georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2012 08:21 pm
Current reports (2 hours later than Cyclo's reports above of exit poll data) indicate that, with nearly 30% of the ballots counted, Governor Walker has a huge 20% margin over his opponent. I don't know what precincts and what regions of the state are included in the count so far, so the balance could change. However, it appears very likely that Walker will win by a margin well above the margin cited by Cyclo as the minimum necessary to be a likely factor harming Obama's prospects in the state.

Indeed it is possible that this outcome may indicate an acelerating disintegration of the president's prospects for reelection in November. More State governments will seek to imitate Wisconsin in measures need to curtail the unwonted political influence of government employee unions and more government employees will abandon them as the legal monopolies they enjoy are broken.

I'm entertainiong myself listening to the rather tortured rationalizations coming from MSNBC "commentators ". They're emphasizing the reported spending for the opposing candidates , but without including the "voter education" spending of labor unions or the very active voter mobilization efforts they carry out. Now O'Donnell and Madow are trolling poll data to find very thin suggestions of optimisim for their hero; emphasizing the still incomplete state senatorial contests; and congratulating Obama for his feckless and self-serving failure to campaign actively in Wisconsin.

The apparent divergence between poll data indicating generally favorable opinions of Obama and the self-reporting found earlier in exit polls, with the measures of the actual behavior of the same voters in actual balloting , suggests there may be something else afoot here. Perhaps voters are reluctant to express an unfavorable opinion of the President when asked, but willing to vote against him in the secrecy of the ballot booth. Are they racists concealing their prejudices? (hard to buy that one given Obama's margin of victory in 2008). Alternatively have they been successfully indoctrinated to excuse bad behavior or failure on the part of "minority victim" groups ? Both are plausible, but I suspect the second is more likely.
0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2012 08:21 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
People really need to stop relying so much on exit polls. They've been shown to be wrong several times over.

Per the NY Times, as of 10:19 p.m. ET
with 42% reporting

Walker=543,820=59%
Barrett=373,396=40.5%
Trivedi=5,264=0.6%
0 Replies
 
k copelin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2012 08:22 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0C9ZO1mt-dE&feature=youtube_gdata_player
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2012 08:35 pm
Now the esteemed O'Donnell is citing exit poll data suggesting a strong voter preference for Obama, compared to Romney as "wonderful news". Too bad he didn't also note the huge gap between the same exit poll data for Governor Walkers election and tha actual margins he is getting in the voting.
0 Replies
 
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2012 08:37 pm
Historical moment -- doesn't this make Scott Walker the only governor in the history of the U.S. to survive a recall effort?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2012 08:53 pm
Not such a long night after all...

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2012 09:39 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
It's OK. You win some and you lose some. In the end we're all in this together and no one is right about everything all the time.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2012 10:08 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Not such a long night after all...

Cycloptichorn


****, it was not even close to close. If some exit polls really did show this even then some pollsters royally screwed up.

Quote:
Wisconsin - 3145 of 3424 Precincts Reporting - 92%
Name Party Votes Vote %
Walker , Scott (i) GOP 1,185,851 54%
Barrett , Tom Dem 1,000,243 45%
Trivedi , Hari Ind 12,632 1%

http://www.jsonline.com/

This seals it.....the Dems just turned Walker into a RockStar.

OOPS!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2012 10:40 pm
@georgeob1,
Well said.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2012 10:59 pm
The Dems look Delusional....even at this late hour there is a lot of sniveling to the tune "well, well, well.....Obama looks better than Romney in the exit polls!"

These are of course the same exit polls that had Walker and Barrett even, in a race that with 2% of the precincts to go actually went 53-46 Walker. In other words the polling was demonstratively deeply flawed.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2012 11:27 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawk, You're trying to equalize two issues as one outcome. Ain't gonna happen.

Huge difference between running for gov and president.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2012 11:30 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

hawk, You're trying to equalize two issues as one outcome. Ain't gonna happen.

Huge difference between running for gov and president.


wrong, I am saying that an alleged expert who has been beyond any doubt proven wrong on the most important point can not reasonably be considered an expert on any other point.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2012 11:36 pm
@hawkeye10,
going to have to wait to see how the Senate turns out

Quote:
Republicans held on to three state Senate seats, but results in a pivotal fourth race, in Racine County pitting incumbent Van Wanggaard (R-Racine) against former Sen. John Lehman (D-Racine), were delayed late Tuesday. Results were also slow in being reported during the primary last month.

Democratic challengers lost recalls bids against Sens. Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) and Terry Moulton (R-Chippewa Falls.)

In addition, Rep. Jerry Petrowski (R-Stettin) was elected to fill the vacancy left by Sen. Pam Galloway (R-Wausau), who resigned earlier this year after opponents gathered enough signatures to initiate a recall election.

The results bring an end - for now - to recall elections of lawmakers after the November 2010 election of Gov. Scott Walker and the firestorm that followed. Tuesday's results follow a series of recall elections in 2011 when Democrats picked up two seats in recalls involving nine senators, cutting into the Republican's majority. The majority slipped to a tie after Galloway's resignation.

Whether the Republicans will regain control of the Senate won't be known until results of the District 21 Wanggaard-Lehman race are in.
.
.
.



http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/3-gop-senators-survive-recalls-ib5jfeg-157395125.html

Racine county went Walker 56-43.....
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jun, 2012 05:47 am
Interesting that Dems are bemoaning the inaccuracy of the exit polls to predict the winner, then immediately turning around and using those same polls to say "no worries ... Obama is ahead".

Nevertheless, I don't think this election was so much in favor of Walker as it was a rebuke to the Dems for using the recall for political purposes rather than for misconduct.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jun, 2012 10:23 am
@hawkeye10,
That's about the dumbest statement you've ever made on a2k. I know many professionals who are expert at their area of skills, but dumb in others. That's very common - even in ourselves. Generally speaking, I prefer the expert over the non-expert on things I want resolved or corrected. That's not to say there are so-called experts who may be dangerous or wrong on some issues.

Remember that Harvard professor who wrote about the IQ of blacks? Now, that's really stupid!

hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Wed 6 Jun, 2012 10:40 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

That's about the dumbest statement you've ever made on a2k. I know many professionals who are expert at their area of skills, but dumb in others. That's very common - even in ourselves. Generally speaking, I prefer the expert over the non-expert on things I want resolved or corrected. That's not to say there are so-called experts who may be dangerous or wrong on some issues.

Remember that Harvard professor who wrote about the IQ of blacks? Now, that's really stupid!




The sample was wrong because the assumption that those who voted by mail were like those who voted on election day were the same was wrong. All of the results from the exit poll speak only of those who voted that day, not of state voters in total. The entire poll data is of little value.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jun, 2012 10:43 am
@cicerone imposter,
Many stupid things have been written by Harvard professors. The guy who wrote the piece I believe you were referring to was not a Harvard professsor, he was William Shockley, a scientist, formerly with Bell Labs and the inventor of the transistor.

In fact Shockley was reporting the real results of IQ tests, which are a reasonably accurate, but imperfect, measure of intelligence. The reported results themselves were accurate descriptions of the data on which they were based, but more was made of the real, but small average difference between blacks and others than many observers thought warranted. More importantly Shockley's speculations that the measured difference was surely the result of a genetic difference, and not merely the consequence of changeable social and family conditions, was not supported by any scientific evidence at all. In fact there are readily observable social & cultural factors that themselves could make all the difference. Denying their existence is common in politically correct circles, but that is certainly just as stupid as Shockley's jump to his conclusion.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jun, 2012 11:27 am
I guess we won't know till November, but I am betting that Obama is going to win regardless of what happened in Wisconsin. Im not worried in the slightest.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Wed 6 Jun, 2012 04:22 pm
@georgeob1,
I'm not totally wrong. Here's the first paragraph of a Wiki article on the subject.

Quote:
The Bell Curve
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Bell curve (disambiguation).
The Bell Curve

Author(s) Richard J. Herrnstein, Charles Murray
Publisher Free Press
Publication date September 1994
Media type Hardcover
Pages 845
ISBN ISBN 0-02-914673-9
OCLC Number 30913157
Dewey Decimal 305.9/082 20
LC Classification BF431 .H398 1994
The Bell Curve is a best-selling and controversial 1994 book by the Harvard psychologist Richard J. Herrnstein (deceased before the book was released) and political scientist Charles Murray. Its central argument is that intelligence is substantially influenced by both inherited and environmental factors and is a better predictor of many personal dynamics, including financial income, job performance, chance of unwanted pregnancy, and involvement in crime than are an individual's parental socioeconomic status, or education level. The book also argues that those with high intelligence, the "cognitive elite", are becoming separated from those of average and below-average intelligence, and that this is a dangerous social trend with the United States moving toward a more divided society similar to that in Latin America.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jun, 2012 04:42 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Also from Wiki.

Quote:
Criticism

Melvin Konner wrote in the notes to his book The Tangled Wing: Biological Constraints on the Human Spirit:
Statements made by Arthur Jensen, William Shockley, and other investigators in the late 1960s and early 1970s about race and IQ or social class and IQ rapidly passed into currency in policy discussions. Many of these statements were proved wrong, but they had already influenced some policymakers, and that influence is very difficult to recant.
Many studies that purport to be both science-based and attempt to influence public policy have been accused of scientific racism. Konner wrote:
What of the latest currents of thought? Are they likely to lead to, or at least encourage, further distortions of social policy? The indications are not all encouraging. Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray published a book in 1994 clearly directed at policy, just as Jensen and others had in the 1960s and 1970s. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (New York: Free Press 1994) teamed a psychologist with a conservative policy advocate to try to prove that both the class structure and the racial divide in the United States result from genetically determined differences in intelligence and ability. Their general assertions about genes and IQ were not very controversial, but their speculations on race were something else again.
Lisa Suzuki and Joshua Aronson of New York University claimed in 2005 that Jensen has largely ignored evidence that fails to support his position that IQ test score gaps represent a genetic racial hierarchy unwaveringly for over 30 years.[14]
Paleontologist and evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, attacked Jensen's work in his 1981 book The Mismeasure of Man. Gould writes that Jensen misapplies the concept of "heritability", which is defined as a measure of the variation of a trait due to inheritance within a population (Gould 1981: 127; 156-157). According to Gould, Jensen uses heritability to measure differences between populations[citation needed]. Gould also disagrees with Jensen's belief that IQ tests measure a real variable, g, or "the general factor common to a large number of cognitive abilities" which can be measured along a unilinear scale.
This is a claim most closely identified with Charles Spearman. According to Gould, Jensen misunderstood the research of L. L. Thurstone to ultimately support this claim; Gould, however, argues that Thurstone's factor analysis of intelligence revealed g to be an illusion (1981: 159; 13-314). Gould criticizes Jensen's sources including his use of Catharine Cox's 1926 Genetic Studies of Genius, which examines historiometrically the IQs of historic intellectuals after their deaths (Gould 1981: 153-154).
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/19/2019 at 05:34:39