Jump to content

Virginia Coffee House


rusthebuss

Recommended Posts

He still won all education levels. It's no secret that low-income urban citizens played a big role in this election. The relatively large disparity between low-education vote percentages is just a manifestation of the hard work the Obama campaign put into their registration and GOTV activities. You should compare the low educated percentages with the big city levels and the first time voter levels and you'd find more of an argument. There's nothing to indicate Obama supporters are less informed than McCain supporters. That sad little video provides no evidence, and that poll has no control where McCain supporters or non-voters can be compared to the Obama supporters. There's no there there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


What's your plan to fix the economy? It's gotta come from somewhere. I'm no fan of bailing out the people that made this mess, lets be clear about that. But Obama was elected to handle the economic crisis and the measures put forth so far have had bipartisan, if only half-hearted, support. The thing is this, if he were to just come out tomorrow and say "no money to anyone, let the free market handle it", this will certainly satisfy the conservative idealogues but the consequences would be catastrophic. If we had let those banks fail, we would have been in big trouble. The auto industry employs about a million people. If we let them fail, we're in big trouble. We've really got our backs to the wall on this one Rus. We are no where near the great depression yet (30% unemployment), but all the stars have aligned so that we could be. Prevention is the key. So my question to you is this: If the solution that has been put forth by both parties and their economic advisers is not the right one, then what is? What would you do instead to solve this situation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bailouts arent doing anything but lining the pockets of ceos. Now everyone is coming out of the woodworks asking for money. You tell me what this is going to do for the dollar each time a billion dollars is printed with no gold...etc. to back? We are looking at super inflation. What do you think a 9.50 an hour minimum wage is going to do to the price of food and any retail? Raise it. None of these crazy bailouts are even being regulated and watched. This not the answer. All this is going to do is make us have to rely on the govt just to get by. Sounds familar to me but this is just my outlook on everything. I hate both parties to be honest with you. Both disgust me but just like everything else in life you have to choose the lesser of two evils. Its just so close now on which is worse. Its time for a our cycle of democracy to fall apart and become dependent on the govt and i'm not looking forward to it for me or my kids.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps there isn't the "there" that you created, while seemingly missing the point that Ziegler was trying to make, and which I took it for -- that there was a distinct pattern of election related facts (and not-so-facts) that somehow were created in the minds of Obama voters -- both in these exit video interviews, and in a parallel national poll. "Facts" that put one candidate (especially) in a negative light, and either were ignored by the voters, or not reported, on the other party's candidates. I have sworn off assuming I know the motive of those I disagree with, and only look at their conclusions. So I don't have a firm idea on why those "facts" got implanted. But Ziegler's work makes it clear that they existed, in statistically significant numbers. That is the "there".
Edited by cpeakesqr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately that's not the scientific method. You start with a research question, which is neither a hypothesis nor a conjecture. You then gather information to help come up with a theoretically driven hypothesis. Finally you perform tests of the hypothesis and analyze that data to determine whether your hypothesis is valid or just flat out wrong. What Ziegler does is start midway through the process and performs a test that doesn't fit or prove the hypothesis, which has no theoretical backing. You may find the poll results amusing or pleasing, but that doesn't change the fact it's not even a research study, it's a guy trying to make a buck.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually he was right about the scientific method. You start with a hypothesis than you try to prove or disprove that hypothesis. If it is proven right CONSISTENTLY than it can be considered scientific, if not, back to the drawing board. Research questions have nothing to do with it. It's all hypothesis based.
Edited by cpeakesqr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any research, you start with a question. Of course neither of us were talking about the scientific method per se, more accurately, we've been discussing research methods. I'm no expert, but I did pick up a thing or two from my Research Design class.

Here's a linear form of the scientific method(copied from wiki):

1. Define the question<--- Ziegler's question would be, What caused Obama to win the election?

2. Gather information and resources (observe)<--- Ziegler skips this and comes to a contrived assumption that the media caused his winning.

3. Form hypothesis<---Ziegler has no independent or dependent variables that I can discern. Possibly, with a decrease in trivial knowledge, there's a greater propensity to vote Obama.

4. Perform experiment and collect data<--- Experiment is incapable of testing hypothesis.

5. Analyze data<--- Invalid.

6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis<---Invalid.

7. Publish results<---$$$

8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)<--- Not gonna happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

There's nothing to indicate Obama supporters are less informed than McCain supporters. That sad little video provides no evidence, and that poll has no control where McCain supporters or non-voters can be compared to the Obama supporters. There's no there there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Polling IMHO is BS anyways, its like statistics. You can sway them anyway that the author decides them to sway. I posted a video that Howard Stern, a liberal, did by asking Obama supporters how they felt about certain policies(they were actually McCains policies) and people supported them because they thought they were Obamas policies. One even stated that Palin was the VP for Obama and they said they loved her as a VP selection. The real sad thing is this was suppose to be a historic turnout. Only 1/3 of able voters came out and voted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Zogby America polled 512 Obama voters -- nationwide. 4.4% margin of error. They found:"

There are a few problems I have with this poll/survey... First of all, there are far too few respondents. Secondly, is there a demographic breakdown of the respondents? It is essential to have a representative sample and, ideally, if this were to be a "scientific" (e.g. representative) study, it would have to include two discrete sections of polled individuals; one representative of all voters, one representative of Obama voters; and it would need a sufficiently large sample size so as to reflect actual demographics of voters and, thus, be as close to the actual election conditions as possible (since it seeks to explain a group's behavior where the group has already completed that behavior, if that makes sense). A 4.4% margin of error, by the by, is far too high to be admissible to any APSA (American Political Science Association) publication or conference; the goal is usually between 2.5-3.5%.

It is tremendously complicated business doing a poll like this: the demographics involved, including but not limited to race, gender, religion, geographic location, etc., are immense, and a study that scarcely mentions, or completely ignores this I am immediately wary of.

I am not attacking the conclusions of the poll in any way, however, I am doubtful of the methods. I would have to look at the entirety of the study to make heads or tails on it, but from the representatively miniscule sample size to the high margin of error (most Virginia state polls, for example, seek a sample size greater than 2,000 with a margin of error no higher than 3.5%) I am reluctant to whole-heartedly agree with the overall study.

I believe also that it goes without saying that there are informed and uninformed citizens on either side (or all sides for our third party friends) of the debate. There are doubtless idiots who voted for Obama because "they're a Democrat" for the sake of being a Democrat. And then you get people like my brother who vote for a third party individual not because he has an affinity for their politics, but because he wants to be "controversial" (much to my chagrin). I don't believe that you can substantively or normatively prove one way or another if one group of individuals is more-aware or better-educated in politics than another. There are countless problems with that sort of goal, first because the effects of the media vary so dramatically from demographic group to demographic group. Moreover, these demographic variations make it hard to representatively poll (e.g. phone bank-style polling, if using RDD [random digit dialing] tends to only reach older voters because it only utilizes landlines, but calling-lists [including cell phones] tend to capture younger voters, but the younger voters tend to answer far less). If any of these questions can be reconciled in the above study somewhere, I would welcome looking into it. The only Obama voter I can speak for is myself, and I do not believe I am uninformed by any means (of course, I am far more immersed in the subject than most Americans as a political science major, with a minor in history emphasizing the evolution of political theory. hm.)...

Ultimately, is it really an objective measure of intelligence that differentiates? I do not believe so. One of my brothers is a staunch Republican, kind of a Rockefeller/Fiscal Conservative-Republican, and we have discussed politics and political economy at great lengths. Ultimately, I have discovered that he is a dunce. No, no, not really at all, he's one of the most brilliant men I have ever known, but I think that we come at things from different ideological perspectives that can not be reconciled as "more" or "less" intelligent. I believe that a nation of a certain threshold of wealth owes it to its people to support them, to guarantee their health and education to the greatest extent possible, to provide for the greatest liberty possible, and to only intervene directly in global affairs as a response to humanitarian concerns. It is not because I don't understand the issues, it is just because I prioritize them differently and see solutions to common problems differently (not better, necessarily). Because my priorities, politically, coincided more (but not terribly more) with Obama, I decided to vote for him (also, because I believe he better understands how to handle the complexities of Middle East politics which has been a veritable sh*t-show since the 1950s).

To briefly skirt the issue of the media, there is an overwhelming consensus among political scientists that the media, regardless of ideological/political orientation, are essentially worthless in America, even (and especially) during election seasons. There are countless reasons for this (in fact, I have an exam on this topic in 2 days, so this is helping me review :)) -- all media outlets (looking at specific analyses of Fox, CBS, NBC, CNN -- all of them and more) tend to shy away from actually substantively covering anything. Very rarely (if ever) are there side-by-side policy comparisons with experts explaining the ramifications in a meaningful manner, and that goes for all media outlets, including talk radio on all sides of the ideological spectrum. During an election cycle, there is almost exclusive emphasis on the horserace - who is in the lead, where, with what groups/demographics, why? Election seasons, for this reason, are helpful at least for access to decently controlled polls. The media, additionally, faces a problem of structural bias where "journalists" double as commentators, effectively removing any and all objectivity from the news. Therefore, not only are viewers getting little or no access to worthwhile analysis of policy differences, but they are being bombarded with biased opinion rather than objective fact.

The debates, which are controlled by the media, are problematic for other reasons. Again, debates are run like the horserace: they are designed to, by and large, avoid substantive, detailed discussions and instead focus on a series of fallacious topics meant to grab one-liner quote headlines by the next morning. Common among moderator questions, the "gotcha" questions, "raise your hand" (if you support...) questions, the horrendous hypotheticals ("if your wife were raped and got pregnant, would you still oppose abortion?" -- it's been asked), the "will you pledge to..." questions, and so forth. It is infrequent to get a response from any candidate to any of these sorts of questions that leaves a(n undecided) viewer with any more useful information than before the debate. The American media, essentially, are worthless beyond the headlines.

And it doesn't really matter anyway. The election is over, the outcome was definitive and far beyond the measure of a margin of error, and it remains legitimate because there has been no backlash at the results. Not a mandate by any means (which does have a concrete definition, but goes ignored by the much-aforementioned media); BUT the only thing we can do now it see how the next four years play out and hope for the best. I am reluctant, also, to believe it can get worse than the last eight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

I just returned from a Virginia General Assembly town-hall style meeting at CNU regarding the upcoming/proposed budget of Gov. Kaine and figured I would share some of what I saw and learned there.

Notably, the panel of Senators and Delegates did not really contribute much, as they absorbed all the information and opinions of a few hundred audience members. I did, however, get the chance to speak to Delegate Phil Hamilton (R - Newport News/JCC) the chair of the House Appropriations Committee, who gave a thorough analysis of the situation and was exceptionally candid with me. The expected budget shortfall is somewhere in the neighborhood of $2.9 billion (Kaine's estimate, which was suggested by a number of audience members as being rather low / optimistic, depending on how you look at it...).

Most of the concerns raised by the gallery related to two major topics in Hampton Roads: the potential closure of an adult assisted-living care facility (the Southeastern Virginia one), and huge budget cuts for public schools (some 40+% of total budget cuts, both directly and indirectly). Speakers ranged from current and former inhabitants of assisted-living/care facilities, to their employees and directors, to the mayor of Chesapeake (who spoke on neither topic, but rather asked for the State to allow localities greater autonomy on infrastructural matters), to the President of NSU (delightful, but long-winded woman). Very interesting meeting. If anyone throughout the state gets the opportunity to attend such a meeting, please do! It really helps to grasp the weight of issues and gives you the opportunity to speak directly to the people that represent you in Richmond. :) [/public service announcement] haha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hahaha. "insightful." Yes, you could say that. Very... polite in person! But all she did was talk about NSU and it's glory and how the state owes it to NSU to keep it going with unaltered budgeting. I think that's what she was getting at. She probably doubled the 3 minute talking time (began with a 30 second quotation from "A Tale of Two Cities" - I kid you not).

Spectacular haha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.