down to half that, a number completely out of my arse, but not unrealistic given who I see buying the newspapers at the PX, I don't think, that's still 400. National polls are being conducted with sample sizes of 1000, even going down to 200 is going to have an acceptable standard of error, I submit.
Now, at this point, you have to apply a sort of Occam's Razor. I fully accept that the statistics are mathematically unsupportable. Throw maths out the window. I'm not relying on mathematics here, just common sense. Given how refined and homogenous this sample pool is, is it reasonable or unreasonable to assume that a very likely contributing factor for the swing from (minimum) 2:1 McCain:Obama in all non-black ethnic groups to 1:6 McCain:Obama in blacks only is a race-based preference? I submit that the swing is just far too large to rest solely on policy differences between the candidates. It just doesn't pass the sniff test.
Even though one cannot apply any of these inferences outside of 'A sample of Military Times Subscribers Who Chose to Respond', what is the most likely answer to that question?
NTM0 -
Well an epidemiology elective is part of the fellowship I took so I have experience in population analysis but you don't need that to see the flaws in using the survey to draw any conclusion whatsoever.Manic Moran wrote: »Obviously I'm facing a (semi-?)professional statistician here.As a survey group, servicemen who subscribe to Army Times and the sister publications are about as good a base as we can get. A bunch of white, black, hispanic, Indian, whatever people who all have more or less the same job, live in a similar environment and in similar economic conditions. This is far more standardised than any other publicly released polls taken that I know of, which even in the same city can compare rich white folk living in Manhattan with poor black voters in Harlem, thus opening up no end of differences.
The issue is that from this "bunch" you have no idea what the demographic is.
Does it represent the same spread as the army in terms of race proportions? Is it equal proportions of race? Is it just whoever came along on the day?
Only one of those three scenarios would give you anything approaching valid information and even then only if the sample size was large enough.
Again you can't make any assumption until you know what the spread is over the sample size.Of the people in this group, there is little reason to believe that any ethnic group within this sample is more likely to respond to the survey than any other. Obviously I can't prove it, but on occasion you just have to make a best assumption instead of looking for hard data.Another 'best assumption' is the sample size. Over 4,500 responses were received. About 20% of the military is black. So that would be about 900. Even if we were to assume that Times subscribers were disporportionately represented down to half that, a number completely out of my arse, but not unrealistic given who I see buying the newspapers at the PX, I don't think, that's still 400. National polls are being conducted with sample sizes of 1000, even going down to 200 is going to have an acceptable standard of error, I submit.
Even applying these assumptions.
That 20% african american contingent is about 7% officer and 13% enlisted. The hispanic demograph is approximately 12% with about 8% being enlisted and 4% officers.
Now look at how that scews the data.
Occams Razor, by its nature, does not support data that is incomplete, the whole point of Occam's Razor is that you don't jump to wild conclusions.Now, at this point, you have to apply a sort of Occam's Razor.
There is no common sense in taking a random numbers relatedto your point and drawing a conclusion to support you point.I fully accept that the statistics are mathematically unsupportable. Throw maths out the window. I'm not relying on mathematics here, just common sense.
That is the opposite of common sense.
The answer is simple. It is unreasonable to draw any conclusion on the voting trend without knowing the previous voting trends. ie. you can't say a trend has changed towards an african american candidate unless you know what the trend was before.Given how refined and homogenous this sample pool is, is it reasonable or unreasonable to assume that a very likely contributing factor for the swing from (minimum) 2:1 McCain:Obama in all non-black ethnic groups to 1:6 McCain:Obama in blacks only is a race-based preference?
What swing? How do you know that the figures aren't the same for Kerry?I submit that the swing is just far too large to rest solely on policy differences between the candidates. It just doesn't pass the sniff test.
You're making things up now.Even though one cannot apply any of these inferences outside of 'A sample of Military Times Subscribers Who Chose to Respond', what is the most likely answer to that question?
Who could be 3500 white soldiers, 600 black soldiers, 200 Asian soldiers and 200 soldiers, this making the percentage representation nonsense in your claims of a homgeneous population.0 -
Does it represent the same spread as the army in terms of race proportions? Is it equal proportions of race? Is it just whoever came along on the day?
Irrelevant information. It doesn't matter: I am not attempting to say that 'These 4,000 people represent the views and opinions and the demographic groups of the million-strong armed forces.' I'm not trying to make any inferences about how the percentage of black voters going for Obama will affect the military as a whole. I think this is where you're going askew. You're looking at the data as a source from which to extrapolate a larger truth. I'm looking at the data and just trying to figure out why it is that data. Be it 100 or 1000 blacks who responded, 1:6 are voting Obama. I am not trying to figure out how representative this is of the military, only of the respondants and wondering why the numbers for this particular group are so unusual. The only factor in which the pure numbers are particularly relevant in discrediting such an analysis are in the case of an extremely low number of respondants, such as the three eskimos named George. I have no reason to believe that so few blacks responded to the survey that you can't as much as get a sensing out of it.Again you can't make any assumption until you know what the spread is over the sample size.
Why not? Is there some cultural reason I am not aware of as to why the average black soldier would be disinclined to respond to the survey whilst the average white soldier would not? I am certainly at a loss to come up with a technological or physical reason.That 20% african american contingent is about 7% officer and 13% enlisted. The hispanic demograph is approximately 12% with about 8% being enlisted and 4% officers.
Now look at how that scews the data.
I'm not sure I see it. Within both groups, you've got about a 1/3-2/3 ratio of officer to enlisted. Again, bear in mind that I'm comparing the individual groups within the larger pool against each other, not attempting to apply the analysis of those groups to the larger pool. This would seem to encourage the comparison between the two groups, as opposed to discourage it.There is no common sense in taking a random numbers related to your point and drawing a conclusion to support you point.
I do not believe I am attempting to draw a larger conclusion from those numbers than those numbers can provide.The answer is simple. It is unreasonable to draw any conclusion on the voting trend without knowing the previous voting trends. ie. you can't say a trend has changed towards an african american candidate unless you know what the trend was before.
Who said anything about a trend? We're looking at a snapshot here.A trend would be fantastic, but I have never claimed that we have the data to see one. Indeed the reason that I'm going through this thought process is that in the absence of trend information, comparative analysis of the current situation is the next best thing we have.What swing? How do you know that the figures aren't the same for Kerry?
You're right. I don't. But all other things being equal, I am at something of a loss to come up with an alternate explanation. If you have one, I'm willing to hear it. It's like hanging out at the Compton cinema and wondering why so few people are showing up in BMWs. I have absolutely no scientific data upon which to base a conclusion, but I think the most likely explanation is that most people who go to Compton's cinema are not rich.Who could be 3500 white soldiers, 600 black soldiers, 200 Asian soldiers and 200 soldiers, this making the percentage representation nonsense in your claims of a homgeneous population.
Race is the absolute last thing we should be looking at when determining a homogenous population to see if race is a factor, otherwise you end up with the equivalent of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Make everything else except race more or less equal, in this case we have a bunch of career-minded servicemen who have a few dollars to spare on a subscription, who have the motivation both to subscribe and to respond to the survey. Only once you have done this do you split them up into groups by race and compare against each other.
NTM0 -
What is the african american readership of that magazine compared to whites?Manic Moran wrote: »Irrelevant information. It doesn't matter: I am not attempting to say that 'These 4,000 people represent the views and opinions and the demographic groups of the million-strong armed forces.' I'm not trying to make any inferences about how the percentage of black voters going for Obama will affect the military as a whole. I think this is where you're going askew. You're looking at the data as a source from which to extrapolate a larger truth. I'm looking at the data and just trying to figure out why it is that data. Be it 100 or 1000 blacks who responded, 1:6 are voting Obama. I am not trying to figure out how representative this is of the military, only of the respondants and wondering why the numbers for this particular group are so unusual. The only factor in which the pure numbers are particularly relevant in discrediting such an analysis are in the case of an extremely low number of respondants, such as the three eskimos named George. I have no reason to believe that so few blacks responded to the survey that you can't as much as get a sensing out of it.
100 vs. 1000 responees makes a big, big difference. 1/3 and 333/1000 gives you the same percentage, but one tells you nothing and the other suggests a preference.
You can't supply the numers so your data is meaningless.
If we are to play the game where we can make assumptions about the data to support our views then I assume that very few african americans read the publication so 99% of respondees are white. There. It t ells you nothing about African American opinion.
Of course what I just did is ludicrous, but it is no more invalid than your supposition.
I'm at a loss to come up with a reason why you think the values there are indicative of any change in stats from 2000.Why not? Is there some cultural reason I am not aware of as to why the average black soldier would be disinclined to respond to the survey whilst the average white soldier would not? I am certainly at a loss to come up with a technological or physical reason.
You've made it up. So did I. Its a great fantasy game.
I'm saying the two groups would likely make a difference, in fact every study suggests that education and socio-economic status effect voting. Are you suggesting that the exception is the military?I'm not sure I see it. Within both groups, you've got about a 1/3-2/3 ratio of officer to enlisted. Again, bear in mind that I'm comparing the individual groups within the larger pool against each other, not attempting to apply the analysis of those groups to the larger pool. This would seem to encourage the comparison between the two groups, as opposed to discourage it.
So you admit that the numbers don't give you any information about whether african americans will vote for Obama based on policy or not.I do not believe I am attempting to draw a larger conclusion from those numbers than those numbers can provide.
Good.
As a snapshot it merely tells you the voting preference. It doesn'ttell you anything else.Who said anything about a trend? We're looking at a snapshot here.A trend would be fantastic, but I have never claimed that we have the data to see one. Indeed the reason that I'm going through this thought process is that in the absence of trend information, comparative analysis of the current situation is the next best thing we have.
You are inferring it suggests something that it clearly can and does not.
That is because you are biased. You are using your bias to give you a reason that suits you.You're right. I don't. But all other things being equal, I am at something of a loss to come up with an alternate explanation.
This isn't an explanation, it is you unwilling to be rational, fair and logical in your use of the data.
There is nothing to explain because the data, as I said, is incomplete. In fact, despite your claims of having no alternative explanation, you provided one in a previous post.If you have one, I'm willing to hear it. It's like hanging out at the Compton cinema and wondering why so few people are showing up in BMWs. I have absolutely no scientific data upon which to base a conclusion, but I think the most likely explanation is that most people who go to Compton's cinema are not rich.Race is the absolute last thing we should be looking at when determining a homogenous population to see if race is a factor, otherwise you end up with the equivalent of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
But that is what you've done.Make everything else except race more or less equal, in this case we have a bunch of career-minded servicemen who have a few dollars to spare on a subscription, who have the motivation both to subscribe and to respond to the survey. Only once you have done this do you split them up into groups by race and compare against each other.
But we don't.
If you exclude race, we have people from different background in terms of rank, education, money, environment, family values, religion, political tradition.....the list goes on... and all of these things contribute to political bias.
You have once again biased the factors to suit you by suggesting that the group is similar except for race.0 -
By the way, I tip my hat for at least providing me the most engaging discussion/argument I've had on here in a long time.What is the african american readership of that magazine compared to whites?
No idea. But as it is what is in effect a professional (if sensationalist) publication, one would assume that its readership should be something of a reflection of the makeup of that profession.If we are to play the game where we can make assumptions about the data to support our views then I assume that very few african americans read the publication so 99% of respondees are white. There. It t ells you nothing about African American opinion.
Of course what I just did is ludicrous, but it is no more invalid than your supposition.
Mathematically, you are quite correct. However, this is where we start getting into my area of education. There is a professional standard out there for accepting something as a given with no statistics or proof whatsover to back it up, which has withstood several centuries of scrutiny. That standard is 'The Reasonable Man.' Would a person of reasonable sense and understanding believe that the demographic readership of a specific publication would be something at least vaguely approximating the eligible demographics of those likely to read it, or would he believe that the demographic readership is skewed 99% one way? I believe he'd choose the less radical option.I'm at a loss to come up with a reason why you think the values there are indicative of any change in stats from 2000.
How do you get there from where I started? I'm just addressing the valid concern of excessively small sample size for that one demographic. One possible reason for such a result would be if members of that demographic declined in overwhelming numbers to participate. I am unaware of any reason why that should be the case for black subscribers, thus do not believe that there is any grounds to believe it to be true. Absent any information leading us to believe that readership is excessively skewed on race lines, and that responses were excessively skewed on race lines, it is reasonable to assume that we have something of a fair basis upon which to conduct further analysis.I'm saying the two groups would likely make a difference, in fact every study suggests that education and socio-economic status effect voting. Are you suggesting that the exception is the military?
Not at all. I'm sure it affects the military just as much. However, I am saying that the varience in education and socio-economic status within the military is much less and apply equally across both denominations because of its rules for membership. I have no idea what percentage of blacks vs hispanics across the country have GEDs or have graduated secondary school. I do know what the figures are for the Army though. I know how much the average black staff sergeant and hispanic staff sergeant is paid, and how much they tend to pay on housing: The same. I know what proportion of that 7% of black officers and 4% of hispanic officers have college degrees. The same. The structure of the military provides a levelling of these issues far greater than most any other demographic out there. Perfect levelling? Of course not. But about as good as you're going to find.As a snapshot it merely tells you the voting preference. It doesn'ttell you anything else.
You are inferring it suggests something that it clearly can and does not.
I am making the inference on what is causing the voting preference based on my reading of the overall situation. I am not saying that the figures themselves provide any inference. There's an old saw in the military, that one must never confuse information with intelligence. Data on its own, no matter how much of it you have, tells you nothing. It must be processed. Not 'may' be processed, but 'must' be in order to be of any value whatsoever. You seem to agree with this concept by some of your later comments. This is precisely what I am doing.In fact, despite your claims of having no alternative explanation, you provided one in a previous post.
Remind me. The only one I can recall mentioning was the issue of hispanics looking at issues of culture and immigration, but I'm sure those are issues which are a concern to non-military hispanics as well, who seem to be running at almost 3:1 Obama:McCain.
I don't see it. The very last factor identified, for the basis of making comparisons between those divisions, was race.But that is what you've done.If you exclude race, we have people from different background in terms of rank, education, money, environment, family values, religion, political tradition.....the list goes on... and all of these things contribute to political bias.
You have once again biased the factors to suit you by suggesting that the group is similar except for race.
Yes, and I believe that for the purposes of this analysis it is an acceptable baseline given the all the levelling factors which apply. In all the other race demographics, including the roughly equivalently sourced hispanic one which also recruits heavily from lower income city folk, there is a very large swing between civvie street and military bases towards the Republicans. That the final numbers in the military survey vary in extent is going to be symptomatic of the differences in startpoint. Somewhere just over half of whites in the nation support McCain. Over 3/4 in the military survey. Somewhere about 1/3 of hispanics in the nation support McCain. Over 2/3 in the military survey. Under half of other minorities in the nation support McCain. Clear over half in the military survey. Why is there no similarly large swing for blacks, who overwhelmingly support Obama on both sides of the line? The needle barely budges. The effects of military membership apply equally through all races, one would think that the effects on political averages would also apply equally.
NTM0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »By the way, I tip my hat for at least providing me the most engaging discussion/argument I've had on here in a long time.
here you go:
0 -
Nice one:
Then again it's Al-Jazerra so it must not be true.0 -
0
-
Advertisement
-
So we'll just give Nevada to McCain... meanwhile, I think Obama had Ohio, Virginia, and Florida. Tis sure to be a landslide.
Al Jazeera is reportedly quite a fair news organization.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBmO6YAszGU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRqcfqiXCX0
Advertisement