The GOP's Worst Nightmare - Page 5

Oerdin · February 7, 2004, 00:44

Reagon did the same thing Bush is currently doing. He massively increased deficit spending then tried to scapegoat Congress.

Anyone would be better then shrub.

Ben Kenobi · February 7, 2004, 00:44

Spiffor:

That's a good point. If you don't take that approach then you need to increase your error bars.

CharlesBHoff · February 7, 2004, 00:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor

It is easy to lie with stats, whatever the size of the sample. You can even lie with stats encompassing the whole population (such as election results). The key to lie with stats is to provide a faulty interpretation of the results, it doesn't lie in the results themselves.

Samples of 1000 - 2000 people are enough to measure societal trends when they are well done, because it has been often proven that larger samples repeat the same patterns. You can get a better accuracy with a higher sample (read: a smaller error margin), but that's it. General trends remain the same. The margin of error of a poll with 1000 people is about 3%. You need 4 times more people to halve the error margin. 4000 people make sense. 16000 people only in specialized polls. More than that is stupid.

In your example, royal flush would be deemed statistically insignificant, and as such, its complete absence from the results wouldn't make the trends any less true.

The only reason why you'd want to have a big sample is when you have many variables, and you want to analyze each of them with high accuracy.
For example, if you're polling on European politics, you only need a 1000 sample over Europe. However, if you want to analyze the differences per country, you need 1000 questionees per country (that's 15000 already). If you want to analyze the opinions of people based on their nationality AND their social class, you need a sample of 1000 per social class within each country. If you kept to the original 100 across Europe, to back you analysis of "what do wealthy Belgians think of Europe", you could only rely on very little amount (maybe 5 or 10) of wealthy Belgians questioned. Such a minuscule sample has virtually no relevance whatsoever.

Have you ever play pokar you would know that the Royal Flush it the best hand to have as it beat every other hands except than other Royal Flush, two royal flush are than tie.

asleepathewheel · February 7, 2004, 01:07

Quote:

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff
Have you ever play pokar you would know that the Royal Flush it the best hand to have as it beat every other hands except than other Royal Flush, two royal flush are than tie.

Spiffor did an apt job of explaining your error.

My only point here is to use this:

Spiffor · February 7, 2004, 09:04

Quote:

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff
Have you ever play pokar you would know that the Royal Flush it the best hand to have as it beat every other hands except than other Royal Flush, two royal flush are than tie.

Yes, and since it happens once in every 300,000 games (or so you say), it is statistically insignificant when compared to the 299,999 other games when they don't happen. There is no need to look for royal flushes if they affect a poker game so mindboggingly rarely

CharlesBHoff · February 7, 2004, 13:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor

Yes, and since it happens once in every 300,000 games (or so you say), it is statistically insignificant when compared to the 299,999 other games when they don't happen. There is no need to look for royal flushes if they affect a poker game so mindboggingly rarely

That why if they are going to do DNA testing of people they need to look at entire DNA not just 7 little pieces of it. Let say there are two square with 1 billion little square of different colors in each one, to test if both big square are the same you needed to compare each little squares in each big square to each other to say they are the same, you just cannot pick 7 squares in each one and compare those seven square only.

JimmyCracksCorn · February 7, 2004, 13:22

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick

Sure, you folks think Kerry has a chance. I think he better hold on to his senate seat.

You obviously haven't seen Kerry in action before... he's a master. He's won many elections that no one ever thought he would, like when he beat Weld for his senate seat.

Plus, Kerry is a seasoned statesman, he knows exactly what he's doing and he is very very very deliberate. If he wins I don't think there will ever be such a thing as a "Kerryism", he's just too damn smart for that, and he's too damn smart for a potential Bush-Kerry election to be anything but close, if not a landslide for Kerry.

Just wait.

Ned · February 7, 2004, 13:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
Reagon did the same thing Bush is currently doing. He massively increased deficit spending then tried to scapegoat Congress.

Anyone would be better then shrub.

No, Reagan massively cut taxes and ignited the longest sustained period of economic growth in US history -- until Bush raised taxes and caused a mild recession!

Oerdin, I thought you were a sensible person.

Ned · February 7, 2004, 13:30

Quote:

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn

You obviously haven't seen Kerry in action before... he's a master. He's won many elections that no one ever thought he would, like when he beat Weld for his senate seat.

Plus, Kerry is a seasoned statesman, he knows exactly what he's doing and he is very very very deliberate. If he wins I don't think there will ever be such a thing as a "Kerryism", he's just too damn smart for that, and he's too damn smart for a potential Bush-Kerry election to be anything but close, if not a landslide for Kerry.

Just wait.

Kerry does seem smooth. However, he also seems to be the most corrupt Senator on the Hill.

We shall see whether THIS time people will vote for a person of known corruption problems. If California is any example, people are sick and tired of corrupt politicians.

The Templar · February 7, 2004, 13:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned

Kerry does seem smooth. However, he also seems to be the most corrupt Senator on the Hill.

That honor actually goes to either Breaux (D-La) or Cornyn (R-Tx).

Ned · February 7, 2004, 14:20

Quote:

Originally posted by The Templar

That honor actually goes to either Breaux (D-La) or Cornyn (R-Tx).

Perhaps. But when it appears that Kerry rakes in more special interest money than anyone else, I give him the prize.

Special interests are not stupid, after all.

The Templar · February 7, 2004, 14:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned

Perhaps. But when it appears that Kerry rakes in more special interest money than anyone else, I give him the prize.

Special interests are not stupid, after all.

What you are saying then is that Kerry is more expensive for special interests to hire. (BTW, I hate the phrase 'special interest' - which interests?)

The petrochem and sugar industries get alot of bang for the buck out of Breaux.

Cornyn is just a nut. All the nonsense he pulled in Tx as attorney general - let industry pollute at will, but don't get caught being black in Tulia ...

By comparison, Kerry is a very inefficient means of getting special legislation.

Ned · February 7, 2004, 14:58

The Templar, well, maybe you are right.

Kerry's effort to become president seems linked with ambition to become extremely rich.

Bosh · February 8, 2004, 09:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
Reagon did the same thing Bush is currently doing. He massively increased deficit spending then tried to scapegoat Congress.

Anyone would be better then shrub.

Bush will have a lot harder time getting away with this since his own party controls congress, which wasn't the case back under Reagan.

Quote:

No, Reagan massively cut taxes and ignited the longest sustained period of economic growth in US history

Ned · February 8, 2004, 10:25

Boshko, apparently you are in denial while Oerdin appears mainly to be uniformed.

NeOmega · February 8, 2004, 12:15

I am very much so on the fence. My heart says Kerry, and I want to believe he is trustworthy, but my mind says Libertarian, because of Kerry's voting record.

I really dislike Dubya.... I am just not convinced when Kerry is president I will have one day where I will be like "YES! I sure am glad I voted for him!"

OzzyKP · February 8, 2004, 12:49

Don't do it. Vote Libertarian!

Spiffor · February 8, 2004, 13:00

As much as I oppose libertarianism, I'd say vote Libertarian, if only to give more credence to a third party. Because your country really needs meaningful third parties

OzzyKP · February 8, 2004, 15:09

Agreed. I was trying to convince my liberal friends to vote Green back in 2000. Anyone other than the dumb ol' Dems and Reps.

Boris Godunov · February 8, 2004, 15:22

Quote:

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Agreed. I was trying to convince my liberal friends to vote Green back in 2000. Anyone other than the dumb ol' Dems and Reps.

You got the result you were after then. Ain't it just grand?

CharlesBHoff · February 9, 2004, 17:22

Regan was hopeing after his massive tax cut to cut all social senting which he was unable to do. Talking about welfare what about cutting corporate welfare than all those government free money hand out to corporate america.

Berzerker · February 9, 2004, 18:36

Quote:

Hopefully Bush will lose by a narrow margin and then the Bushies will give you Libs hell like the dems gave the greenies.

We get blamed everytime a Repub loses a close match, last time was in S Dakota against Daschle (or was it against Conrad?). And I can only smile when it does happen, if the libs lend themselves to pressuring the GOP to put up more conservative candidates, then that's better for us than if the election was between 2 liberal or moderate Dems/Repubs.

Sava · February 9, 2004, 18:41

Quote:

I love how leftists say they like McCain. Some are consistant in realizing McCain is a BIG conservative, the others have no clue, but thinks he sounds good because the media told them so

I like McCain because he's honest... and sincere about getting big money out of politics. I disagree with a lot of his politics... but he's one of the few good guys out there.

Quote:

Regan was hopeing after his massive tax cut to cut all social senting which he was unable to do. Talking about welfare what about cutting corporate welfare than all those government free money hand out to corporate america.

absolutely... if we cut out corporate welfare and scaled back the top echelon tax cuts, we would be running budget surpluses. Personally, I find it hypocritical that many of the right-wingers and self-proclaimed capitalists decry the BIG BAD GOVERNMENT infering with business. But yet, are strangly silent when talk about corporate welfare comes up. Are they afraid that business can't survive without being subsidized by the government?

Berzerker · February 9, 2004, 19:02

Sava, you'll find these so-called right wing capitalists are Republicans first and foremost, not right wing capitalists, i.e., look at what they practice, not what they preach. And it is amusing to see you describe a right wing capitalist as someone who should reject subsidised corporatism when you also claim Hitler and the Nazis, who practiced subsidised corporatism, were right wing capitalists.

You'll find even the liberals in Congress subsidising corporations...

Odin · February 9, 2004, 22:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
Sava, you'll find these so-called right wing capitalists are Republicans first and foremost, not right wing capitalists, i.e., look at what they practice, not what they preach. And it is amusing to see you describe a right wing capitalist as someone who should reject subsidised corporatism when you also claim Hitler and the Nazis, who practiced subsidised corporatism, were right wing capitalists.

You'll find even the liberals in Congress subsidising corporations...

Holy sh*t! Berz and I agree on something!

Odin · February 9, 2004, 22:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker

We get blamed everytime a Repub loses a close match, last time was in S Dakota against Daschle (or was it against Conrad?). And I can only smile when it does happen, if the libs lend themselves to pressuring the GOP to put up more conservative candidates, then that's better for us than if the election was between 2 liberal or moderate Dems/Repubs.

Conrad is from North Dakota.

CharlesBHoff · February 11, 2004, 20:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
I like McCain because he's honest... and sincere about getting big money out of politics. I disagree with a lot of his politics... but he's one of the few good guys out there.

absolutely... if we cut out corporate welfare and scaled back the top echelon tax cuts, we would be running budget surpluses. Personally, I find it hypocritical that many of the right-wingers and self-proclaimed capitalists decry the BIG BAD GOVERNMENT infering with business. But yet, are strangly silent when talk about corporate welfare comes up. Are they afraid that business can't survive without being subsidized by the government?

The Reason Japon, Germany and France have a better Railroad system than America have is the Railroad Track is own by the center government built and maintrain by the centeral government, the railroad pay than useager fee to the government. There is one government run railroad company which run the hight speed train service.

The hight cost of layering and maintrain railroad track in america is killing the railroad companies. Car manufactories donot have to pay money to built their own hightway and roads or maintrain them.

Berzerker · February 11, 2004, 21:07

My apologies, it looks like Bush didn't run off for a year or more during his stint in the Nat'l Guard.

debeest · February 11, 2004, 21:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned

Perhaps. But when it appears that Kerry rakes in more special interest money than anyone else, I give him the prize.

Nobody comes anywhere near raking in the kind of special interest money that Shrub does. Are you conceding him the corruption championship?

debeest · February 11, 2004, 21:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
My apologies, it looks like Bush didn't run off for a year or more during his stint in the Nat'l Guard.

Yep, looks like he might only have been AWOL for as little as six months, unless the same strings that got him into the Air Guard and got him out early also got him paystubs for when he was out working on political campaigns and snorting coke.