CC1981 Posted May 13, 2008 Posted May 13, 2008 Male White uneducated with less than 40 thousand annual income overwhelmingly support Hillary. if I can hazard a guess this is exactly the section of the population that will probably have this sexist tendencies. ....... Comments like these makes me wonder if you actually LIVE in America,been there much or socialize much amongst the natives. You see sexism plainly and obviously in America amongst the upper-middle class and beyond- go into those golf clubs (lower income brackets cant afford golf course memberships!) and its quite plain that its an 'old boys club' mentality..same with those tea-party of the rich type settings. The average/below-average income American male doesnt care much about most things beyond paycheque, pu$$y, their hotrod car and beer. Either that or they are mostly religious numbnuts. Most of America's money is what is called 'old money'- which is dynastic, family-maintained wealth. That is the biggest group amongst the rich folks and there, it is very much 'wifey does what i tell her to do' mentality.You seem to think that rich/upper-middle class America are the New Yorker/California type yuppies with psuedo-hippie tendencies and chasing the IKEA dream, working the corporate tech/management jobs...not so.
Brainfade Posted May 13, 2008 Posted May 13, 2008 My assertion was very clearly that Obama did NOT support Iraq war. That vote you are debating upon never happened. By that I mean there was no Anti-Iraq war bill, the only bill that was brought in was the Iraq war bill and that was supported by Hillary Clinton. So if you go by technicalities then I see no reason of your viewpoint. Also it is very easy to make the argument that - it is easy to take a stand etc etc. The fact is that when Obama did stand against Iraq war there were not too many people(for either parties) who were doing that. And so whoever stood against the war then definitely receives my support. He was against the war because (like he himself said) he did not know enough. Plain and simple. The real test of a person is not what he says, but what he does. I still reserve judgment on what he may have done if he had all the information given to US Senators, and then asked to vote on it. Hillary voted to authorize GWB to declare war, and she was proven wrong. As for the gas tax holiday, he voted for it in Illinois a few years ago. He now thinks it is a stupid idea. I admire him for taking that stand - he has had a chance to see that it didn't work in IL, and is willing to re-think his vote.
triam Posted May 13, 2008 Posted May 13, 2008 i have been living in the us for a while, i Know about the boys club and old money etc, so i do atleast understand what I am talking about The graph above shows the population breakdown by income levels, the boys club and old money are very influential, in affecting policy decisions etc, not influential in affecting how the general public votes. so lets assume for arguments sake anyone with earnings above 150K belong to this demographic which practices sexism more than racism, what % of the population are they? less than or close to 10%, how will they affect majority of voters opinions?? the only way they could affect any election process is by their funding. Hillary never had issues with funds ( I know her campaigin is 20 mill in debt etc, but thats more to do with mismanaging than for lack of funds)
The Outsider Posted May 13, 2008 Author Posted May 13, 2008 Please read carefully...i said 2-3x..2-3TIMES the error margin....having that kind of inaccuracy is unacceptable to someone from my background. The error bars they quote are in all likelihood 1 sigma errors, so you would expect the result to lie outside those 1/3rd of the time. There are a lot of small polling agencies who don't do a good job, but I would say most of the polls by Gallup, for example, have been shown to be pretty accurate. Except opinion polls dont become the centerpiece of the media when other nations are holding their elections.Opinion polls dont hog the headlines on CBC when there is an election here... American media tends to hype up opinion polls more than some other countries, that takes nothing away from their intrinsic value and accuracy. Political scientists ?!? WTF !>? These days people make up all sort of 'scientist' tag to try and ride the science bandwagon to eligibility...sort of reminds me of the position i once saw advertised as 'building engineer', which i found out to be the 'new term' for a janitor... I am referring to leading statisticians, economists, and political scientists from top universities who rely on polling and teach the subject in these universities, not your building's janitor. Show me a mathematician or ANY industrial process that will endorse the validity of a sampling of 1 in a thousand cases to draw conclusions and i got a bridge to sell you...incase you jump up on the 'quality control' issue, quality control is not a conclusive process but merely an efficiency improvement aspect of industry. There are innumerable businesses which conduct polls and rely on their results to expand and grow. Market studies, market surveys, consumer response to a product etc. are regularly measured and implemented in the industry through polls. I am sure a lot many of these companies are run by people with a pretty solid mathematical, statistical, and logical background.
Recommended Posts