|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ads |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
David Kerber wrote:
In article , says... Tim McNamara wrote in message ... "Fiona Reynolds" writes: It is over twit, moron, idiot, brain dead zombie. YOU and the stupid Democrats LOST Lots of people lost, actually- about 80% of America came out on thelosing end of the election although many of them haven't figured it out. Heck, 19% of Americans believe they are in the top 1% of income. Here's a question for someone with a statistics background: Given a sample that predicts the behavior of a population within 3% of the true value with a 95% degree of confidence, what is the probability that the true value will in fact turn out to be 8% from the value predicted by the sample? I believe it's about 1%. That's right. There were individual polls, taken the same day, same state, both with 3% margins of error that were 8% apart - proving nothing but the fallibility of polls. Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
David Kerber wrote:
In article , says... Tim McNamara wrote in message ... "Fiona Reynolds" writes: It is over twit, moron, idiot, brain dead zombie. YOU and the stupid Democrats LOST Lots of people lost, actually- about 80% of America came out on thelosing end of the election although many of them haven't figured it out. Heck, 19% of Americans believe they are in the top 1% of income. Here's a question for someone with a statistics background: Given a sample that predicts the behavior of a population within 3% of the true value with a 95% degree of confidence, what is the probability that the true value will in fact turn out to be 8% from the value predicted by the sample? I believe it's about 1%. That's right. There were individual polls, taken the same day, same state, both with 3% margins of error that were 8% apart - proving nothing but the fallibility of polls. Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
"Pete" wrote:
"Chalo" wrote I can't fathom the twisted lack of ordinary decency that would allow ordinary folk to actively promote Bush's vile mixture of injustice, lies and butchery, and frankly I don't wish to understand it. It would only make me a lesser person to do so. This is one of the reasons Kerry lost. It's precisely the reason Kerry lost. No matter who won this election, it was only going to be those hopelessly blinded by rhetoric who would really get their knickers in a major twist - whether they were brainwashed by Rush or by Michael Moore... the rest of us would just assume there would be a correction in another four years if things got marginally worse. Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
"Pete" wrote:
"Chalo" wrote I can't fathom the twisted lack of ordinary decency that would allow ordinary folk to actively promote Bush's vile mixture of injustice, lies and butchery, and frankly I don't wish to understand it. It would only make me a lesser person to do so. This is one of the reasons Kerry lost. It's precisely the reason Kerry lost. No matter who won this election, it was only going to be those hopelessly blinded by rhetoric who would really get their knickers in a major twist - whether they were brainwashed by Rush or by Michael Moore... the rest of us would just assume there would be a correction in another four years if things got marginally worse. Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
"Edward Dike, III" writes:
| I also noticed that the document you refer to shows the percentage | of "registered" voters who actually voted. According to | | http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p20-542.pdf | | the percentage of "registered" voters in the U.S. who actually | voted in the 2000 election is about 85%. I couldn't find a figure | for this election. If only 85% had voted... There are several pieces of relevant math- what percentage of the population was registered to vote, and what percentage of registered voters went to the polls on Election Day. In 2000, 70% of citizens were registered and 60% of those turned out to vote. So, 42% of the population plus one Supreme Court judge detemined who was President. This is at odds with the figures you cite. See: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/...es/001643.html 114,000,000 Americans voted in 1992, a record high at that time (per the Cesus Bureau link above). Only 111,000,000 voted in 2000. For 2004, the total voting age population was 217,800,000 although some of those were not elegible voters. The total population estimate for the US in mid-2004 was 293,633,000, meaning that 74% of the total population was registered. 115,979,503 voters- a new record high- cast ballots in the Presidential race in 2004, according to the New York Times- 53% of voting age people in America. This means that only 39% of the population decided the Presidency. That looks like a decline in participation as a percentage of the population from 2000 to 2004, but I don't know if apples are being compared to apples- whether the Census Bureau data from 2000 indicates 70% of the total population was registered to vote or 70% of the voting age population. That would make a difference. In Minnesota the 2004 percentage was reported at 77.3% of registered voters, and I think that was the highest in the nation. Other interesting information about the US: http://www.whitehouse.gov/fsbr/demography.html showing a 3.3% decrease in median income 1999 - 2003 and an almost flat increase in median household net worth 1993 - 2003. This is despite a home ownership rate of 69% (which seems pretty decent to me, but I don't know how that stacks up to other parts of the world). http://www.whitehouse.gov/fsbr/education.html especially reading achievement http://www.whitehouse.gov/fsbr/health.html http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/26/census.poverty.ap/ |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
"Edward Dike, III" writes:
| I also noticed that the document you refer to shows the percentage | of "registered" voters who actually voted. According to | | http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p20-542.pdf | | the percentage of "registered" voters in the U.S. who actually | voted in the 2000 election is about 85%. I couldn't find a figure | for this election. If only 85% had voted... There are several pieces of relevant math- what percentage of the population was registered to vote, and what percentage of registered voters went to the polls on Election Day. In 2000, 70% of citizens were registered and 60% of those turned out to vote. So, 42% of the population plus one Supreme Court judge detemined who was President. This is at odds with the figures you cite. See: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/...es/001643.html 114,000,000 Americans voted in 1992, a record high at that time (per the Cesus Bureau link above). Only 111,000,000 voted in 2000. For 2004, the total voting age population was 217,800,000 although some of those were not elegible voters. The total population estimate for the US in mid-2004 was 293,633,000, meaning that 74% of the total population was registered. 115,979,503 voters- a new record high- cast ballots in the Presidential race in 2004, according to the New York Times- 53% of voting age people in America. This means that only 39% of the population decided the Presidency. That looks like a decline in participation as a percentage of the population from 2000 to 2004, but I don't know if apples are being compared to apples- whether the Census Bureau data from 2000 indicates 70% of the total population was registered to vote or 70% of the voting age population. That would make a difference. In Minnesota the 2004 percentage was reported at 77.3% of registered voters, and I think that was the highest in the nation. Other interesting information about the US: http://www.whitehouse.gov/fsbr/demography.html showing a 3.3% decrease in median income 1999 - 2003 and an almost flat increase in median household net worth 1993 - 2003. This is despite a home ownership rate of 69% (which seems pretty decent to me, but I don't know how that stacks up to other parts of the world). http://www.whitehouse.gov/fsbr/education.html especially reading achievement http://www.whitehouse.gov/fsbr/health.html http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/26/census.poverty.ap/ |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
"Pete" writes:
"Chalo" wrote I can't fathom the twisted lack of ordinary decency that would allow ordinary folk to actively promote Bush's vile mixture of injustice, lies and butchery, and frankly I don't wish to understand it. It would only make me a lesser person to do so. This is one of the reasons Kerry lost. A lot of people see and think about the world very differently than Chalo (or myself, for that matter). Greed, corruption, graft, influence peddling are acceptable- faggots getting married and sexual assault victims having abortions is not. People vote on what is important to them. IMHO no real Christian could vote for George W. Bush since his actions defy the teachings of Christ at almost every turn- and yet many people of good will and sincere belief did vote for Bush with a clear conscience. The Democrats had better come to some kind of understanding of these folks, because there's enough of them to put Jeb Bush in the White House in 2008. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
"Pete" writes:
"Chalo" wrote I can't fathom the twisted lack of ordinary decency that would allow ordinary folk to actively promote Bush's vile mixture of injustice, lies and butchery, and frankly I don't wish to understand it. It would only make me a lesser person to do so. This is one of the reasons Kerry lost. A lot of people see and think about the world very differently than Chalo (or myself, for that matter). Greed, corruption, graft, influence peddling are acceptable- faggots getting married and sexual assault victims having abortions is not. People vote on what is important to them. IMHO no real Christian could vote for George W. Bush since his actions defy the teachings of Christ at almost every turn- and yet many people of good will and sincere belief did vote for Bush with a clear conscience. The Democrats had better come to some kind of understanding of these folks, because there's enough of them to put Jeb Bush in the White House in 2008. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Tom Sherman wrote: So, Tom, how many of these countries had populations exceeding 100 million? What difference does that make? About as much as what percentage wore bicycle helmets to the polls. Hey, I like that! A new bicycle-safety campaign: "Always Wear A Helmet. These people didn't wear a helmet when they went to the polls, and look who they voted for!" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________ ylojceq | Tom Kunich | Rides | 4 | November 10th 04 04:26 AM |