Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Martin Prince, Jr.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 17
1
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: June 09, 2008, 12:48:44 PM »
Quote
Erm, isn't the premise of this thread how Obama will lose in the fall due to other minorities' racism toward blacks (and especially black politicians)? And citing polling data showing how flawed that premise is makes it somehow "off point"? Continuing to blather on without addressing this glaring discrepancy is making me question your intelligence, vercingetorix.

i was pointing out the flaw in bringing up the kerry/bush, gore/bush comparison.  these are not on point because both candidates in that poll were white.  the fact that Latinos in LA may or may not find McCain less palatable as a candidate does not speak to the issue of racist leanings within the Latino community towards blacks.  the data i use shows a trend in this area.  ex post data is always better than pre-vote polling data.  the reason for this is that people are not candid when asked racially loaded questions. never rely on people to truthfully answer for whom they voted.  instead use census data, voter registration records and statistical analysis.  this is how you determine what demographics voted for whom.  these numbers show that latinos don't vote for blacks in large numbers when they are up against hispanics or whites.

Ooooooo-K. First things first: this poll is not a poll of "Latinos in LA," but a Los Angeles Times article about multiple nationwide polls of Latinos. Second, you provide no evidence on why one cannot rely on exit polls or "pre-vote polling data" instead of your "census data, voter registration records and statistical analysis," none of which, I might add, you actually do in this thread. What the polls the LA Times cites indicate are that Latinos nationwide are moving toward the Democratic Party, which is fairly in line with what the rest of the country is doing. Now if you actually want to make the opposite argument, back it up. But don't try and distract with some meta-issue such as exit polls and pre-voting polls being unreliable due to some bizarre Wilder effect that you aren't interested in actually proving.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/03/eveningnews/main653562.shtml
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137451,00.html
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/07/senate-exit-polls-early/

exit polls are notoriously unreliable.  or did you forget the whole kerry-bush election?

Do you even read the links you cite? All of those are stories about *EARLY* exit polls, those that are released in the afternoon without all of the exit polling having been completed. The notoriety of these early polls is why networks this year (and 2006) waited until later in the evening before starting to cite data from them.

So yes, *EARLY* exit polls are bad. But that does not make *exit polls* bad. Jesus. And yeah, way to continue pushing your retarded meta-argument about exit-poll and polling reliability instead of actually addressing the flaws in the topic of your own god damn thread.

2
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: June 08, 2008, 04:31:02 PM »
Quote
Erm, isn't the premise of this thread how Obama will lose in the fall due to other minorities' racism toward blacks (and especially black politicians)? And citing polling data showing how flawed that premise is makes it somehow "off point"? Continuing to blather on without addressing this glaring discrepancy is making me question your intelligence, vercingetorix.

i was pointing out the flaw in bringing up the kerry/bush, gore/bush comparison.  these are not on point because both candidates in that poll were white.  the fact that Latinos in LA may or may not find McCain less palatable as a candidate does not speak to the issue of racist leanings within the Latino community towards blacks.  the data i use shows a trend in this area.  ex post data is always better than pre-vote polling data.  the reason for this is that people are not candid when asked racially loaded questions. never rely on people to truthfully answer for whom they voted.  instead use census data, voter registration records and statistical analysis.  this is how you determine what demographics voted for whom.  these numbers show that latinos don't vote for blacks in large numbers when they are up against hispanics or whites.

Ooooooo-K. First things first: this poll is not a poll of "Latinos in LA," but a Los Angeles Times article about multiple nationwide polls of Latinos. Second, you provide no evidence on why one cannot rely on exit polls or "pre-vote polling data" instead of your "census data, voter registration records and statistical analysis," none of which, I might add, you actually do in this thread. What the polls the LA Times cites indicate are that Latinos nationwide are moving toward the Democratic Party, which is fairly in line with what the rest of the country is doing. Now if you actually want to make the opposite argument, back it up. But don't try and distract with some meta-issue such as exit polls and pre-voting polls being unreliable due to some bizarre Wilder effect that you aren't interested in actually proving.

3
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: June 08, 2008, 03:12:19 PM »
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-latinos6-2008jun06,0,3458770,full.story

This is the first article that comes up in a Google search for "Obama McCain latino vote."  It cites a new poll that says Obama leads McCain 62-29 [among Latinos].  (For comparison's sake, Kerry beat Bush among Latino voters 55-44; Gore beat Bush 62-35.  Bush, of course, was another Southwestern Republican who was supposed to win Latinos because of his conciliatory tone on immigration, his associations with prominent Latino and Latin American figures like Gonzales and Fox, his stabs at Spanish-speaking, etc.)  None of the articles you cite are about an Obama-McCain matchup in the general election.



Miss P, your reply is off point.  how McCain polls against Obama with Latinos has nothing to with the prevalent anti-black bias in hispanic social circles.  Kerry and Gore were white so mentioning them is irrelevant. 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/22/AR2008022202860.html

[snip]

Erm, isn't the premise of this thread how Obama will lose in the fall due to other minorities' racism toward blacks (and especially black politicians)? And citing polling data showing how flawed that premise is makes it somehow "off point"? Continuing to blather on without addressing this glaring discrepancy is making me question your intelligence, vercingetorix.

4
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: June 07, 2008, 02:29:24 PM »
A lot of axe-grinding by the OP, but nothing on the substance of his allegations, so I'm just going to quote my last post:

Interesting how the racism Latinos supposedly feel towards black Americans isn't affecting their support of Barack Obama. From an LA Times poll: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-latinos6-2008jun06,0,5793717.story

Quote
A new Gallup Poll summary of surveys taken in May shows Obama winning 62% of Latino registered voters nationwide, compared with just 29% for McCain. Others have found a wide gap as well. The pro-Democratic group Democracy Corps compiled surveys from March through May that showed Obama with a 19-point lead among Latinos. And a Times poll published last month showed Obama leading McCain among California Latinos by 14 points.

Republicans say McCain's numbers among Latinos at the moment are disappointing -- far below the goals set by a campaign that has long believed McCain could challenge the traditional Democratic dominance of the Latino electorate.

The numbers suggest that McCain's image has suffered after a competitive GOP primary in which he renounced some of the moderate views on immigration popular among many Latinos. For example, McCain, who was a chief sponsor of legislation creating a path to citizenship for most of the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, now says he believes the government must focus first on securing the U.S.-Mexico border before dealing with illegal workers.

Weird how Latinos are letting actual issues get in the way of their irrational hatred of blacks. I mean, going by the OP's original formulation, none of these ethnic groups are rational actors with regard to who they support for Prez, and yet the data just doesn't back it up, I don't understand!!!!

I'm sure the original poster doesn't appreciate stupid "facts" and "data" getting in the way of his 10 year old anecdotes about racist minorities, but I think others will. Read the whole article, it's great.

5
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: June 07, 2008, 07:55:15 AM »
Interesting how the racism Latinos supposedly feel towards black Americans isn't affecting their support of Barack Obama. From an LA Times poll: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-latinos6-2008jun06,0,5793717.story

Quote
A new Gallup Poll summary of surveys taken in May shows Obama winning 62% of Latino registered voters nationwide, compared with just 29% for McCain. Others have found a wide gap as well. The pro-Democratic group Democracy Corps compiled surveys from March through May that showed Obama with a 19-point lead among Latinos. And a Times poll published last month showed Obama leading McCain among California Latinos by 14 points.

Republicans say McCain's numbers among Latinos at the moment are disappointing -- far below the goals set by a campaign that has long believed McCain could challenge the traditional Democratic dominance of the Latino electorate.

The numbers suggest that McCain's image has suffered after a competitive GOP primary in which he renounced some of the moderate views on immigration popular among many Latinos. For example, McCain, who was a chief sponsor of legislation creating a path to citizenship for most of the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, now says he believes the government must focus first on securing the U.S.-Mexico border before dealing with illegal workers.

Weird how Latinos are letting actual issues get in the way of their irrational hatred of blacks. I mean, going by the OP's original formulation, none of these ethnic groups are rational actors with regard to who they support for Prez, and yet the data just doesn't back it up, I don't understand!!!!

6
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: June 06, 2008, 01:46:17 AM »
Because only females have grade school crushes?  That's your projection.  I hope you'll own it.

I like, though, how you make a generalization about Hillary supporters not being good Democrats and then take offense at my grade-school comment, which I at least labeled a generalization in previous posts.   



Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, huh? What you said: "tearing apart another Democratic candidate because you developed a grade-school crush on someone more exciting?" And what I said in response was, "Love the irony of the poster who rails against the sexism in the campaign stooping to patronizing comments like "grade-school crush," as if I and other Obama supporters are a bunch of eight-year olds." Last time I checked, the demographics of eight-year olds were evenly split, male and female, so I'll leave it to others to decide which of us is the one "projecting."

7
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: June 05, 2008, 06:53:13 PM »
Because supporting a candidate we didn't feel was experienced enough for the nomination just to be good Democrats is the same as tearing apart another Democratic candidate because you developed a grade-school crush on someone more exciting?

 ::)

Love the irony of the poster who rails against the sexism in the campaign stooping to patronizing comments like "grade-school crush," as if I and other Obama supporters are a bunch of eight-year olds.

I raise you my own  ::)

8
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: June 05, 2008, 06:39:13 PM »
I also think there's some truth to the criticism of the Obamabots.  The Wolcott quote on my Facebook profile details my issue with them pretty well (I wonder if he's cute, because we agree a lot, apparently).  I don't think it's a huge stretch to say that there was a bit of cult-like fascination with Obama that wasn't connected to anything beyond personal affection or euphoria.     

Since this obviously isn't the case for Clinton supporters like yourself, I can rest assured that all of you are getting straight to work electing Democrats, including Obama, in November, or are pledging to vote for him? I mean, since your loyalties don't rest with a single individual in some "cult-like" fashion (one who agrees with Obama on almost all issues), you won't have any trouble doing this right?

9
You don't seem to understand how cap-and-trade works.

What annoys me more than GW commercials are the self-serving ever-present ads from GE, ExxonMobil, and BP on how GREEN and environmentally-friendly they're becoming. Like someone said earlier in the thread, an ad campaign is a helluva lot cheaper than actually doing something about the environment. But they aren't as bad as the "Americans United For Clean Coal" ads. Seriously, how dumb are we if people can just repeat and repeat something oxymoronic like "clean coal" and people start believing that it actually exists?

10
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: May 31, 2008, 02:47:54 PM »
Martin, if you want to actually discuss Obama's economic policies, I will do so, but you're going to have to drop some of the indignation and pay a little more respect to frybread.

As for the Cassidy piece, it was, you know, a book review.  I thought it did a surprisingly good job of explaining the links between Obama's economic policies (disclosures over regulation, health coverage without mandates, etc.) and Sunstein and Thaler's "libertarian paternalism," though you are correct that not all of the criticisms of "nudging" and behavioral economics apply equally well (or at all) to (all of) Obama's policies.  (Cassidy also makes that point at the end: "On other issues, such as trade policy and regulation of the financial industry, Obama has recently adopted a more dirigiste tone than Thaler and Sunstein would care for. More generally, he has talked about confronting entrenched interests and giving a voice to the excluded. Doubtless, he means what he says. . . .")  And I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually think Cassidy may be a little hard on Sunstein who, after all, wrote a book about following through on FDR's economic bill of rights (which includes rights to housing, healthcare, education, work, and living wage).  That said, Clinton, for all of her many faults, was not running as a Third Way candidate this time, but as a straight-up Keynesian.  Obama was running as something else, something a little more DLC than most of his supporters are comfortable admitting.  You may object to the term libertarianism because it has a historical specificity you'd like to preserve; I can accept that.  But Obama's general emphasis on choice and incentives over regulation reflects some kind of shift -- perhaps because he went to law school during the heyday of law & economics, who knows.

HAHA, I'm an idiot. I clicked the link and read it without even absorbing the hypertext you wrote or the header at the top of the page. And your characterization of my objections are pretty much right on. It's like when Republicans call Democrats "Marxists" for wanting to subsidize health care - you completely lose the actual meaning of the word and the relevance it has, and it drives me nuts. Frybread, if my language has been biting, sarcastic and a bit over-the-top, then I apologize.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 17