Bernie's In

Have you ever thought of taking a walk on the wild side?
just kidding around.

Tell Setanta I said Hi and that I miss the history lessons he use to share. It was not a puppy it is just what I call all small or loving dogs.

Remember Bush 2 and Iraq. The president has a lot of power.

Its good to see that you like Sanders. Vote for him when you get a chance. Personally I hate a liar and he is one when he claims he will get us free collage education, free medical care and not raise taxes on you and me. How is he going to raise taxes on the rich with a republican congress? He, Bernie, is a blatant liar and you know it. If elected he will sit in office and do nothing, I'm not sure he can even get the dems. in congress to vote for his policies.

Reason, I don,t watch them either. I'm not going watch 10 to 20 minutes of brain washing bullshyt. If I want to get information I read up on it.

Yes, exit polls get you a good sample but asking people how much they make is fishy, averaging intervals is VERY fishy, and comparing the result with a "real" income average for the state is downright ridiculous.

Now thumb me down. It's easier that to to try and understand stats.

At least I know that the people that show up at a meeting are not representative of an entire group. The statistical analysis is going to be closer then an non random sample.

I do so appreciate your permission


So tell me then, why are you in support of Ms.Clinton? She has oodles of lies. Lies oozing out of every pore in her body; yet, those for some reason aren't (apparently) bothersome to you. Really? Keep in mind hers are lies. Outright lies. Why no outrage towards her from you?

The "lies" you accuse Mr.Sanders of speaking are not lies. It is not a lie if he truly believes that these things can be done and without the benefit of being elected, there's no way of knowing whether he might succeed or not. I admit some of his ideas seem far fetched; but, then again, many great ideas of the past have presented in this way and gone on to prove viable and successful.

It all depends on what you want to know, and how your population is structured. Using averages means nothing if the population you study is pluri-modal rather than normal, for instance. The stats linked up by rev make this error: They assume a normal, gauss like distribution of income among all candidates supporters. This may not be true, and thus their averages may mean nothing whatsoever.

The right way to go if you want to prove that Trump has little support among the working class is to focus on specific income brackets characteristics of the working class, and look at the voters behavior WITHIN each income bracket. Averaging ALL voters incomes including rich, poor and in between will mix apples and oranges.

Not that I expect any of you to get a rather subtle statistical point...

Quote sturgis:

Like what? The so-called "lies" she's been caught on have been little more than a collection of reversals on some issues over a course of public life of a quarter century.

One Hate Hillary video starts off by showing Hillary being against gay marriage in 2002. That's 14 years ago. Is her reversal on this evidence of a lie, or is it just one pubic person evolving on the issue of homosexual rights, like most Americans have been evolving since the 1980s? Most of the people who hate Hillary are on the right, who not only oppose gay marriage but want to strike down any anti-discriminatory laws against homosexuals as being an infringement on their religious liberty. Yet they want people to Hate Hillary for not being for gay marriage 14 years ago.

And when you look at who attends a rally vs a random polling sample of voters that actually voted, which will give you a better understanding of who is voting for a candidate?

Not to hit you over the head with a rather blunt statistical point, but that is what you are arguing.

You can have the best sample in the world, but if you don't ask the right questions and don't analyse the responses correctly, you're still kidding yourself... while you can still derive correct inferences from a non-representative sample if you work with your eyes open.

I don't fear the really radical things he says (like killing families of terrorists...although that one he can do on his own, without congress).

What I fear is a Trump win would likely mean a republican majority in both houses of congress. These same house of congress that would pass some laws that I REALLY have a problem with and Trump would sign them into Law.

I'd vote for Sanders or Clinton because even with republicans running congress, they would hold the power of the veto, which is enough reason for me to elect a D into office.

Yeah, this doesn't bother me as much considering that my personal views have changed on things as I learn more too.

Most people grow over time, it's not a bad thing.

Here we go. People voting down **** they have absolutely no clue about... This place gives a premium to ignorance.

Perhaps you should read the data and how it was used before you make false statements about it. I would suggest starting with footnote 2 which directly contradicts your statement.

Not that I expect you to understand another blunt statistical point...

Footnote 2 has nothing to see with the point I was making, whatsoever. It's about another weakness of the data: the attempt to average income brackets. It's another reason why the approach taken is technically incorrect.

It's shoddy stat work, which is all I am saying, but of course you are going to defend it even though you don't understand a word I say. Because A2K works through group think, and because ignorance is plentiful, it will always trump knowledge here.

Enough pearls cast to swine already.

It has nothing to do with the point you were making? Really? Then what data do you think was using a Gaussian distribution to calculate the median income if it wasn't the income data?

Your argument so far seems to be all bull **** and not much statistics.

Bill Moyers
1 hr ·
Clinton shifts back toward center –> Amy Chozick at The New York Times: “Mrs. Clinton’s campaign is repositioning itself, after a year of emphasizing liberal positions and focusing largely on minority voters, to also appeal to independent and Republican-leaning white voters turned off by Mr. Trump… The effort is a striking turn after she spent the past year trying to to mobilize the liberal wing and labor leaders in the Democratic Party.”
And: Clinton’s shift assumes that Sanders voters, faced with a choice between voting Democratic and voting for Trump, eventually will come around to supporting her. But exit polling highlighted by Margaret Talev and Arit John at Bloomberg Politics indicates that regardless of their race or ideology, Clinton remains a tough sell among young Sanders voters.

I doubt you are qualified to understand the points I was making. Never mind. Believe that only the rich support Trump, if you need to believe that...

Got any specifics, edgar? So far, all I see from your quote is opinion. Is Hillary abandoning any environmental or other positions? The quote doesn't even deal with that.

PS: Trump just said twice that he would break up NATO and let our other allies fend for themselves against Russia or Chinese aggression. That is a position very likely to repel many conservatives. If Mrs. Clinton continues to do the sensible thing and emphasizes her support for a strong NATO, there is nothing wrong with her pointing that out during her campaign. If Trump wants to weaken the security of the US to save money and give away conservative votes, there is nothing wrong with Mrs. Clinton scooping them up.