|
|
| Re: Mooch County USA (910761) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Mooch County USA |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sat Feb 18 22:19:08 2012, in response to Re: Mooch County USA, posted by dand124 on Sat Feb 18 21:12:43 2012. Why is that relevant? What matters isn’t the number of people in the income group it’s how the income groups votes. This thread isn’t about the number of rich people in red states.Because that eliminates the internal validity of the conclusion you've reached. There are many other explanations for the data as you've presented it because we don't have any information as to the number of people within each group. For example, perhaps the states with the smallest number of rich people who hold the most disproportionate fraction of the wealth are more inclined to vote Republican. They will skew the results without that skew being reflected in the presentation of data. There are other problems, but IMHO that's merely the most outstanding problem with this shoddy presentation of that data. Except he provided absolutely no evidence that the people receiving government benefits are the one voting republican. Oh please. If the NY Times had inserted a layer into that GIS to indicate the way a given county voted in 2008 you and the other fools would have claimed it showed an agenda. THIW. Thankfully you can also find the 2008 Electoral Results for each county on the NY Times site as well. It doesn't take much effort to see that relatively few of the counties which were even slightly 'won' by Obama in 2008 are very dependent upon federal assistance. Admittedly, there are exceptions, such as Menifee County, KY; Webster County, WV; and Wilcox and Perry counties in Alabama. But for every blue colored county on the electoral map which is identified as a problem on the map of federal subsidies, there are dozens of counties which were staunchly pro-McCain and where federal subsidies make up a percentage of all income which is equal or greater to the Democratically dominated areas. You’re either and idiot or intellectually dishonest I said in the post you were responding to that I posted that graphic for the map more than the graph but you chose to ignore that information. Because the maps themselves are intellectually dishonest without knowing the methodology by which he arrived at those conclusions. I also posted a link to the book with far more information just because information doesn’t exist online doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. If you feel it'd help your case you're more than welcome to quote at length from it, so long as you properly cite its usage. And while I hate playing the credential card the book and the graph created by a professor of Political science at Columbia. I don't care who it was created by. Without knowing the methodology behind it, the graphs and maps are completely worthless. The only person being intellectually dishonest around here is you. You thought you could stick a graph and some maps in to make your point for you, but not everyone is going to accept the tripe you're trying to sell. |
|
|
|