Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 112
  1. #76
    my unders, my frgn whites pgardn's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    38,152
    Hillary had a greater turnout of black voters than did Bill. So your point is moot. Reload and try again.
    You understand my analysis.
    What was the black voter turnout after 1870 and the 15 th amendment?

  2. #77
    Still Hates Small Ball Spurminator's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Post Count
    37,144
    You aren't very bright. You seem to not have a firm understanding of data.

    Trust me, I do understand data. But it looks like you don't, so let me explain to you the difference between qualitative and quan ative data.

    Your graphs show a lower black turnout percentage in 2016 vs. 2008 and 2012. We do not disagree on the data in those graphs. This is called quan ative data because it's simply about the numbers. If your only claim was that blacks had lower voter turnout in 2016, you'd be doing a-okay.

    But your claim in this thread has been that blacks voted in lower numbers in 2016 because Hillary is white. That's not a claim that can be supported by quan ative data alone. You have yet to show a single graph that shows *why* black turnout in 2016 was lower than 2012 or 2008. For that, you need qualitative data that speaks to voter rationale and motivation. Do you have any surveys showing a majority of black respondents stayed home because there wasn't a black candidate on the ballot?

    Until you show that, your statement is debatable, and your posturing is laughable.

    This Statistics 101 lesson has been presented free of charge.

    Where is your evidence for targeted voter suppression?




    https://www.scribd.com/do ent/3478...ppression-Memo

  3. #78
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829


    Across the board, turnout decreased more between 2012 and 2016 in counties with higher population percentages of African Americans, but this drop-off in participation was amplified in states that changed voter-ID laws, and was most pronounced in states that changed voter ID laws to strict.

    Of course any law that requires you to prove your iden y is going to prevent people who cannot prove their iden y from participating. Driving is a good example of that. However as your linky says, turnout decreased in counties with higher population percentages of African Americans (regardless of the ID law).

    Try again

  4. #79
    Still Hates Small Ball Spurminator's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Post Count
    37,144


    Across the board, turnout decreased more between 2012 and 2016 in counties with higher population percentages of African Americans, but this drop-off in participation was amplified in states that changed voter-ID laws, and was most pronounced in states that changed voter ID laws to strict.
    I think you maybe meant to bold this part. Fixed it for you.

    Of course any law that requires you to prove your iden y is going to prevent people who cannot prove their iden y from participating.
    Exactly.

    However as your linky says, turnout decreased in counties with higher population percentages of African Americans (regardless of the ID law).
    You didn't ask for evidence that some of the impact to black turnout was unrelated to voter suppression, and I never claimed it was 100% of the reason. The paragraph you quoted specifically shows that voted ID laws impacted the black vote. That's what you asked for.

    So what's your point here?

    Try again
    I'm good. Your turn to provide evidence to your qualitative argument.

  5. #80
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    I think you maybe meant to bold this part. Fixed it for you.



    Exactly.
    So anyone should be able to walk in an vote without proving who they are and somehow this affects only black people?
    You didn't ask for evidence that some of the impact to black turnout was unrelated to voter suppression, and I never claimed it was 100% of the reason. The paragraph you quoted specifically shows that voted ID laws impacted the black vote. That's what you asked for.
    There are reasons people don't turn out. You just picked "prove who you are" and called it voter suppression to fit your narrative. I suppose flier suppression is because you're required to provide ID when going through the security gates?
    So what's your point here?
    I'm good. Your turn to provide evidence to your qualitative argument.
    I already made my point. I don't need to restate it when you haven't proven your rebuttal holds any water (voter suppression).

    Blacks vote for black issues, not national issues. Things like incarceration rates (without regard to crime rate), unsafe neighborhoods (without regard to who is making it unsafe) and what they see as employment inequality (regardless whether they show up to work or even look for a job).

    Basically they didn't get excited about Hillary because they shot their wad with Obama who did nothing for them but usher in the "black lives matter" facade.

    Obviously not every black falls into this category but since the "black vote" is such an geneous sounding concept, I'm not the one who coined it and yet here it is.

  6. #81
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Well the data is right there. Argue with that.
    How much of the decline in minority voting was due to voter suppression?

  7. #82
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    How much of the decline in minority voting was due to voter suppression?
    It's your row to hoe, bro. You made the claim.

  8. #83
    I M Ultimate Badass Quadzilla99's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Post Count
    2,817
    That the reason the GOP is in power is because the black voter turnout was so low because Hillary is white. The blacks didn't turn out for the dems. Ergo percentage doesn't seem to matter, only skin color of the candidate.

    Politics isn't just the GOP. If people don't trust the GOP, don't vote for them. Oddly they won.
    The point to me is why doesn't the GOP have anyone but white men for the most part. You always claim to not be racist shouldn't it concern that you fail among every single minority group and run almost nothing but white men for your main positions? I mean if I was republican I would be annoyed about that

  9. #84
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    The point to me is why doesn't the GOP have anyone but white men for the most part. You always claim to not be racist shouldn't it concern that you fail among every single minority group and run almost nothing but white men for your main positions? I mean if I was republican I would be annoyed about that

    Are you a white man?

    Did you know I voted for Obama 2 times?

    I am not registered to either party. People who think along party lines are re ed s. You claim to not be racist. Why do you hate white men?

  10. #85
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    It's your row to hoe, bro. You made the claim.
    Been looking to see what evidence is out there. Best article so far is an Atlantic article in terms of data.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-study/517218/
    The proliferation of increasingly strict voter identification laws around the country has raised
    concerns about voter suppression and inequality. Although there are lots of reasons to suspect
    that these laws could harm groups like racial minorities and the poor, existing studies have
    generally failed to demonstrate a link between voter ID laws and voter turnout among these
    groups. We question these null effects. We argue that because most of the studies occurred
    before states enacted the strictest photo identification requirements, they tend to uncover few
    effects. Focusing on the validated vote in recent elections using the Cooperative Congressional
    Election Study we are able to offer a more definitive test. The analysis shows that strict photo
    identification laws have a differentially negative impact on the turnout of Hispanics, Blacks, and
    mixed-race Americans in primaries and general elections. Voter ID laws skew democracy in
    favor of whites and those on the political right..”
    http://pages.ucsd.edu/~zhajnal/page5...hajnaletal.pdf


    Cir stantial evidence for this is that the Republican party is the one pushing these laws, and cutting back polling places in areas likely to vote Democratic.

    You have public statements from GOP leaders saying that such laws were responsible for tilting some places in favor of GOP presidential candidates.

    If only one party is pushing for a law affecting voting, is that law more, or less likely to help that party?

  11. #86
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672


    Across the board, turnout decreased more between 2012 and 2016 in counties with higher population percentages of African Americans, but this drop-off in participation was amplified in states that changed voter-ID laws, and was most pronounced in states that changed voter ID laws to strict.

    Of course any law that requires you to prove your iden y is going to prevent people who cannot prove their iden y from participating. Driving is a good example of that. However as your linky says, turnout decreased in counties with higher population percentages of African Americans (regardless of the ID law).

    Try again
    Do you even read the whole sentence? Jeeez.

  12. #87
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    It's your row to hoe, bro. You made the claim.
    If you want to claim that the decline was for some other reason, such as Hillary being white, that is your burden of proof.

    Feel free to prove that.

  13. #88
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672

    Trust me, I do understand data. But it looks like you don't, so let me explain to you the difference between qualitative and quan ative data.

    Your graphs show a lower black turnout percentage in 2016 vs. 2008 and 2012. We do not disagree on the data in those graphs. This is called quan ative data because it's simply about the numbers. If your only claim was that blacks had lower voter turnout in 2016, you'd be doing a-okay.

    But your claim in this thread has been that blacks voted in lower numbers in 2016 because Hillary is white. That's not a claim that can be supported by quan ative data alone. You have yet to show a single graph that shows *why* black turnout in 2016 was lower than 2012 or 2008. For that, you need qualitative data that speaks to voter rationale and motivation. Do you have any surveys showing a majority of black respondents stayed home because there wasn't a black candidate on the ballot?

    Until you show that, your statement is debatable, and your posturing is laughable.

    This Statistics 101 lesson has been presented free of charge.







    https://www.scribd.com/do ent/3478...ppression-Memo
    Sums it up. Well-written and accurate. Kudos.

  14. #89
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Are you a white man?

    Did you know I voted for Obama 2 times?

    I am not registered to either party. People who think along party lines are re ed s. You claim to not be racist. Why do you hate white men?
    Are both parties equal? People who think they are somehow equally bad are re ed, lazy s.

  15. #90
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    Been looking to see what evidence is out there. Best article so far is an Atlantic article in terms of data.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-study/517218/

    http://pages.ucsd.edu/~zhajnal/page5...hajnaletal.pdf


    Cir stantial evidence for this is that the Republican party is the one pushing these laws, and cutting back polling places in areas likely to vote Democratic.

    You have public statements from GOP leaders saying that such laws were responsible for tilting some places in favor of GOP presidential candidates.

    If only one party is pushing for a law affecting voting, is that law more, or less likely to help that party?
    Come on man, you made the claim and now you're looking for data to support it? Shouldn't you be making data supported claims instead?

  16. #91
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    Do you even read the whole sentence? Jeeez.
    Of course I read it, but the 1st sentence supported what I said, that black turnout was worse for this election than for both of the Obama elections. "Across the board" rules out carryover from states with voter ID law changes.

    The rest is just "ya but".

    So my point remains and seems to have eluded you and a few others - Hillary lost because her black cons uents didn't show up for her. For that reason, why does it matter what the GOP color spectrum looks like?

  17. #92
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    Are both parties equal? People who think they are somehow equally bad are re ed, lazy s.
    They are equally bad. That's why they have dinners together and vacation together but not with you and I.

  18. #93
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    [both parties] are equally bad.
    By what metric?

    One party consistently fields all sorts of people who think various scientific findings are conspiracy theories, the other... doesn't.

  19. #94
    LMAO koriwhat's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Post Count
    37,912
    democrats are all men too... right michael, i mean mic e.

  20. #95
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    By what metric?

    One party consistently fields all sorts of people who think various scientific findings are conspiracy theories, the other... doesn't.
    Since you think morality is objective, I'd say by that one.

  21. #96
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Since you think morality is objective, I'd say by that one.
    I think you can get a fairly objective morality, when based on well-being.

    So you don't really have any metric then. You just think it is true, because it must be true.

    A type of circular reasoning? Do I have that right?

  22. #97
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    I think you can get a fairly objective morality, when based on well-being.

    So you don't really have any metric then. You just think it is true, because it must be true.

    A type of circular reasoning? Do I have that right?
    There's no such as "fairly objective". That's like being "fairly pregnant". It's either objective or it's not. "Objective" isn't a marker on the bias meter.

  23. #98
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    Also, "bad" is a subjective term in these discussions so a metric isn't required. We aren't talking about widgets coming off an assembly line with a go/no-go standard.

  24. #99
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    There's no such as "fairly objective". That's like being "fairly pregnant". It's either objective or it's not. "Objective" isn't a marker on the bias meter.
    Ok, how about "as objective as possible"?

  25. #100
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Also, "bad" is a subjective term in these discussions so a metric isn't required. We aren't talking about widgets coming off an assembly line with a go/no-go standard.
    Okaaaaay, so on what basis do you say that both parties are "equally bad"?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •