Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10
 on: July 16, 2015, 09:21:08 PM 
Started by LawDog3 - Last post by i VIII π
Inventors you say....................

what, one is wearing black..............and he's a "people"............

 on: July 15, 2015, 08:07:28 PM 
Started by cinnamon synonym - Last post by i VIII π
you...........used the cookie cutter copy and paste ad lib WRONG................(sigh)
pats on head, gives cookie. Removes sharp objects from room.

 on: July 15, 2015, 04:15:20 PM 
Started by cinnamon synonym - Last post by loki13
Ditto would be a devastating argument, indeed, if you had presented any statistics, math, science, or really anything to back up your "TOKEN" argument.

I presented, you know, actual statistics, numbers, and so on. You gave us a "It's not news, it's CNN!" video. Congratulations. I assume you're proud of yourself.

That said, I appreciate your contributions; sunlight, as always, is the best disinfectant.

 on: July 15, 2015, 03:18:32 PM 
Started by cinnamon synonym - Last post by i VIII π

"make fun of other party, attempt to belittle" "ignore facts presented, even though they clearly acknowledged your facts with counter facts and counter arguments"

copy and paste, use Ad nauseam

 on: July 15, 2015, 09:32:37 AM 
Started by cinnamon synonym - Last post by loki13
"social science is just that.........SCIENCE (proven and tested facts)"

There is, of course, some humor in this statement. While social science proceeds along a scientific process, it is not "science" in the sense of physics, or chemistry, or even biology. It is more akin to the "science" of economics.

All of this is made more humorous by your complete rejection of all the evidence presented to you, and, instead, resorting to the same old tired arguments. You know, there are actual people doing "science" in politics- not political science, mind you, but usually math- often statistics. Tell me, what is the most recent statistics research telling us about the Bradley effect?

Since you seem to have missed the entire point of my posts, what I reject is people asserting stuff they believe, and, instead, looking at actual evidence. Politics, like many fields before it, needs to have a little more rigor applied to it. You are like one of those old-timey baseball managers that claims that RBIs is the most measure of a player's worth.

 on: July 14, 2015, 09:01:43 PM 
Started by i VIII π - Last post by i VIII π
What's truly depressing is talking to people attending (or planning to attend) a non ABA school. They will tell you how they will (somehow) convince the standard to lower itself to them instead of them raising themselves to the standard, with some quasi-inspirational (but ultimately futile) speech about willpower and desire and other stuff that makes great coach speeches in cartoons to kids in movies where animals get to play on the team, but pretty much useless outside of that tiny pigeon hole.

 on: July 14, 2015, 08:54:57 PM 
Started by cinnamon synonym - Last post by i VIII π
"TOKENS are what does it. Obama had even Colon Powell (a die hard Republican) vote for him. It was a skin issue."

Oh, stop, Please. You are revealing far too much about yourself (and you probably don't want to).

Let's try some numbers- Obama's share of the black vote in 2012: 93%.
Al Gore's share of the black vote in 2000: Either 90% or 92% (depending on how it was measured)., there it is.

Reagan got 47% of the women in 1980, and then, when there was a woman on the ticket against him in 1984 (look it up), he got... 58%.

Partisan affiliation trumps race and gender. Or, if you'd prefer, race and (to a lesser extent) gender correlate with partisan affiliation.

And Hillary Clinton will get between 90-95% of the black vote in 2016. And between 53-58% of the female vote (Obama received 55 and 56%).
The unavoidable kneejerk responses that I mentioned are programed deep enough that "oh stop-insert ad hominem" is so strong that it is well, unavoidable.
Thus a huge chunk of my point. Emperors new clothes.

It is what it is, reality matters.
Case in point.

social science is just that.........SCIENCE (proven and tested facts)

-Al Gore wasn't running against a black guy..............nor Reagan against a Woman.........I'm not sure you are understanding the point. (the point being that the handful of percent more defected from the other side BECUASE of the reasons I mentioned) Yes most black vote Democrat so there wasn't a ton left to defect, but since so many woman tend to vote Republican, expect a MUCH larger impact with Hillary. THAT is my point.

 on: July 14, 2015, 01:40:53 PM 
Started by cinnamon synonym - Last post by loki13
.... again, your "received wisdom" and "just so" stories aren't cutting it.

What, do you think that if Marco Rubio gets the nomination, that he will magically win the "Hispanic" vote? Because people have said that?

Because the hot air classes that chatter, without any basis, don't understand that "Hispanic" (or Latin/o/a) isn't monolithic, right? I mean, we'd be offended if someone said that we're putting a white person on the ballot to get the white vote, wouldn't we? And that the Cubans in Miami have a very different interest than the Dominicans in Orlando than the Puerto Ricans in New York than the Mexicans in Los Angeles? Just for starters?

Or that policies (specifically, the GOP hostility toward even legal immigration) won't matter just a tad?

No, I'm not surprised that Castro was moved to the cabinet- not from some weird maneuvering, but because the Democratic bench is weak (due to the 2010 census and lack of prominent state-level politicians), and because Castro doesn't have much room, right now, to move upwards in Texas. I would be neither surprised nor unsurprised if he was on the ticket, but-
Bentsen didn't carry Texas.
Ryan didn't carry his home state.
Ferraro didn't help... at all... with the woman's vote.
H.W. Bush wasn't selected to win Texas- that was in the bag, and he wasn't really a "Texas" guy.
Kemp wasn't selected to win NY, and there was never any hope of winning it.
The last 16 years of VPs were not chosen for their electoral chances (both Biden and Cheney came from safe states with no impact on the election), because people have gradually realized that VP choices really don't matter.

Arguably, the last VP selection to matter was LBJ... and that choice was kind of sui generis (and it wasn't for Texas- it was to keep the entire South... this was the whole Dixiecrat thing, remember).

So... do I believe that Castro supporters are trying to float a trial balloon for gullible people to raise their guy's profile? Sure. Will I pay any attention to it whatsoever? Nope.

 on: July 14, 2015, 01:26:13 PM 
Started by cinnamon synonym - Last post by Maintain FL 350
Obama appointed Julian Castro, the Mayor of San Antonio, to a Cabinet position last year. This was widely viewed as a move to help prepare Castro for national office. Now, Castro is highly likely to be chosen as Hillary Clinton's VP. The idea being touted by Henry Cisneros and many others is that a Latino candidate will energize Latino voters. The Clinton campaign is very warm to this lobbying effort.

I assume you believe the campaign is mistaken in this assumption?

If so, then I commend you for having greater political insight than either the Obama administration or the Clinton campaign, that's very impressive. 

 on: July 14, 2015, 01:10:00 PM 
Started by cinnamon synonym - Last post by loki13
"I'm not sure why you have such a hard time grasping it. The Pew Center gets it, the Democrats get it, maybe one day even the Republicans will get it. "

Yes, the Pew Center presents a theory. Of course, this doesn't explain why other groups also so increased turnout. Or why a particular group so greatly decreased turnout. The Pew Center (and others) are precisely what I am criticizing- the "just so" stories that are *belied* by the evidence. Obama grew the electorate among all the categories that were key to his vitory- even Hispanics, a group that, notably, the GOP had previously courted (oops).

And then you elided his next statement- " The question was, Would other minorities vote for this minority? Not only did he get a big vote, but he got a big turnout."

Now, what could account for that? The famous Asian/Hispanic/Black TOKENISM? Or perhaps, there is an underlying causative variable at work? Just maybe? Something with a little deeper explanatory power?

This is why we can't have nice things. Because people prefer hot air to statistics. As best put by Nate Silve, what happened in 2008 is - "The 2008 election was an anomaly. A Democratic wave nationally caused by a deeply unpopular Republican in the White House and a financial crisis as well as a strong get-out-the-vote effort by the Obama campaign[.]"

The economy. The (lingering) incumbent. And a dash of GOTV.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10