Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: White Approval of Obama

электронная почта без регистрации

2010-03-02T14:01:12.470-05:00

酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店經紀, ...

2009-10-12T05:42:40.508-04:00

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,

@shiloh "Politics just ain't that complicated." Y...

2009-09-18T16:56:34.993-04:00

@shiloh

"Politics just ain't that complicated." You've got to be kidding. Politics is more complicated than you can imagine.

I think you've been watching those Sprint commercials (what if firefighters ran Congress, or if FedEX or UPS was in change of getting high-schoolers to class on time).

Institutional Catholic support for universal health care and almost all of the progressive economic agenda (except abortion on demand) is part of a long long history of support and promotion. It has nothing do with the 21st century.

Minimum Wage and Child Labor laws, to name a few, would have never happened without the promotion of catholic church in America.

The US Bishops wrote Pastoral Letters back in 1981, 1983 and the Catholic Conference put out a statement in 1991 on comprehensive health reform. But even before that there was the encyclical Peace on Earth in 1963.

So I am a little stumped on what you even mean by the "big picture".

OK, reading HP, as I said the Catholic church has ...

2009-09-17T18:49:55.622-04:00

OK, reading HP, as I said the Catholic church has come into the 21st century and not surprising bishops would be supporting health care ie they read the Bible daily.

As to your other specific minutia, one can see why you like Nate's statistical site lol, but I would argue Big Picture is more important than "dynamics of competing tendencies". Politics just ain't that complicated. If the starting pitcher is a bust, you bring in a relief pitcher.

And the American public ain't that bright, so yea hate and fears worked well for Reps in the past until cheney/bush totally screwed the pooch!

Much of what you say does have an effect on politics, but "big picture" is more important imo. I'm more of a macro than micro political poster.

Bottom line, Obama won because cheney/bush destroyed the Rep party and Obama was change.

@Shiloh Way too much personal information. (But I...

2009-09-17T18:13:43.939-04:00

@Shiloh

Way too much personal information. (But I'm glad you have a story.)

Polling and Demographics is not about an individual, it is about using group "tendencies" and "affinities" to make predictions. Polling and Demographics is one big exercise in stereo-typing. But stereo-typing is also a propaganda tool. Google "granfalloon propaganda".

One breaks down a poll into groups to better understand the dynamics of competing tendencies. Propaganda breaks down people into groups as a means for good or ill of persuasion and sometimes control.

"White" is not a very good predictor, primarily because it does not discern the sub-groups that make it up. Ancestry, religion and region are better ways to break down data, because the better reflection the social networks that have organically formed. "White" as a granfalloon propaganda tool is pretty dangerous in a country like the US.

This is my central point.

On religion, consider this recent blog:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-waldman/why-the-catholic-bishops_b_290145.html

jdk Not sure what point you are trying to make, m...

2009-09-17T16:17:24.171-04:00

jdk

Not sure what point you are trying to make, my post was mainly re: the abortion issue and perhaps I should have stated as much. The Catholic church doctrine/tenet/belief whatever that abortion is a no-no. Of course there are other Catholic tenets that many Catholics disagree w/ie birth control, homosexuality, oh the irony etc.

Being adopted myself and raised by a 100% Irish Catholic, not very political mother and a German, Protestant, totally non political father, who btw although he did not attend any church in his later life was probably more of a Catholic than most Catholics, because as we all know, it's not whether you attend church on Sunday, but how you live your life which is the true measure of a man.

OK, getting way too philosophical, but suffice it to say, my background is probably why I am a liberal independent. Also being adopted is why, as a rule, I avoid abortion discussions.

Enjoy telling folk my mom is 100% Irish, my dad was German and I'm half Italian ;) My birth mother was Italian, Catholic, unmarried and 17 when I was born in 1954 which I learned when I was (18). Always knew I was adopted and not saying that in a bad way, have an older sister who was adopted and many Catholic cousins who could have cared less about our being adopted. I digress.

And the Catholic church frowned on mixed marriages back in 1944 which is why my mom and dad could not have an official Catholic wedding ceremony, but had to be married in a small chapel. Part of the reason I said this isn't your grandfather's catholic church anymore as they have at least tried to come into the 21st century.

... and now you know the rest of the story, g'day.

p.s. my dad's mother, my grandmother, a protestant had (2) sons and they both married Catholics and my Uncle Roy not only married a catholic, but converted and became a Deacon, oh the humanity lol for my grandmother who had to struggle w/her prejudices, but came around to accept the reality in her later years. She was/became enlightened!

ciao :)

@shiloh I think it still is my grandfather's cath...

2009-09-17T12:57:19.977-04:00

@shiloh

I think it still is my grandfather's catholic church and that's a good thing because he would have voted for Obama, just like he voted for RFK.

The key point is that what passes as a analysis of the "white" vote is meaningless.

There is a swath of non-African American voters ("American"/WASPs) in the South and Appalachia/Ozarks/Oklahoma that have absolutely nothing to do with
the swath of non-African American voters ("urban ethnics" and their children and grandchildren in the suburbs) that follow a path from Minneapolis to Milwaukee to Chicago to South Bend to Detroit to Toledo to Cleveland to Pittnburgh to Buffalo and from DC to Baltimore to Philadelphia to Newark to NY to Boston.

You've got to see these as two separate populations to make sense of the political winds. Look at some generic "white" response doesn't tell you anything useful.

The easiest demographic way to make sense is to use the ancestry question response "American" and the geographic notion of the South, as one group.

And compare that against the demographics blue state "Catholics".

You'd get so much more useful polling information if instead of a race question you'd ask an ancestry/ethnicity question like:

How would you describe your Ancestry or Ethnicity, you may choose more than one?

African American or Black
German
English
French
American
Irish
Italian
Polish
Mexican
Cuban
Some Other Hispanic
Asian
Something Else
Decline to Respond

As Ornette Coleman once told an musician in a symphony playing one of his compositions:

"Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't true."

GROG said... @Eli Blake: The Democrat le...

2009-09-15T20:20:57.534-04:00

GROG said...

@Eli Blake:

The Democrat led Congress approved $88 billion in 2007.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As I mentioned to you before, cheney/bush, having already put the troops in harm's way based on a lie, the troops still had to be supported or the Reps meme of the Dems are cutting and running once again, the Dems don't care about the troops ie the Dems are unAmerican would be put in action.

You're either w/us or against us. nonsense that has usually worked for the Reps in the past was in play re: the 2008 election.

The Dems finally know how to play hardball and no way were they gonna cut funding for the troops and yes, it was probably somewhat a political decision by the Dems instead of a moral decision, but shocking as it may seem, Reps/Dems play politics in Washington.

And as I said the Dems finally know how to play the game and win.

Coincidentally the Reps blamed the Dems for losing the Vietnam war because the Dems cut funding, but Vietnam was a lost cause from the get-go and the Vietnam war will always be a 100% Dem war anyways so the who was blaming who minutia was irrelevant, whereas the Iraq war will always be 100% Rep war whether the Dems voted to continue funding or not.

This is the political reality.

take care

p.s. and because the Dems have learned how to play the national security presidential game, Obama won by 9.5 million votes.

Always think big picture! when considering national security political decisions.

btw, yes mentioned cheney/bush, but, but, but rumor has it this is a political blog ...

@Eli Blake: The Democrat led Congress approved $8...

2009-09-15T19:31:18.708-04:00

@Eli Blake:

The Democrat led Congress approved $88 billion in 2007.

jdk said... The only number that matters is w...

2009-09-15T18:10:31.838-04:00

jdk said...

The only number that matters is whether Catholics are 51% or more with Obama. If they are he's ok, if they aren't he's not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Obama won Catholics 54/45.

and again, this isn't your grandfather's Catholic church anymore as Obama will do much better in 2012.

As Ted Kennedy said when someone asked him why he was sooo passionate re: health care reform: Have you read the Bible?

There is really almost nothing to be learned from ...

2009-09-15T17:37:54.705-04:00

There is really almost nothing to be learned from the category "white".

It "explains" less than region, religion, and party affiliation.

It also presupposes a monolith which in and of itself can create a granfalloon that has a capacity to move Northern Urban/Suburban Catholic votes toward some Southern WASP typology.

This is an old debate: does RFK or Wallace get the working class "white" aka (backlash) vote in Indiana, thing all over again.

If you don't disaggregate the data you might think you are getting a picture that "whites" go to Wallace. But if you actually look at the precinct data and drill down you see that Catholic Polish Americans, Italian American and even Catholic Irish Americans with close ties to a parish were not racist Wallace votes. Their children and grandchildren are no different.

Let me also parenthetically that the notion that American catholic are politically no different that mainline American Protestants has it backwards. It's the main line protestants that have become more like American Catholics than the other way around. The viral change works from the immigrant and ethnic cultural ONTO the majority cultural as much or more than the other way around. The South and this Appalachia thing (see "American" on Ancestry Question) reflects the fact that these groups have had very little exposure to long history immigration from both Europe and Asia and therefore are stuck in an old weltanshaung.

The only number that matters is whether Catholics are 51% or more with Obama. If they are he's ok, if they aren't he's not.

Just like in the campaign, the question remains is Obama culturally a non-WASP or is an educated and travelled BASP a version of a non-Southern WASP.

Much of politics has less to do with policy than it has to do with granfalloons of whatever creation and iteration.

typed quickly without proofreading.

Who funded the wars because they knew Sadam had W...

2009-09-15T17:02:18.925-04:00

Who funded the wars because they knew Sadam had WMDs? The Democrat controlled Congress.

??

The GOP controlled Congress until 2007.

@Mindless TROLL in Maryland: Let's try to deal wi...

2009-09-15T07:43:52.051-04:00

@Mindless TROLL in Maryland:

Let's try to deal with facts and reality here.

Yellowcake is radioactive. It took 37 military flights to ship Sadam's yellowcake from Baghdad to Diego Garcia. The AP story explained the logistical nightmare of simply transporting it. It also cited the fear of it falling into the hands of insurgents. That is how dangerous it was when we were in control of it.

"In other words, just because some people believe it is dangerous, that means EVERYONE should believe it it is dangerous? ?"

You don't think 37 military flight loads of radioactive material is dangerous? You don't think this quantity of radioactive material could be used as a WMD?

"Even when FACTS prove it is not."

What FACTS prove that huge quantities of radioactive material is not dangerous?

The one who drinks watered down wine had a lot of ...

2009-09-15T04:34:33.517-04:00

The one who drinks watered down wine had a lot of LIES in his/her/it's diatribe posted at 11:12 am on 9-14-09, but I'll just address ONE of those lies.

Earlier, the one who drinks watered down wine directed me, via a link, to an MSNBC article. It is very obvious that the one who drinks watered down wine didn't actually read that article, as the one who drinks watered down wine stated in the 11:12 am posting:
it was a known fact that [Hussein] did have yellowcake, which in and of itself is a WMD.

From the MSNBC article that the one who drinks watered down wine directed me to states:
While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called "dirty bomb" — a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material — it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast.

In other words, just because some people believe it is dangerous, that means EVERYONE should believe it it is dangerous? Even when FACTS prove it is not?

The one who drinks watered down wine? Are you one who still believes that water fluoridation was a Commie plot?

Mike in Maryland

@Mindless TROLL in Maryland: The point is that Sa...

2009-09-14T11:12:43.630-04:00

@Mindless TROLL in Maryland:

The point is that Sadam refused to comply with US inspectors and knew that by doing this a US attack was imminent and it was a known fact that he did have yellowcake, which in and of itself is a WMD. You and the fringe, loon left are very selective in it’s facts. You always seem to leave out certain facts and truths. Do a little research.

• A British intelligence review released July 14, 2005 called Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
• A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7, 2005 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
• Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the CIA took as confirmation that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Niger.
• Both the US and British investigations made it clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.

If you want to say Bush made a mistake, that's one thing. But you have absolutely no evidence to prove that Bush knowlingly lied.

"But the fundamental fact remains that this man posed a threat to his neighbors. There is no doubt in
anyone's mind - because we had already seen him use it - that he would have employed weapons of mass destruction at some
future date. Although we may have gone a little too far, we believe we made the right decision." (Sen. Hillary Clinton,
Congressional Record, 10/17/03, p. S12828)
2 /

The one who drinks watered down water said... [som...

2009-09-14T06:43:25.969-04:00

The one who drinks watered down water said...
[something, but it was unintelligible to an educated person]

TROLL?

Did you actually read the article you linked? The entire article?

It's obvious you didn't.

When did the firt Gulf War occur?

1991

In the article you linked, one paragraph reads:
"Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said." [emphasis added]

So how does this tie into a supposed purchase of yellow cake from Niger?

The one who drinks watered down wine cannot admit an error, and cannot admit that maybe, just maybe, it is posting LIES.

Mike in Maryland

@Mindless: The definition of TROLL you posted ear...

2009-09-13T13:03:28.873-04:00

@Mindless:

The definition of TROLL you posted earlier describes you to a tee. You post comments full of filth and hatred constantly, for the sole purpose of getting a reaction. You bring nothing constructive to discussions on here.

Again, I only finished the TROLLing that Prag started.

@Mindless in Maryland: Since you brought up yello...

2009-09-13T12:55:31.238-04:00

@Mindless in Maryland:

Since you brought up yellowcake.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/

The truth hurts.

It is inconceivable to me how the Conservatards cannot do ANY research.

Are you still trying to get your mind unscrambled?

Brian - My understanding of the working definiti...

2009-09-13T11:22:54.903-04:00

Brian -

My understanding of the working definition of "talking point" in American political discourse, is this -

"a terse but inaccurate or vague sentence or phrase, containing loaded language designed to appeal to and reinforce some sort of social bias, manufactured by a political or PR professional, and distributed to members of one political party or movement, with overt or strongly implied instructions that its content be repeated."

A talking point, in this context is very, very similar to a slogan. However, a talking point is slightly more complex and specific than a slogan, and need not be repeated verbatim.

"Tippecanoe and Tyler Too" is a slogan. It has to be repeated verbatim. "The Obama health care plan will include 'death panels'!" is a talking point.

The early use of talking points, and the term "talking points" itself, are both strongly associated with Newt Gingrich. However, in economics, talking points long pre-date Newt.

Currently, the use of talking points is strongly associated with the Republican party and the right wing media. At least until very recently, Republican sources continued to use the term "talking points" in a favorable light.

Of course Democrats try to do the same thing from time to time, but they don't use the term "talking point" and their talking points don't tend to catch on or be repeated.

People may "believe" or "not believe" talking points. That's not the point. The point is that when their own discourse consists of uncritical repetition of talking points originated by others, certain conclusions can be drawn.

I guess the Prez failed to move the needle on heal...

2009-09-13T10:19:46.293-04:00

I guess the Prez failed to move the needle on healtcare reform this week.

He lied.

His speech was a failure.

Obama sucks at being president.

petekent01 (on twitter)

The one who drinks watered down wine said... The "...

2009-09-13T03:24:23.921-04:00

The one who drinks watered down wine said...
The "exaggereated threat" came from US intelligence. There is no evidence that Bush fabricated or exaggerated any threat..

They did? He didn't?

Wasn't it the CIA that warned the White House about serious doubt about, then proof of those documents being forged, of the supposed yellow cake documents?

Didn't shrub change the wording of his State of the Union speech? Remember the controversy over the "sixteen words"?

Didn't (then) Secretary of State Colin Powell remove reference to the yellow cake documents when he addressed the UN?

Are you stating that the CIA is NOT part of the US intelligence community?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries

It is inconceivable to me how the Conservatards cannot do ANY research. And then, when their point is proven wrong, they either continue with the same line of male bovine droppings, or pick up a new talking point, but they NEVER admit that in any way, shape or form they might have been inaccurate or outright wrong. And when a Conservatard TROLL posts, it's ten times worse!

Mike in Maryland

Brian, Wait, wait, wait... Are you trying to say...

2009-09-13T02:07:39.928-04:00

Brian,

Wait, wait, wait...

Are you trying to say Republicans really do believe in something, but are willing to argue something different for some other reason?

It all makes sense now.

Brian said... In general, my argument is that pe...

2009-09-13T01:51:29.653-04:00

Brian said...

In general, my argument is that people can disagree without one side being evil, and without either side having a wildly distorted picture of reality.

Ah! Are we being a little sly tonight?

Originally, I STATED;

Just because someone might not know that something is not true does not justify the fact they chose to believe it as true. They chose to believe it, whether consciously or unconsciously. They made that choice out of their own free will.

By their own free will... the choices we make is the determining factor, whether or not it is made on valid or invalid information. Is that evil? No.

Misinformed? Yes. Ignorant? Yes. Excusable? No. Disagreements is a part of human nature. A point I am willing to concede. However, ignorance (IE, false information concerning the current debate) based on willful choices made out of misconceived arguments based on zero validity, No!

Are you not able to research your arguments? Are you not able to choose what you believe in? Are you not able to understand the difference between intelligent reasoning and brainwashing?

It is an extreme example of an argument someone could put forth in that it is inherently unbelievable, and there is a relatively high probability person saying it does not believe it, and is saying it because it would be useful if others believed it. Yet even here, it is possible they do believe it, and are arguing in good faith.

How is that possible? You believe it, or you don't believe it, but you will still argue in favor. That is such a piece of CROCK.

Make no excuses for the ignorantly bliss. Their choice is made out of their own free will. Defend yourself.

Massa, I thank you for acknowledging (in a round ...

2009-09-13T01:38:09.485-04:00

Massa,

I thank you for acknowledging (in a round about manner) that you read my post.

But Massa? You still didn't answer my questions.

To be precise, these questions:

Are you please that we will stop saying 'Yes Virginia' on this thread? Are we permitted to say 'Yes Virginia' on other threads? Or are you requiring us to not say 'Yes Virginia' at all?

Mike in Maryland

P.S., TROLL, I presume that you'll notice that the vast majority of characters in this post are in lower case letters. I've inserted upper case letters at the beginning of sentences and proper names, and in one other place, to emphasize my opinion of you.

I'll try to clarify so that even those incapable o...

2009-09-13T01:17:49.266-04:00

I'll try to clarify so that even those incapable of grasping nuance or inferring from context can understand. I'm sure Mike will let us know if I succeeded.

Brian said

"While the death panels thing is an extreme example..."

It is an extreme example of an argument someone could put forth in that it is inherently unbelievable, and there is a relatively high probability person saying it does not believe it, and is saying it because it would be useful if others believed it. Yet even here, it is possible they do believe it, and are arguing in good faith. Most things, including everything I saw GROG discussing, are more complicated than that, and it is almost certain they can be constructively discussed, rather than simply dismissed as lies, and their advocate as a liar.

"There ARE no 'death panels', yet you keep repeating the term"

I repeat the term as an artifact of what people say...much as Pragmatus did when he used it as an example of a talking point...and much as you are now. That's different than asserting the proposition is true.

In general, my argument is that people can disagree without one side being evil, and without either side having a wildly distorted picture of reality.

Mike in Maryland said...

"Are you please that we will stop saying 'Yes Virginia' on this thread? Are we permitted to say 'Yes Virginia' on other threads?"

Considering your limited vocabulary, I think we can make an exception in your case. After all, you're already reduced to using words in all capital letters to express yourself.