Election 2016

Engage in discussions about news, politics, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
McParadigm
NEVER STOP JAMMING!
Posts: 22393
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 1:56 am

Re: Election 2016

Post by McParadigm »

The conclusion drawn here may or may not be right, but the article is a pretty great example of how you can misrepresent statistics to people who don't read them for themselves. For example:
Exit polls conducted in two dozen primary and caucus states from early February through the end of April reveal only modest evidence of ideological structure in Democratic voting patterns, but ample evidence of the importance of group loyalties
In the CNN polls, Sanders consistently performs higher among people who say that income inequality is the biggest problem (he does well among health care reform voters as well), and consistently wins among people who say the next president needs to be more liberal than President Obama. "Modest" is an interpretation masking itself as descriptive, and pretty presumptive given the mostly demographic data here.
More detailed evidence casts further doubt on the notion that support for Mr. Sanders reflects a shift to the left in the policy preferences of Democrats. In a survey conducted for the American National Election Studies in late January, supporters of Mr. Sanders were more pessimistic than Mrs. Clinton’s supporters about “opportunity in America today for the average person to get ahead” and more likely to say that economic inequality had increased.
The sampling size was atrociously small here (1,200 people). Further, the survey was over 30 pages long. Surveys are notorious for producing less and less accurate responses the longer they go on. Why and how longer surveys affect the accuracy of people's responses is an interesting topic to explore, but the effect itself is well documented. It's inappropriate at best to try and draw or support a conclusion using this piece, unless it happens to be citation number 15 in a long list of identically performing indicators.
(patriotic choking noises)
User avatar
McParadigm
NEVER STOP JAMMING!
Posts: 22393
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 1:56 am

Re: Election 2016

Post by McParadigm »

Wait, were those the only polls given as evidence? I scanned for more and might have missed something.
(patriotic choking noises)
User avatar
4/5
See you in another life, brother
Posts: 6989
Joined: Thu December 20, 2012 4:45 pm

Re: Election 2016

Post by 4/5 »

How is 1,200 a atrociously small sample size? 1,200 is a scientifically valid sample size and larger than necessary, really.
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle

User avatar
4/5
See you in another life, brother
Posts: 6989
Joined: Thu December 20, 2012 4:45 pm

Re: Election 2016

Post by 4/5 »

McParadigm wrote:Wait, were those the only polls given as evidence? I scanned for more and might have missed something.
Exit polls conducted in two dozen primary and caucus states from early February through the end of April reveal only modest evidence of ideological structure in Democratic voting patterns, but ample evidence of the importance of group loyalties
Here is the link to those polls.
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle

User avatar
McParadigm
NEVER STOP JAMMING!
Posts: 22393
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 1:56 am

Re: Election 2016

Post by McParadigm »

4/5 wrote:How is 1,200 a atrociously small sample size? 1,200 is a scientifically valid sample size and larger than necessary, really.
Depends on how homogeneous you believe your population to be. One of the reasons opinion polls have demonstrated increasing inaccuracy in recent years is their adherence to approaches built on a historical foundation of assumed homogeny within certain groupings.

And again, there is the observed (and somewhat compounding) reduced correlation between people's responses and their actual behaviors, the longer a survey goes on. Any poll this long deserves its grain of salt.

And again, I'm not debating the premise. I'm not sure I even have an opinion on that at this time. I just find the linked supports insufficient for such broad statements.
Last edited by McParadigm on Wed May 25, 2016 4:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
(patriotic choking noises)
User avatar
McParadigm
NEVER STOP JAMMING!
Posts: 22393
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 1:56 am

Re: Election 2016

Post by McParadigm »

4/5 wrote:
McParadigm wrote:Wait, were those the only polls given as evidence? I scanned for more and might have missed something.
Exit polls conducted in two dozen primary and caucus states from early February through the end of April reveal only modest evidence of ideological structure in Democratic voting patterns, but ample evidence of the importance of group loyalties
Here is the link to those polls.
Already commented upon
(patriotic choking noises)
User avatar
4/5
See you in another life, brother
Posts: 6989
Joined: Thu December 20, 2012 4:45 pm

Re: Election 2016

Post by 4/5 »

*an atrociously....


sigh
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle

User avatar
4/5
See you in another life, brother
Posts: 6989
Joined: Thu December 20, 2012 4:45 pm

Re: Election 2016

Post by 4/5 »

McParadigm wrote:
4/5 wrote:How is 1,200 a atrociously small sample size? 1,200 is a scientifically valid sample size and larger than necessary, really.
Depends on how homogeneous you believe your population to be. One of the reasons opinion polls have demonstrated increasing inaccuracy in recent years is their adherence to approaches built on a historical foundation of assumed homogeny within certain groupings.

And again, there is the observed (and somewhat compounding) reduced correlation between people's responses and their actual behaviors, the longer a survey goes on. Any poll this long deserves its grain of salt.

And again, I'm not debating the premise. I'm not sure I even have an opinion on that at this time. I just find the linked supports insufficient for such broad statements.
I agree about the survey length. What you're arguing about polling in general is certainly possible, but of the criticisms of polling, and there are many, I don't think a sample size of "only" 1,200 for Democratic primary voters within a single state is a particularly important one.

I really don't have much of an opinion on this--I thought it was an interesting article that seemed in line with my anecdotal experiences with my students this year who were all feeling the bern but didn't really seem to care much about his specific positions besides weed and free college and additionally were really down on Obamacare (from a more conservative standpoint as opposed to advocating for single payer or something more liberal) when we learned about it. They seemed equally opposed to higher taxes and to government spending in general.

Maybe they are jumping to conclusions without sufficient evidence, but I think at the very least it provides a counterpoint to what many are saying, which is that increased support for lefty candidate = the Democratic party's electorate is shifting left, which may or may not be so.
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle

User avatar
McParadigm
NEVER STOP JAMMING!
Posts: 22393
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 1:56 am

Re: Election 2016

Post by McParadigm »

I'd love to have time to more fully restate my point, but I'm busy. So...

1. I don't think the population sampling is insufficient for certain points. It is insufficient for disproving the null on this article's hypothesis.

2. The article is very authoritatively (factual) voiced, but ultimately an opinion piece and presumptive in that it spends most of its time on why the hypothesized phenomena might be happening, not whether or not it IS happening.

3. It may be right, it just does not adequately support itself.
(patriotic choking noises)
User avatar
McParadigm
NEVER STOP JAMMING!
Posts: 22393
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 1:56 am

Re: Election 2016

Post by McParadigm »

I do agree that it's interesting. And it may well be what's happening.
(patriotic choking noises)
User avatar
4/5
See you in another life, brother
Posts: 6989
Joined: Thu December 20, 2012 4:45 pm

Re: Election 2016

Post by 4/5 »

McParadigm wrote:I'd love to have time to more fully restate my point, but I'm busy. So...

1. I don't think the population sampling is insufficient for certain points. It is insufficient for disproving the null on this article's hypothesis.

2. The article is very authoritatively (factual) voiced, but ultimately an opinion piece and presumptive in that it spends most of its time on why the hypothesized phenomena might be happening, not whether or not it IS happening.

3. It may be right, it just does not adequately support itself.
I agree with all this. It was a NYT opinion article--I linked to it mostly as a conversation starter because it went counter to most interpretations of Sanders' support that I've read.
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle

User avatar
McParadigm
NEVER STOP JAMMING!
Posts: 22393
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 1:56 am

Re: Election 2016

Post by McParadigm »

"Atrociously" was embarrassingly hyperbolic.
(patriotic choking noises)
User avatar
LoathedVermin72
The Master
Posts: 33961
Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 9:32 pm

Re: Election 2016

Post by LoathedVermin72 »

McParadigm wrote:"Atrociously" was embarrassingly hyperbolic.
you sounded like a teenage girl
User avatar
McParadigm
NEVER STOP JAMMING!
Posts: 22393
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 1:56 am

Re: Election 2016

Post by McParadigm »

LoathedVermin72 wrote:
McParadigm wrote:"Atrociously" was embarrassingly hyperbolic.
you sounded like a teenage girl
No, if that were true I can think of at least two RMers who would have PM'd to ASL me.
(patriotic choking noises)
User avatar
Rob
Future Drummer
Posts: 2890
Joined: Fri January 04, 2013 1:46 am
Location: Connecticut

Re: Election 2016

Post by Rob »

Right or wrong, the authors of that NY Times piece are promoting this book, released last month, and using Bernie supporters as the example. I haven't read it, but I assume it's not about Bernie supporters but voters in general. I personally believe that as the conservative Baby Boomer generation slowly shrinks, society will shift left to where we were before them. Not necessarily because they believe in a more leftist ideology, but because they are less ideological and therefore less likely to reject ideas based on ideology alone.
User avatar
BurtReynolds
An enigma of a man shaped hole in the wall between reality and the soul of the devil.
Posts: 46240
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:13 pm
Location: 6000 feet beyond man and time.

Re: Election 2016

Post by BurtReynolds »

McParadigm wrote:
LoathedVermin72 wrote:
McParadigm wrote:"Atrociously" was embarrassingly hyperbolic.
you sounded like a teenage girl
No, if that were true I can think of at least two RMers who would have PM'd to ASL me.
PM sent
RM's resident disinformation expert.
User avatar
Dscans
Broken Tamborine
Posts: 404
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 12:57 am

Re: Election 2016

Post by Dscans »

Rob wrote:Right or wrong, the authors of that NY Times piece are promoting this book, released last month, and using Bernie supporters as the example. I haven't read it, but I assume it's not about Bernie supporters but voters in general. I personally believe that as the conservative Baby Boomer generation slowly shrinks, society will shift left to where we were before them. Not necessarily because they believe in a more leftist ideology, but because they are less ideological and therefore less likely to reject ideas based on ideology alone.
Why do you think younger generations are less ideological?
I'll be the one in the lobby in the green fuck me shirt. The green one.
b_i_revisited
Broken Tamborine
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon October 26, 2015 2:04 pm

Re: Election 2016

Post by b_i_revisited »

theplatypus wrote:The struggling white man in the heartland replies "I;m thinking about thos Beans"
Selective quote from this interesting piece...

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... trump.html


Here it is in context, a context that makes a lot of sense if one is willing to at the Trump phenomenon objectively:

The deeper, long-term reasons for today’s rage are not hard to find, although many of us elites have shamefully found ourselves able to ignore them. The jobs available to the working class no longer contain the kind of craftsmanship or satisfaction or meaning that can take the sting out of their low and stagnant wages. The once-familiar avenues for socialization — the church, the union hall, the VFW — have become less vibrant and social isolation more common. Global economic forces have pummeled blue-collar workers more relentlessly than almost any other segment of society, forcing them to compete against hundreds of millions of equally skilled workers throughout the planet. No one asked them in the 1990s if this was the future they wanted. And the impact has been more brutal than many economists predicted. No wonder suicide and mortality rates among the white working poor are spiking dramatically.

“It is usually those whose poverty is relatively recent, the ‘new poor,’ who throb with the ferment of frustration,” Hoffer argues. Fundamentalist religion long provided some emotional support for those left behind (for one thing, it invites practitioners to defy the elites as unholy), but its influence has waned as modernity has penetrated almost everything and the great culture wars of the 1990s and 2000s have ended in a rout. The result has been a more diverse mainstream culture — but also, simultaneously, a subculture that is even more alienated and despised, and ever more infuriated and bloody-minded.

This is an age in which a woman might succeed a black man as president, but also one in which a member of the white working class has declining options to make a decent living. This is a time when gay people can be married in 50 states, even as working-class families are hanging by a thread. It’s a period in which we have become far more aware of the historic injustices that still haunt African-Americans and yet we treat the desperate plight of today’s white working ­class as an afterthought. And so late-stage capitalism is creating a righteous, revolutionary anger that late-stage democracy has precious little ability to moderate or constrain — and has actually helped exacerbate.

For the white working class, having had their morals roundly mocked, their religion deemed primitive, and their economic prospects decimated, now find their very gender and race, indeed the very way they talk about reality, described as a kind of problem for the nation to overcome. This is just one aspect of what Trump has masterfully signaled as “political correctness” run amok, or what might be better described as the newly rigid progressive passion for racial and sexual equality of outcome, rather than the liberal aspiration to mere equality of opportunity.

Much of the newly energized left has come to see the white working class not as allies but primarily as bigots, misogynists, racists, and homophobes, thereby condemning those often at the near-bottom rung of the economy to the bottom rung of the culture as well. A struggling white man in the heartland is now told to “check his privilege” by students at Ivy League colleges. Even if you agree that the privilege exists, it’s hard not to empathize with the object of this disdain. These working-class communities, already alienated, hear — how can they not? — the glib and easy dismissals of “white straight men” as the ultimate source of all our woes. They smell the condescension and the broad generalizations about them — all of which would be repellent if directed at racial minorities — and see themselves, in Hoffer’s words, “disinherited and injured by an unjust order of things.”

And so they wait, and they steam, and they lash out. This was part of the emotional force of the tea party: not just the advancement of racial minorities, gays, and women but the simultaneous demonization of the white working-class world, its culture and way of life. Obama never intended this, but he became a symbol to many of this cultural marginalization. The Black Lives Matter left stoked the fires still further; so did the gay left, for whom the word magnanimity seems unknown, even in the wake of stunning successes. And as the tea party swept through Washington in 2010, as its representatives repeatedly held the government budget hostage, threatened the very credit of the U.S., and refused to hold hearings on a Supreme Court nominee, the American political and media Establishment mostly chose to interpret such behavior as something other than unprecedented. But Trump saw what others didn’t, just as Hoffer noted: “The frustrated individual and the true believer make better prognosticators than those who have reason to want the preservation of the status quo.”
Alex wrote:i wonder what the supermassive jackhole broken iris would have thought about this
http://www.livefootsteps.org/user/?usr=1278
User avatar
96583UP
The Master
Posts: 29891
Joined: Sun September 15, 2013 5:50 am

Re: Election 2016

Post by 96583UP »

no money, mo' problems
All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone
User avatar
Strat
Waiting for HVAC Repairman
Posts: 35420
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:48 pm
Location: Twin City Kisses

Re: Election 2016

Post by Strat »

b_i_revisited wrote:
theplatypus wrote:The struggling white man in the heartland replies "I;m thinking about thos Beans"
Selective quote from this interesting piece...

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... trump.html


Here it is in context, a context that makes a lot of sense if one is willing to at the Trump phenomenon objectively:

The deeper, long-term reasons for today’s rage are not hard to find, although many of us elites have shamefully found ourselves able to ignore them. The jobs available to the working class no longer contain the kind of craftsmanship or satisfaction or meaning that can take the sting out of their low and stagnant wages. The once-familiar avenues for socialization — the church, the union hall, the VFW — have become less vibrant and social isolation more common. Global economic forces have pummeled blue-collar workers more relentlessly than almost any other segment of society, forcing them to compete against hundreds of millions of equally skilled workers throughout the planet. No one asked them in the 1990s if this was the future they wanted. And the impact has been more brutal than many economists predicted. No wonder suicide and mortality rates among the white working poor are spiking dramatically.

“It is usually those whose poverty is relatively recent, the ‘new poor,’ who throb with the ferment of frustration,” Hoffer argues. Fundamentalist religion long provided some emotional support for those left behind (for one thing, it invites practitioners to defy the elites as unholy), but its influence has waned as modernity has penetrated almost everything and the great culture wars of the 1990s and 2000s have ended in a rout. The result has been a more diverse mainstream culture — but also, simultaneously, a subculture that is even more alienated and despised, and ever more infuriated and bloody-minded.

This is an age in which a woman might succeed a black man as president, but also one in which a member of the white working class has declining options to make a decent living. This is a time when gay people can be married in 50 states, even as working-class families are hanging by a thread. It’s a period in which we have become far more aware of the historic injustices that still haunt African-Americans and yet we treat the desperate plight of today’s white working ­class as an afterthought. And so late-stage capitalism is creating a righteous, revolutionary anger that late-stage democracy has precious little ability to moderate or constrain — and has actually helped exacerbate.

For the white working class, having had their morals roundly mocked, their religion deemed primitive, and their economic prospects decimated, now find their very gender and race, indeed the very way they talk about reality, described as a kind of problem for the nation to overcome. This is just one aspect of what Trump has masterfully signaled as “political correctness” run amok, or what might be better described as the newly rigid progressive passion for racial and sexual equality of outcome, rather than the liberal aspiration to mere equality of opportunity.

Much of the newly energized left has come to see the white working class not as allies but primarily as bigots, misogynists, racists, and homophobes, thereby condemning those often at the near-bottom rung of the economy to the bottom rung of the culture as well. A struggling white man in the heartland is now told to “check his privilege” by students at Ivy League colleges. Even if you agree that the privilege exists, it’s hard not to empathize with the object of this disdain. These working-class communities, already alienated, hear — how can they not? — the glib and easy dismissals of “white straight men” as the ultimate source of all our woes. They smell the condescension and the broad generalizations about them — all of which would be repellent if directed at racial minorities — and see themselves, in Hoffer’s words, “disinherited and injured by an unjust order of things.”

And so they wait, and they steam, and they lash out. This was part of the emotional force of the tea party: not just the advancement of racial minorities, gays, and women but the simultaneous demonization of the white working-class world, its culture and way of life. Obama never intended this, but he became a symbol to many of this cultural marginalization. The Black Lives Matter left stoked the fires still further; so did the gay left, for whom the word magnanimity seems unknown, even in the wake of stunning successes. And as the tea party swept through Washington in 2010, as its representatives repeatedly held the government budget hostage, threatened the very credit of the U.S., and refused to hold hearings on a Supreme Court nominee, the American political and media Establishment mostly chose to interpret such behavior as something other than unprecedented. But Trump saw what others didn’t, just as Hoffer noted: “The frustrated individual and the true believer make better prognosticators than those who have reason to want the preservation of the status quo.”

None of this makes me feel sorry for such bigotry and hatred and ridiculousness. Evolve or GTFO
Post Reply