Politics and Religion

And , once again the ball flew over your head , try it with crayonsconfused_smile
quadseasonal 27 Reviews 246 reads
posted

I have a certain suspicion your repetitive smile is due to your continual blissful ignorance .  

   Your OP with the link you  found hilarious  was comprised of nothing more than incomplete statistical data . The author/blogger/gullible leader/ John Kierman   pulled his results  out of his imagination .

 My book recommendations in my reply to you were written  by  Andrew Gelman , he is a   professor of statistics and political science and director of the Applied Statistics Center at Columbia University.
  He can explain to you  how statistics can easily be manipulated .  
  Whether you want to learn how to avoid being bamboozled by false statistics , is entirely up to you .
   
  The first two lines of my reply to you were  as follows :
   Reading a few books on statistical analysis could change  your laughter to  a solemn view of reality .
I recommend Andrew Gelman for a starter .  http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/  

 The last lines of my reply to you were as follows :  Show me a book written by your source , John S Kiernan , I'll be patiently waiting  , laughing at your gullible nature , while  your crickets with no credibility are chirping misinformation .  

 The body of my post  was making a point about amateurish statistical  manipulation , unfortunately it  flew  over your head .  
 If you would attempt  to do more than merely watch the ball , you might  find yourself better at the game .  

 I don't believe in the Red State , Blue State divide other than it's a simplistic  way to show results on election night  ,  the rest of the time the  reality I see ,  the most Blue or Red state is actually a variation of purple .  
 
Red state Blue state comparisons are another ignorant Media tactic of dividing us by color .

  Take a red crayon and a blue crayon , cut them appropriately to fit the percentage election results in any State below . Approximation is OK , no matter  , you will end up with predominate purple States .
 A few of the States don't add up to 100% though  they are close enough for crayon lessons  .

Alabama
R Winner M. Romney 60.7 %
D B. Obama (i) 38.4%
I G. Johnson 0.6%
I J. Stein 0.2%
I V. Goode 0.1%

 
Alaska
R Winner M. Romney 55.3%
D B. Obama (i) 41.3%
L G. Johnson 2.5%
G J. Stein 1.0%

Arizona
R Winner M. Romney 54.2%
D B. Obama (i) 44.1%
L G. Johnson 1.4%
G J. Stein 0.3%

 
Arkansas
R Winner M. Romney 60.5%
D B. Obama (i) 36.9%
L G. Johnson 1.5%
G J. Stein 0.9%
O P. Lindsay 0.2%

 
California
D Winner B. Obama (i) 59.3%
R M. Romney 38.3%
L G. Johnson 1.1%
G J. Stein 0.6%
O R. Barr 0.4%

Colorado
D Winner B. Obama (i) 51.2%
R M. Romney 46.5%
L G. Johnson 1.3%
G J. Stein 0.3%
O V. Goode 0.2%

Connecticut
D Winner B. Obama (i) 58.4%
R M. Romney 40.4%
L G. Johnson 0.8%
O R. Anderson 0.4%

 
Delaware
D Winner B. Obama (i) 58.6%
R M. Romney 40.0%
L G. Johnson 0.9%
G J. Stein 0.5%

Florida
D Winner B. Obama (i) 50.0%
R M. Romney 49.1%
L G. Johnson 0.5%
G J. Stein 0.1%
O R. Barr 0.1%

 
Georgia
R Winner M. Romney 53.4%
D B. Obama (i) 45.4%
L G. Johnson 1.2%

 
Hawaii
D Winner B. Obama (i) 70.6%
R M. Romney 27.8%
L G. Johnson 0.9%
G J. Stein 0.7

Idaho
R Winner M. Romney 64.5%
D B. Obama (i) 32.6%
L G. Johnson 1.4%
I J. Stein 0.7%
I R. Anderson 0.4%

 
Illinois
D Winner B. Obama (i) 57.3%
R M. Romney 41.1%
L G. Johnson 1.1%
G J. Stein 0.6%

 
Indiana
R Winner M. Romney 54.3%
D B. Obama (i) 43.8%
L G. Johnson 1.9%

 
Iowa
D Winner B. Obama (i) 52.1%
R M. Romney 46.5%
L G. Johnson 0.8%
G J. Stein 0.2%
O V. Goode 0.2%

Kansas
R Winner M. Romney 60.0%
D B. Obama (i) 37.8%
L G. Johnson 1.8%
O C. Baldwin 0.4%

Kentucky
R Winner M. Romney 60.5%
D B. Obama (i) 37.8%
L G. Johnson 0.9%
I R. Terry 0.4%
G J. Stein 0.4%

Louisiana
R Winner M. Romney 57.8%
D B. Obama (i) 40.6%
L G. Johnson 0.9%
G J. Stein 0.4%
O V. Goode 0.1%

 
Maine
D Winner B. Obama (i) 56.0%
R M. Romney 40.9%
L G. Johnson 1.9%
G J. Stein 1.3%

Maryland
D Winner B. Obama (i) 61.7%
R M. Romney 36.6%
L G. Johnson 1.1%
G J. Stein 0.6%

 
Massachusetts
D Winner B. Obama (i) 60.8%
R M. Romney 37.6%
L G. Johnson 1.0%
G J. Stein 0.6%

 
Michigan
D Winner B. Obama (i) 54.3%
R M. Romney 44.8%
G J. Stein 0.4%
O V. Goode 0.4%
O R. Anderson 0.1%

 
Minnesota
D Winner B. Obama (i) 52.8%
R M. Romney 45.1%
L G. Johnson 1.2%
G J. Stein 0.4%
O V. Goode 0.1%

Mississippi
R Winner M. Romney 55.5%
D B. Obama (i) 43.5%
L G. Johnson 0.5%
O V. Goode 0.2%
G J. Stein 0.1%

Missouri
R Winner M. Romney 53.9%
D B. Obama (i) 44.3%
L G. Johnson 1.6% 43,029
O V. Goode 0.3% 7,914

Montana
R Winner M. Romney 55.3%
D B. Obama (i) 41.8%
L G. Johnson 2.9%

Nebraska
R Winner M. Romney 60.5%
D B. Obama (i) 37.8%
L G. Johnson 1.4%
O R. Terry 0.3%

Nevada
D Winner B. Obama (i) 52.3%
R M. Romney 45.7%
L G. Johnson 1.1%
O None of these 0.6%
O V. Goode 0.3%

New Hampshire
D Winner B. Obama (i) 52.2%
R M. Romney 46.4%
L G. Johnson 1.2%
O V. Goode 0.2%

New Jersey
D Winner B. Obama (i) 58.0%
R M. Romney 40.9%
L G. Johnson 0.6%
G J. Stein 0.3%
O V. Goode 0.1%

New Mexico
D Winner B. Obama (i) 52.9%
R M. Romney 43.0%
L G. Johnson 3.5%
G J. Stein 0.3%
O R. Anderson 0.1%

New York
D Winner B. Obama (i) 62.6%
R M. Romney 36.0%
L G. Johnson 0.7%
G J. Stein 0.6%
O V. Goode 0.1%

North Carolina
R Winner M. Romney 50.6%
D B. Obama (i) 48.4%
L G. Johnson 1.0%
North Dakota

R Winner M. Romney 58.7%
D B. Obama (i) 38.9%
L G. Johnson 1.6%
G J. Stein 0.4%
O V. Goode 0.4%

Ohio
D Winner B. Obama (i) 50.1%
R M. Romney 48.2%
L G. Johnson 0.9%
G J. Stein 0.3%
O R. Duncan 0.2%

 
Oklahoma
R Winner M. Romney 66.8%
D B. Obama (i) 33.2%

Oregon
D Winner B. Obama (i) 54.5%
R M. Romney 42.7%
L G. Johnson 1.3%
O J. Stein 1.1%
O W. Christensen 0.2%

Pennsylvania
D Winner B. Obama (i) 52.0%
R M. Romney 46.8%
L G. Johnson 0.9%
G J. Stein 0.4%

Rhode Island
D Winner B. Obama (i) 62.7%
R M. Romney 35.5%
L G. Johnson 1.0%
G J. Stein 0.5%
O      V. Goode 0.1%

South Carolina
R Winner M. Romney 54.6%
D B. Obama (i) 44.0%
L G. Johnson 0.8%
G J. Stein 0.3%
O V. Goode 0.2%

South Dakota
R Winner M. Romney 57.9%
D B. Obama (i) 39.9%
L G. Johnson 1.6%
O V. Goode 0.7%

Tennessee
R Winner M. Romney 59.5%
D B. Obama (i) 39.0%
I G. Johnson 0.8%
O V. Goode 0.3%
G J. Stein 0.3%

Texas
R Winner M. Romney 57.2%
D B. Obama (i) 41.4%
L G. Johnson 1.1%
G J. Stein 0.3%

Utah
R Winner M. Romney 72.8%
D B. Obama (i) 24.9%
L G. Johnson 1.2%
O R. Anderson 0.5%
G J. Stein 0.4%

Vermont
D Winner B. Obama (i) 67.0%
R M. Romney 31.2%
L G. Johnson 1.2%
O R. Anderson 0.4%
O P. Lindsay 0.2%

Virginia
D Winner B. Obama (i) 50.8%
R M. Romney 47.8%
L G. Johnson 0.8%
O V. Goode 0.4%
G J. Stein 0.2%

Washington
D Winner B. Obama (i) 55.8%
R M. Romney 41.7%
L G. Johnson 1.3%
G J. Stein 0.6%
O V. Goode 0.3%

 
West Virginia
R Winner M. Romney 62.3%
D B. Obama (i) 35.5%
L G. Johnson 0.9%
O J. Stein 0.7%
O R. Terry 0.6%

Wisconsin
D Winner B. Obama (i) 52.8%
R M. Romney 46.1%
L G. Johnson 0.7%
G J. Stein 0.2%
O V. Goode 0.2%

 
Wyoming
R Winner M. Romney 69.3%
D B. Obama (i) 28.0%
L G. Johnson 2.2%
O V. Goode 0.6% "

http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/President/2012/

If it wasn't for the blue states, then most of 'Murica would be a third world hell hole.

Reading a few books on statistical analysis could change  your laughter to  a solemn view of reality .
I recommend Andrew Gelman for a starter .  http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/

“Most of the 10 poorest states are Republican” is a quote of CNN’s Jack Cafferty. It appeared in his “Cafferty File”  

"Let’s examine the 10 poorest states to see if Republicans are to blame for their relative economic standing.

"The poorest states, based on per capita income, are, from first to last: Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia, Louisiana, Montana, South Carolina, Kentucky, Alabama, and North Carolina. Of these, exactly half—Arkansas, Kentucky, Montana, North Carolina, and West Virginia—have Democratic governors and three have Democratic majorities in the lower house of their legislature, so these state governments can hardly be classified as completely Republican. On the other hand, only North Carolina voted for Obama in 2008, so in that sense, these states may be leaning Republican.

Looking at the list of the 10 poorest states, all except Montana are east of (or border on) the Mississippi River. That means they are older states. Those nine also happen to be concentrated in the South. This is significant: They were all slaveholding states. They focused on producing commodities, whereas the northern states produced more value-added goods, more manufactured goods, more capital-intensive goods. Combined with national policies that conferred economic advantages on the relatively industrialized, higher capitalized North—policies that created some of the friction that led to the Civil War—the South’s economic development lagged.

As is common in societies based on producing raw commodities, the Old South had an elite that owned the land and employed a poorly educated workforce to plant, tend, and harvest the crops. Historically, then, education was of less importance, and therefore emphasized less, in the South than in the North—a trend that contributed ongoing economic advantages to the North.

After the Civil War, Republican carpetbaggers from the North kicked around the defeated South, further widening the economic gap between the two regions. One political consequence was that the Deep South was monolithically Democratic for the next century. Only in the last generation, when the secular counterculture took over the Democratic Party, did many Southerners finally bury the distant past and register as Republicans.
As for Montana, whose people elect Democrats and Republicans to statewide office with almost equal frequency, its economic status has a geographical cause. Montana is remote and its climate is harsh; consequently, it has never attracted enough people to achieve an economic “critical mass” to advance much beyond the commodity-related businesses of farming, ranching, and mining. That is why it has lagged economically—not because of anything Republicans have done.

Another common mistake in economic analysis, seen often, for example, in the (irrational) rationale that liberals use when resisting cuts in marginal tax rates, is to adopt a static rather than dynamic view—to see life and economic conditions in terms of snapshots rather than as a motion picture. In the politically motivated attempt to blame Republicans for the lower incomes in the 10 poorest states, CNN’s Cafferty and Democrats have taken one snapshot—of the census’ income statistics—and combined it with another snapshot—of current political leanings—to create the impression that Republican policies make America poorer.

The more important factor is not the economic ranking of states at a point in time, but the overall trends. An important article by John Merline compared the economic performance of blue states and red states during the presidency of Barack Obama. The trend of economic indicators clearly favors Republican states. Democratic states have experienced lower growth in both jobs and income in the last few years. Home prices have fallen further in blue states, and their unemployment rates are higher. In other words, a dynamic economic analysis of the states casts a far more favorable light on Republican states than static analysis. Since real life is dynamic, not static, Republicans can make the stronger case about which party is best suited to lead the way to greater prosperity.

The most fundamental difference between the data that conservatives prefer—that the 10 poorest cities are longtime Democratic strongholds—and the data that liberals will be more inclined to cite—that the 10 poorest states are predominantly Republican, is that conservatives can point to actual policies that Democrats implemented that contributed to the impoverishment of the cities, while the liberals cannot point to specific GOP policies that have caused the poorer states to lag behind.

The Democratic case is illusory and circumstantial; the Republican case is solid and substantial. However, in a country where so many people are economically and historically illiterate, combined with the human proclivity whereby “a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest” (Paul Simon, “The Boxer”), the Democrats may be able to score some points with a hollow argument. The Republicans, though, have the facts on their side. "
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2012/06/07/are-the-10-poorest-u-s-states-really-republican/
 
   
Show me a book written by your source , John S Kiernan , I'll be patiently waiting  , laughing at your gullible nature , while  your crickets with no credibility are chirping misinformation

The information I posted was not about which were the richest vs. poorest states, but rather which were the most dependent on the federal government. Hmmm! And, how the red states, are where their politicians are more likely to talk about anti-takers.

And who is this Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson whom you refer to and quote?

At the end of his article it says he "is an adjunct faculty member, economist, and fellow for economic and social policy with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College." Hmmm! Sounds like outstanding and unquestionable credentials. NOT! And, where are his numbers? Oh, that's right, he's just picking and choosing information or opinions that support his OPINION!

Yes, you are correct! One can use statistical analysis to paint a picture that is less than accurate. However, disqualifying information solely in that, doesn't invalidate it. You must be will enough versed in the method and the data to analysis and criticize specific points where they are in error.

The simplify this for you, you tried to switch balls, and then demean me for being gullible. The ball introduced was 'the most dependent states on the federal government.' The ball you introduced was 'the poorest vs. the richest states.  NICE TRY!   ;)

I have a certain suspicion your repetitive smile is due to your continual blissful ignorance .  

   Your OP with the link you  found hilarious  was comprised of nothing more than incomplete statistical data . The author/blogger/gullible leader/ John Kierman   pulled his results  out of his imagination .

 My book recommendations in my reply to you were written  by  Andrew Gelman , he is a   professor of statistics and political science and director of the Applied Statistics Center at Columbia University.
  He can explain to you  how statistics can easily be manipulated .  
  Whether you want to learn how to avoid being bamboozled by false statistics , is entirely up to you .
   
  The first two lines of my reply to you were  as follows :
   Reading a few books on statistical analysis could change  your laughter to  a solemn view of reality .
I recommend Andrew Gelman for a starter .  http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/  

 The last lines of my reply to you were as follows :  Show me a book written by your source , John S Kiernan , I'll be patiently waiting  , laughing at your gullible nature , while  your crickets with no credibility are chirping misinformation .  

 The body of my post  was making a point about amateurish statistical  manipulation , unfortunately it  flew  over your head .  
 If you would attempt  to do more than merely watch the ball , you might  find yourself better at the game .  

 I don't believe in the Red State , Blue State divide other than it's a simplistic  way to show results on election night  ,  the rest of the time the  reality I see ,  the most Blue or Red state is actually a variation of purple .  
 
Red state Blue state comparisons are another ignorant Media tactic of dividing us by color .

  Take a red crayon and a blue crayon , cut them appropriately to fit the percentage election results in any State below . Approximation is OK , no matter  , you will end up with predominate purple States .
 A few of the States don't add up to 100% though  they are close enough for crayon lessons  .

Alabama
R Winner M. Romney 60.7 %
D B. Obama (i) 38.4%
I G. Johnson 0.6%
I J. Stein 0.2%
I V. Goode 0.1%

 
Alaska
R Winner M. Romney 55.3%
D B. Obama (i) 41.3%
L G. Johnson 2.5%
G J. Stein 1.0%

Arizona
R Winner M. Romney 54.2%
D B. Obama (i) 44.1%
L G. Johnson 1.4%
G J. Stein 0.3%

 
Arkansas
R Winner M. Romney 60.5%
D B. Obama (i) 36.9%
L G. Johnson 1.5%
G J. Stein 0.9%
O P. Lindsay 0.2%

 
California
D Winner B. Obama (i) 59.3%
R M. Romney 38.3%
L G. Johnson 1.1%
G J. Stein 0.6%
O R. Barr 0.4%

Colorado
D Winner B. Obama (i) 51.2%
R M. Romney 46.5%
L G. Johnson 1.3%
G J. Stein 0.3%
O V. Goode 0.2%

Connecticut
D Winner B. Obama (i) 58.4%
R M. Romney 40.4%
L G. Johnson 0.8%
O R. Anderson 0.4%

 
Delaware
D Winner B. Obama (i) 58.6%
R M. Romney 40.0%
L G. Johnson 0.9%
G J. Stein 0.5%

Florida
D Winner B. Obama (i) 50.0%
R M. Romney 49.1%
L G. Johnson 0.5%
G J. Stein 0.1%
O R. Barr 0.1%

 
Georgia
R Winner M. Romney 53.4%
D B. Obama (i) 45.4%
L G. Johnson 1.2%

 
Hawaii
D Winner B. Obama (i) 70.6%
R M. Romney 27.8%
L G. Johnson 0.9%
G J. Stein 0.7

Idaho
R Winner M. Romney 64.5%
D B. Obama (i) 32.6%
L G. Johnson 1.4%
I J. Stein 0.7%
I R. Anderson 0.4%

 
Illinois
D Winner B. Obama (i) 57.3%
R M. Romney 41.1%
L G. Johnson 1.1%
G J. Stein 0.6%

 
Indiana
R Winner M. Romney 54.3%
D B. Obama (i) 43.8%
L G. Johnson 1.9%

 
Iowa
D Winner B. Obama (i) 52.1%
R M. Romney 46.5%
L G. Johnson 0.8%
G J. Stein 0.2%
O V. Goode 0.2%

Kansas
R Winner M. Romney 60.0%
D B. Obama (i) 37.8%
L G. Johnson 1.8%
O C. Baldwin 0.4%

Kentucky
R Winner M. Romney 60.5%
D B. Obama (i) 37.8%
L G. Johnson 0.9%
I R. Terry 0.4%
G J. Stein 0.4%

Louisiana
R Winner M. Romney 57.8%
D B. Obama (i) 40.6%
L G. Johnson 0.9%
G J. Stein 0.4%
O V. Goode 0.1%

 
Maine
D Winner B. Obama (i) 56.0%
R M. Romney 40.9%
L G. Johnson 1.9%
G J. Stein 1.3%

Maryland
D Winner B. Obama (i) 61.7%
R M. Romney 36.6%
L G. Johnson 1.1%
G J. Stein 0.6%

 
Massachusetts
D Winner B. Obama (i) 60.8%
R M. Romney 37.6%
L G. Johnson 1.0%
G J. Stein 0.6%

 
Michigan
D Winner B. Obama (i) 54.3%
R M. Romney 44.8%
G J. Stein 0.4%
O V. Goode 0.4%
O R. Anderson 0.1%

 
Minnesota
D Winner B. Obama (i) 52.8%
R M. Romney 45.1%
L G. Johnson 1.2%
G J. Stein 0.4%
O V. Goode 0.1%

Mississippi
R Winner M. Romney 55.5%
D B. Obama (i) 43.5%
L G. Johnson 0.5%
O V. Goode 0.2%
G J. Stein 0.1%

Missouri
R Winner M. Romney 53.9%
D B. Obama (i) 44.3%
L G. Johnson 1.6% 43,029
O V. Goode 0.3% 7,914

Montana
R Winner M. Romney 55.3%
D B. Obama (i) 41.8%
L G. Johnson 2.9%

Nebraska
R Winner M. Romney 60.5%
D B. Obama (i) 37.8%
L G. Johnson 1.4%
O R. Terry 0.3%

Nevada
D Winner B. Obama (i) 52.3%
R M. Romney 45.7%
L G. Johnson 1.1%
O None of these 0.6%
O V. Goode 0.3%

New Hampshire
D Winner B. Obama (i) 52.2%
R M. Romney 46.4%
L G. Johnson 1.2%
O V. Goode 0.2%

New Jersey
D Winner B. Obama (i) 58.0%
R M. Romney 40.9%
L G. Johnson 0.6%
G J. Stein 0.3%
O V. Goode 0.1%

New Mexico
D Winner B. Obama (i) 52.9%
R M. Romney 43.0%
L G. Johnson 3.5%
G J. Stein 0.3%
O R. Anderson 0.1%

New York
D Winner B. Obama (i) 62.6%
R M. Romney 36.0%
L G. Johnson 0.7%
G J. Stein 0.6%
O V. Goode 0.1%

North Carolina
R Winner M. Romney 50.6%
D B. Obama (i) 48.4%
L G. Johnson 1.0%
North Dakota

R Winner M. Romney 58.7%
D B. Obama (i) 38.9%
L G. Johnson 1.6%
G J. Stein 0.4%
O V. Goode 0.4%

Ohio
D Winner B. Obama (i) 50.1%
R M. Romney 48.2%
L G. Johnson 0.9%
G J. Stein 0.3%
O R. Duncan 0.2%

 
Oklahoma
R Winner M. Romney 66.8%
D B. Obama (i) 33.2%

Oregon
D Winner B. Obama (i) 54.5%
R M. Romney 42.7%
L G. Johnson 1.3%
O J. Stein 1.1%
O W. Christensen 0.2%

Pennsylvania
D Winner B. Obama (i) 52.0%
R M. Romney 46.8%
L G. Johnson 0.9%
G J. Stein 0.4%

Rhode Island
D Winner B. Obama (i) 62.7%
R M. Romney 35.5%
L G. Johnson 1.0%
G J. Stein 0.5%
O      V. Goode 0.1%

South Carolina
R Winner M. Romney 54.6%
D B. Obama (i) 44.0%
L G. Johnson 0.8%
G J. Stein 0.3%
O V. Goode 0.2%

South Dakota
R Winner M. Romney 57.9%
D B. Obama (i) 39.9%
L G. Johnson 1.6%
O V. Goode 0.7%

Tennessee
R Winner M. Romney 59.5%
D B. Obama (i) 39.0%
I G. Johnson 0.8%
O V. Goode 0.3%
G J. Stein 0.3%

Texas
R Winner M. Romney 57.2%
D B. Obama (i) 41.4%
L G. Johnson 1.1%
G J. Stein 0.3%

Utah
R Winner M. Romney 72.8%
D B. Obama (i) 24.9%
L G. Johnson 1.2%
O R. Anderson 0.5%
G J. Stein 0.4%

Vermont
D Winner B. Obama (i) 67.0%
R M. Romney 31.2%
L G. Johnson 1.2%
O R. Anderson 0.4%
O P. Lindsay 0.2%

Virginia
D Winner B. Obama (i) 50.8%
R M. Romney 47.8%
L G. Johnson 0.8%
O V. Goode 0.4%
G J. Stein 0.2%

Washington
D Winner B. Obama (i) 55.8%
R M. Romney 41.7%
L G. Johnson 1.3%
G J. Stein 0.6%
O V. Goode 0.3%

 
West Virginia
R Winner M. Romney 62.3%
D B. Obama (i) 35.5%
L G. Johnson 0.9%
O J. Stein 0.7%
O R. Terry 0.6%

Wisconsin
D Winner B. Obama (i) 52.8%
R M. Romney 46.1%
L G. Johnson 0.7%
G J. Stein 0.2%
O V. Goode 0.2%

 
Wyoming
R Winner M. Romney 69.3%
D B. Obama (i) 28.0%
L G. Johnson 2.2%
O V. Goode 0.6% "

http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/President/2012/

"The body of my post  was making a point about amateurish statistical  manipulation..."

And, I said: "Yes, you are correct! One can use statistical analysis to paint a picture that is less than accurate. However, disqualifying information solely on that, doesn't invalidate it. You must be well enough versed in the method and the data to analysis and criticize specific points where they are in error."

You still have not done so! Don't bother to respond until you do!  ;)

Posted By: mattradd
"The body of my post  was making a point about amateurish statistical  manipulation..."  
   
 And, I said: "Yes, you are correct! One can use statistical analysis to paint a picture that is less than accurate. However, disqualifying information solely on that, doesn't invalidate it. You must be well enough versed in the method and the data to analysis and criticize specific points where they are in error."  
   
 You still have not done so! Don't bother to respond until you do!  ;)  
 

Most gullible people will usually automatically believe  a source that agrees with their point of view , without any  documentation .  

 Most obvious error in your OP  , your link author showed no proof or reference source to  his misleading  deductions .
  If you would like to rent  a tutor I accept pay pal . I'm not going to continue teaching  you for free , definitely  not anymore tonight  , though I won't refrain from correcting you in the future when your links are  blatantly wrong .
  Like I said in the opening of my original reply to you, reading a few books on statistical analysis could change  your laughter in your OP to  a solemn view of reality .
I recommended  Andrew Gelman for a starter .  http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/  
 
    If you can't extrapolate what  I'm trying to explain to you below , don't expect your tutoring  to be
   inexpensive .
 
  My results  showing you a point you might continue to miss , are  in the  link below .
  http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/President/2012/
 Go to results by state , all  counties are listed .
   
  I'm not going to show you the  list of more than  3000 counties and their average  income .
I gave you the link to all  county's  voting records in the politico link above . That's half of your work already done for you .  
 A student without  homework will usually be a slow learner  .  

 

The 15 poorest counties in America

1    Ziebach South Dakota  Obama 57%                        Romney won South Dakota  

2    Todd South Dakota  Obama 79%

3    Shannon South Dakota  Obama 93%

4    Issaquena Mississippi  Obama 61%                          Romney won Mississippi  

5    Holmes Mississippi  Obama 84%

6    Washington County Mississippi  Obama 71%

7   Sioux County  North Dakota  Obama 79%                Romney won North Dakota  

8   Holmes Mississippi  Obama 84%

9   Corson South Dakota  Obama 54%

10  Allendale  South Carolina  78% Obama                  Romney won South Carolina  

11  Lake County Tennessee  Romney 55%               *  Romney won Tennessee  

12  East Carrol Parrish, Louisiana  66% Obama            Romney won Louisiana  

13  Owsley county  KentuckyY 80 % Romney           *  Romney won Kentucky  

14  Maverick  Texas 78% Obama                               Romney won Texas  

15 - Wilcox County  Alabama 74% Obama                 Romney won Alabama  
 

Posted By: mattradd
"The body of my post  was making a point about amateurish statistical  manipulation..."  
   
 And, I said: "Yes, you are correct! One can use statistical analysis to paint a picture that is less than accurate. However, disqualifying information solely on that, doesn't invalidate it. You must be well enough versed in the method and the data to analysis and criticize specific points where they are in error."  
   
 You still have not done so! Don't bother to respond until you do!  ;)  
 

GaGambler316 reads

"Figures don't lie, but liars figure" you have done a pretty good job of pointing out that you can make numbers pretty much prove anything that you want. It reminds me a bit of the dems constant accusations about gerryandering districts, there are a finite number of people in this country, if you have an overwhelming majority, it won't matter how you divvy them up, you will still have an overwhelming majority. Stupid people seem to believe that smart people are capable of doing things that simply can't be done, like taking a minority and by redistricting that minority, come up with a majority. If you hadn't noticed only the truly stupid here seem to be trying to sell that bullshit.

That probably explains your comment: "I don't believe in the Red State , Blue State divide other than it's a simplistic  way to show results on election night  ,  the rest of the time the  reality I see ,  the most Blue or Red state is actually a variation of purple."  

Here's a little something to help you out on that concept.

Oh, and what does Erick Erickson call his blog. Oh, right; Red State! I guess someone believes in Red States!  ;)

Thinking people however know your little yarn ball is a pile of shit!!

Posted By: mattradd
Talk about Republican hypocrisy!   ;)
This yarn ball doesn't seem to realize that individuals pay income tax, states don't!  
So just because a small numbers of "Rich white old Republicans" pay tons of taxes and live in blue states, its assumed those are "blue $$"!! And of course the inverse can be true on the expense side. No where does it say that it's Republicans recieving those dollars!!!

How is THAT hypocritical?

Yup, dumb as dirt.  

I find this hilarious too!!!

And, try breathing while you're doing so! Perhaps, you be less apt to miss the point!   ;)

Sloppy attempt at dodging the point.

Maybe something sticky in your keyboard??? Lmao

Posted By: mattradd
And, try breathing while you're doing so! Perhaps, you be less apt to miss the point!   ;)

I was too busy laughing my ass off at your idiotic post!!!

garbage in, garbage out!:)

Posted By: mattradd
Come on, you can do better than that!  ;)

Can't take responsibility for his own behavior, but blames everyone else!  Good luck with that!  ;)

Register Now!