It's May 23, 2024, 08:37:32 AM
and woodrow when did i say only the ignorant voted for bush? i said out of my friends. lacking comprehension skills? i guess i will have the last laugh when in 50 years we view bush as one of the worst presidents in history.
Damn thats CRAZY!So because that is what you saw, that is the way it is in the country?Sorry to break it to you, but the statistics don't lie:People who didn't graduate from high school voted for John Kerry more than Bush. 49% Bush 50%KerryHigh School Grads voted for Bush by a margin of 5 precentage points. 52% Bush 47% KerryIndividuals who have completed some college voted for Bush by a margin of 8 percentage points. 54% Bush 46% KerryCollege Grads voted for Bush by a margin of 6 percentage points. 52% Bush 46% Kerryhttp://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.htmlAnt's continual portrayal of bush supporters to be ignorant redneck bigots just doesn't stick when you look at the statistics. If anything, more "statistically ignorant" people (those who didn't graduate from high school) voted for Kerry!Keep putting your head in the sand. Keep telling yourself that only the ignorant voted for Bush. You're wrong.
those numbers are based on exit pollls, and if you remember correctly, the exit polls predicted a different president. woodrow logic at its best, numbers are fake unless they support my view, then of course fake numbers can be real. and i never called every bush voter stupid so thats just made up nonsense. in fact, i said the opposite in a recent post. you argue just like your president... keep making up lies and distortions, and try to get the other guy to defend things that aren't even true.
Quote from: Ant on January 23, 2005, 03:13:12 AMthose numbers are based on exit pollls, and if you remember correctly, the exit polls predicted a different president. woodrow logic at its best, numbers are fake unless they support my view, then of course fake numbers can be real. and i never called every bush voter stupid so thats just made up nonsense. in fact, i said the opposite in a recent post. you argue just like your president... keep making up lies and distortions, and try to get the other guy to defend things that aren't even true. Do some reading. It's funny that you have the gall to label me ignorant, but it's BLATANTLY obvious from you post you don't even have the foggiest how something simple like exit polls work.
Do some reading.
I'll say it again.Quote from: Woodrow on January 23, 2005, 04:55:59 PMDo some reading. Your essay length post had a lot of big words, but you said close to nothing.If you knew anything about exit polls, you'd realize that:1.) Initial exit polls are nearly always going to be less accurate. You're going to get better results that more accurately represent the election when you have a larger source of data. Polling 15,000 people is going to represent the outcome more accurately than an initial exit poll of 1,000. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out, but jading by your posts, I thought I'd put it in writing.2.) Zogby had been around for all of 3 presidential elections. He did superb on the 1996, Great job on 2000, and botched the 3rd.3.) You state that specialized firms conduct exit polls. Good job! Too bad you didn't know its standard practice to revise exit polls to better reflect election results.
Quote from: Woodrow on January 23, 2005, 08:48:17 PM You obviously have a hard time understanding simple concepts, but I should know this by now, let me simplify for you since too many words often confuse you.Woodrow: Look at these numbers that prove Bush voters are smartAnt: Look at your innacurate numbers based on exit-polls that predicted JK the winner of the presidential electionWoodrow: Yes, but exit polls are "nearly always going to be less accurate" of course they are revised post election to better reflect reality.Ant: Yes, but the data you gave a) doesn't have a source and b) is pre-final count and has not been revised. There are also issues with survey construction which haven't been addressed.Woodrow: Ant: So exit polls that are "nearly always going to be less accurate" are a reliable source of information?Woodrow (hypothetical answer): well no, unless of course they agree with a republican point of view.
Quote from: Ant on January 23, 2005, 08:55:48 PMQuote from: Woodrow on January 23, 2005, 08:48:17 PM You obviously have a hard time understanding simple concepts, but I should know this by now, let me simplify for you since too many words often confuse you.Woodrow: Look at these numbers that prove Bush voters are smartAnt: Look at your innacurate numbers based on exit-polls that predicted JK the winner of the presidential electionWoodrow: Yes, but exit polls are "nearly always going to be less accurate" of course they are revised post election to better reflect reality.Ant: Yes, but the data you gave a) doesn't have a source and b) is pre-final count and has not been revised. There are also issues with survey construction which haven't been addressed.Woodrow: Ant: So exit polls that are "nearly always going to be less accurate" are a reliable source of information?Woodrow (hypothetical answer): well no, unless of course they agree with a republican point of view.Holy shit. You're more ignorant than I thought.If they revise the data to more accuratley represent the election, then how is this data erronious? The poll numbers I posted are within a half percentage point of the actual results.